D700 or Sony A900 (same price)?

[bigpond]

Would you rather buy a 12MP Nikon D700 or 24MP Sony A900 -- both of which are about the same price (US$3K)? Of course, if you have lots of Nikon lenses, the choice is clear (or wait for D3x, D800, etc, to come out). But for others without legacy considerations, the A900 seems to offer unbeatable value (less than half the 1DsMkIII) with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

[entropy_h]

Originally Posted by bigpond Would you rather buy a 12MP Nikon D700 or 24MP Sony A900 -- both of which are about the same price (US$3K)? Of course, if you have lots of Nikon lenses, the choice is clear (or wait for D3x, D800, etc, to come out). But for others without legacy considerations, the A900 seems to offer unbeatable value (less than half the 1DsMkIII) with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

Well, I guess if resolution is your only factor, then by all means go for the A900.

Reviews are not even out yet, I don't see how one can make a decision by comparing megapixels.

EDIT: Found a review, link posted below.

[Big Kahuna]

D700 for me since I don't need so much resolution and have a cache of Nikon lenses and flash; On the silver lining, Nikon will be pressurized and should reduce the D700 price

[entropy_h]

Originally Posted by Big Kahuna D700 for me since I don't need so much resolution and have a cache of Nikon lenses and flash; On the silver lining, Nikon will be pressurized and should reduce the D700 price

Yeah, maybe the D700 will drop in-price.

I guess one advantage it has over the Canon and Nikon full frames is that it offers IS/VR.

Interesting review here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM

Compares the A900 to the Canon full frames. Says there some image noise even at ISO 200???

[toda_k20]

You will get different answers from different people but it all voice down to what features and strength of each camera is important for you.

As an example, if you want resolution, it will be Sony. If you want noise performance, it will be Nikon.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by entropy_h Well, I guess if resolution is your only factor, then by all means go for the A900. Reviews are not even out yet, I don't see how one can make a decision by comparing megapixels.

I think with the D3 and D700, other manufacturers are forced to rethink the megapixel race. Nikon just gave them a slap on their faces and compete in a the high ISO game instead, something which they were lagging behind Canon. For most people, 12MP is more than enough. Like Nikon mentioned, it's about pixel quality, not pixel quantity. Most 135 format optics are already on the verge of optical limits when you push the full frame resolution beyond 16MP anyway, so it's hard to get good corner to corner performance.

[Big Kahuna]

If you want resolution maybe there is a D3x coming

[psychobiologist]

Originally Posted by bigpond Would you rather buy a 12MP Nikon D700 or 24MP Sony A900 -- both of which are about the same price (US$3K)? Of course, if you have lots of Nikon lenses, the choice is clear (or wait for D3x, D800, etc, to come out). But for others without legacy considerations, the A900 seems to offer unbeatable value (less than half the 1DsMkIII) with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

see how the iso performance at iso 3200,6400 for both. at least for my use, i dont have use for anything that is noisy

unbeatable value? gotta try see how.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Big Kahuna If you want resolution maybe there is a D3x coming

Yeah.. but I'd not expect that to go to ISO25600. If it does, then really have to hats off to Nikon.

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by bigpond with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

Unless you need photos that will be printed on billboards metres wide. I don't think 24 megapixels are gonna be very important to many photographers

[tomcat]

Originally Posted by bigpond Would you rather buy a 12MP Nikon D700 or 24MP Sony A900 -- both of which are about the same price (US$3K)? Of course, if you have lots of Nikon lenses, the choice is clear (or wait for D3x, D800, etc, to come out). But for others without legacy considerations, the A900 seems to offer unbeatable value (less than half the 1DsMkIII) with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

Higher resolution means larger file size... means lesser storage for same memory card size... means needing to spend more on larger capacity memory cards. 24M is an overkill for most non-professional users in my opinion.

The sample images from the A900 as posted in dpreview looked to have mediocre high ISO performance. To achieve the high ISO look of the D700 or D3, it would probably be necessary to downsize the images to at least 10-12M... back to square-one, ya?

'Awesome Zeiss lenses' come at awesome prices too... not a 'bonus' to those who can't afford them.

[cichlid]

Besides real world performance, I'm just glad Nikon are aesthetically pleasing

[marios_pittas]

Originally Posted by bigpond Would you rather buy a 12MP Nikon D700 or 24MP Sony A900 -- both of which are about the same price (US$3K)? Of course, if you have lots of Nikon lenses, the choice is clear (or wait for D3x, D800, etc, to come out). But for others without legacy considerations, the A900 seems to offer unbeatable value (less than half the 1DsMkIII) with more resolution than you will need for a long, long time... with awesome Zeiss lenses as bonus.

Consider the cost of the system as a system. Lets just say that you want to buy a 100mm but will only be using it lightly. On the D700 Nikon system, you can pick a 105mm AIS manual for S$250 or there abouts.. For Sony the options are... ??? Similarly with a 300mm (which I am buyig for my daughter for fun and insight (as personally I rarely moved beyond the 100mm).. For Nikon you can get the 300mm f/4 AIS for ?????, but for Sony your options are ????

Then again the Sony has the anti-shake in the body.. which in my opinion is probably a bigger advantage than the 24MP.. But even better, Nikon is unlikely to leave Sony to price the A900 at the same level as the D700.. they will lower the price and then go for a higher megapixel model.. and then there is Canon with the replacement of 5D ha ha...

But you know, you will hardly ever going to need more than 12MP in reality

Not bad for all of us as long as they lower their cameras prices I am happy for all of us

-- Marios

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by cichlid Besides real world performance, I'm just glad Nikon are aesthetically pleasing

haha, all thanks to Giorgetto Giugiaro

The sony A900's body doesn't appeal to me


disclaimer: not as if aesthetic matters anyway

[ortega]

i would go for quality instead of mega pixels

[tanjonhan]

the sample pictures on DP review look very noisy...(referring to a900)

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by tomcat Higher resolution means larger file size... means lesser storage for same memory card size... means needing to spend more on larger capacity memory cards. 24M is an overkill for most non-professional users in my opinion.

There has got to be a compromise somewhere.. the storage space required is doubled for a 1.4x improvement in linear resolution. At this point in time, I don't think I would want to keep 8Mb images just for that little bit of sensor resolution improvement which in actual fact the image resolution itself might have been limited by the optics. So it might be basically a 12MP resolution image with 24MP of noise in the background to give a false impression of real resolution.

[Zenten]

Originally Posted by tanjonhan the sample pictures on DP review look very noisy...(referring to a900)

Agree .............. not very different from the the A700 which I had used before ..............

[lsisaxon]

The A900 is also plagued by fuzzy corners. Most of the samples are shot with longer focal lengths and the renowned Zeiss 85/1.4 lens could not outresolve the sensor also. Most of the other sample images are shot with the 135/1.8 and 24-70/2.8. The sensor is already noisy with chroma noise at even ISO800. Watercolour effect is evident at ISO1600.

From what I see, there is no real benefit of having 24MP when the lenses cannot resolve. I think Nikon is smarter and more honest in giving us what is required rather than waste our disk space unnecessarily. In this aspect, I am having 2nd thoughts if Nikon might even be releasing the much expected D3X.

I think this time round starting from the D3, Nikon really got it's game going and is now clearly ahead of the competition by not taking part in the crazy MP race.

[bigpond]

Luminous landscape has posted a field report that suggests the IQ of the A900 is not very far from the much more expensive 1DsMkIII. One has to pixel peep to see a difference.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../a900-nr.shtml

Naturally, the A900 will not be a low light camera of choice. But so long as its noise performance is at a level say between the D200 and D300, then I think it will appeal to many because: (i) flexibility, as you can always choose to downgrade image resolution but not raise it, (ii) you can use it for big group shots or make huge enlargements when the need arises, (iii) easier to crop. As for memory space, it is a function of technology, and it gets cheaper all the time. Just my 2 cents.