Tweet
Well the ergonomics seemed good, the camera responsive, the viewfinder took me back to 35mm days. Got the camera and vertical grip for a very nice price, so took the plunge and bought the Alpha 900.
First impressions are that it is a reasonably chunky camera that fits my hands well. Although quite heavy, it is easy to hold and the vertical grip extends the side of the camera to the heel of the hand, so it never gets to feel heavy.
Transferring over from the Minolta 7D has been an easy task with similar logic to most controls. I tend to shoot in RAW with everything switched to off anyway, so not a lot to learn.
In use the autofocus is very fast and accurate. Metering seems to very slightly underexpose in multisegment mode and there is room to bump up the exposure by +.3 - +.7EV in many situations without losing the highlights. Talking of which, the camera handles dynamic ranges that would leave the old 7D with blocked up shadow or blown highlights with ease.
Image quality is as expected really. The big sensor / big pixel count means lenses have to be up to the task. When they are, the results are stunning and hold detail to pretty large print sizes. I have already done a couple of big prints and I was surprised at just how far they would scale up. 36x24" is looking a lot like a nice quality MF neg in terms of detail, but without the grain. I have not printed larger than that in film, but a big inkjet poster looked pretty stunning at 60" wide and stood close scrutiny. Image noise was a worry, but it needn't have been. I run the camera at ISO100 most of the time, where noise is virtually non existent. Up to ISO400 it is still not an issue in most images of normal print size. Only when you get up to 800 and beyond does there start to be problems. Against this, the stunning resolution is worth the effort of keeping the ISO low.
My lenses are a bit of a mixed bag. When I bought my 7D at Focus on Imaging 4 years ago, I bought nearly all full frame lenses in preparation for the day that Minolta made a full frame camera. OK, it turned out to be Sony instead, but there is obviously much Minolta DNA in the machine. My old Minolta 17-35D is proving highly capable and is pleasantly surprising in its clarity and colours.
The Minolta 28-75 f2.8D is also proving useful. At the wide end it needs stopping down a lot to get sharp, but once up to around 35mm and onward, the lens is very good from f4.5 and very classy indeed at f8.
The Minolta 100 - 300 APO D is OK at the short end, but seems average higher up the zoom range, again needing small apertures to come sharp.
The 100mm Macro is stunning, as expected, and the 500mm AF Reflex copes OK, just about up to the scrutiny of the high pixel count.
All in all then, a very satisfactory camera. I will probably invest in the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 soon, and maybe the 70-300G. I will wait a little for the currency markets to sort themselves out and may indulge in a Sigma 12-24 for the wide end, giving me a nice portable lens setup.
So far, so good, a hazy day on the Suffolk coast courtesy of the 17-35D and A900:
First impressions are that it is a reasonably chunky camera that fits my hands well. Although quite heavy, it is easy to hold and the vertical grip extends the side of the camera to the heel of the hand, so it never gets to feel heavy.
Transferring over from the Minolta 7D has been an easy task with similar logic to most controls. I tend to shoot in RAW with everything switched to off anyway, so not a lot to learn.
In use the autofocus is very fast and accurate. Metering seems to very slightly underexpose in multisegment mode and there is room to bump up the exposure by +.3 - +.7EV in many situations without losing the highlights. Talking of which, the camera handles dynamic ranges that would leave the old 7D with blocked up shadow or blown highlights with ease.
Image quality is as expected really. The big sensor / big pixel count means lenses have to be up to the task. When they are, the results are stunning and hold detail to pretty large print sizes. I have already done a couple of big prints and I was surprised at just how far they would scale up. 36x24" is looking a lot like a nice quality MF neg in terms of detail, but without the grain. I have not printed larger than that in film, but a big inkjet poster looked pretty stunning at 60" wide and stood close scrutiny. Image noise was a worry, but it needn't have been. I run the camera at ISO100 most of the time, where noise is virtually non existent. Up to ISO400 it is still not an issue in most images of normal print size. Only when you get up to 800 and beyond does there start to be problems. Against this, the stunning resolution is worth the effort of keeping the ISO low.
My lenses are a bit of a mixed bag. When I bought my 7D at Focus on Imaging 4 years ago, I bought nearly all full frame lenses in preparation for the day that Minolta made a full frame camera. OK, it turned out to be Sony instead, but there is obviously much Minolta DNA in the machine. My old Minolta 17-35D is proving highly capable and is pleasantly surprising in its clarity and colours.
The Minolta 28-75 f2.8D is also proving useful. At the wide end it needs stopping down a lot to get sharp, but once up to around 35mm and onward, the lens is very good from f4.5 and very classy indeed at f8.
The Minolta 100 - 300 APO D is OK at the short end, but seems average higher up the zoom range, again needing small apertures to come sharp.
The 100mm Macro is stunning, as expected, and the 500mm AF Reflex copes OK, just about up to the scrutiny of the high pixel count.
All in all then, a very satisfactory camera. I will probably invest in the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 soon, and maybe the 70-300G. I will wait a little for the currency markets to sort themselves out and may indulge in a Sigma 12-24 for the wide end, giving me a nice portable lens setup.
So far, so good, a hazy day on the Suffolk coast courtesy of the 17-35D and A900:
Comment