Sony Alpha Review Part II

Sony Alpha 900 with 24-70 F2.8 at 200 ISO

SO after a week of using a Sony Alpha 900 and 700 bodies, a 24-70mm F 2.8 lens, a 70-200mm F2.8, and a 300mm F 2.8. Two HVL-F58AM flashes, batteries, etc., I think I can formulate a good yet limited opinion of the camera system.

Mind you, this review is not based any science, charts, direct comparisons, etc but based on straight use. Use based on real world experience shooting a mix of sports, events, and reportage. A use based on various lighting environments, lens use, and flash output.

If most of you reading this haven't figured this out, I am a professional photographer shooting just about everything you can imagine. See my website at http://marcpix.com to understand where I come from. I shoot pro Canon bodies but used to be a straight Nikon shooter so I am very familiar with all types of SLRs, medium format, and large format equipment.

What I can say right away about the Alpha system is this:

IT IS NOT A CANON AND IT IS NOT A NIKON.

And for many, that's the problem. I can pick up a Nikon digital body and within minutes figure out most of the setting without reading the manual. It was the same for Canon as I understood Nikon. Its not like the Sony bodies were that different but things like controlling the flash output is based inside the camera body software as opposed to the Canon flash having its own individual controls separate from the body.

I talked to the other photographers who were issued the Sony systems and this seemed to be their problems as well. No similar physical work flow continuation. You more or less have to read a manual to understand what the Sony camera is capable of...and in many ways, it is capable of lots!

The camera system is impressive. The big 24.6 megapixel camera pushes aside the current Canon 1Ds Mark II at 21 megapixel. The Alpha system seems well suited to work well for the studio/commerical photographer or non-news gathering guys. The files are bright, clean, and nice to work with. At 100-200 ISO, you get very nice current standard files from the camera. From the point of view of a shooter and not a fine art printer or reviewer with too much time on their hands, the files are fine. There are no complaints about the images.

At higher ISO, you get noticeable pixelation and noise which is not acceptable for a 2008-2009 year camera. At 800 ISO the images were fine and completely usable. But an examination of the red and blue channels seemed to show similar noise patterns to a Canon Mark II at 1600 ISO. Of course the Sony file is better but to convince photographers who are invested into their systems to switch is a hard sell. With Nikon making nearly flawless and noiseless pictures at 1600 ISO and beyond, Sony has no excuse. I considering jumping over to Nikon for their wonderful high ISO handling but just can't afford to start over.

This is a major issue for me using this camera as many times, I have to shoot in low light conditions. The Canon Mark II do wonders at 1600 for my purposes. A bit of what I would call grain never hurts. When its too perfect, like current Nikons, it might be a bit strange, kinda like seeing a false reality. Mind you, I wouldn't mind having that ability but film never made perfection hence its hold and realism in photography and history. Sony just can't compete with this fact now and the next versions of the camera should truly adjust to current market standards. Like I said, it is perfect for a studio/commercial environment where lighting is easier to control and situations don't usually change much. However, jumping from a a sunny golf course to a sunset dinner, to a night time concert was tough.

Day time shots proved to be flawless though with the camera. A neat setting was the Auto ISO choice where the camera would adjust automatically to the lighting. I left it as such and noticed most of what I shot remained at roughly 200 ISO. Nice but always best to be in charge of this aspect to ensure total control.

In order to convince photographers to leave their old brands behind for the Alpha system, Sony has to really improve their system or add something so unique, the market will have to jump over because of this uniqueness. From the week of shooting with the Alpha, its a hard bet for me.

With that said, I can only guess how the digital market will continue to evolve but with the intro of the Canon 5D MII and the current Nikon body with similar video capabilities, Sony is going to have to add this feature to their next pro body. Sony holds a large portion of the video industry so once they add this feature to their next generation of pro cameras, to me, it is more than obvious they will strongly compete with Nikon and Canon...and quiet possibly surpass.

The build of the camera itself is quiet nice. Nothing different although it seemed to lack the build of a heavy duty Nikon or Canon. According to different websites, the camera is weatherproof. Nothing more to say. Its a camera with buttons and dials.

As far as the lenses:

Nothing really to say as they are exceptional. This element of the Sony lenses remains similar to other lenses in the market. The lenses mirror the same zoom and distances of other brand lenses and if you didn't look closely, you'd be fooled into thinking the 300mm F2.8 is an exact copy of the Canon.

The Carl Zeiss glass is superb. Again, nothing more to say other than great, great optics. Truly the gem of the system along with their great flash units.


Alpha 900, 300mm 2.8m, 200 ISO

The above image is tact sharp. The camera did its job and the lens acted wonderfully.

Onto the bodies which I will not distinguish as I mostly used the 900 and found both the 700 and the 900 to be indistinguishable other than the file size.

The above golf picture was done on the 900 and if you notice the image is dead center. Years ago, Patrick Sison told me autofocus destroyed rule of thirds as the first few generations of autofocus pinpointed the focusing dead center, something classical composure strictly rules against. The focusing system for the Alpha seems to hark back to the days of old fashion autofocus systems. Don't get me wrong, it focuses quick and accurate but seems to lack any ability to shift focusing points manually to compose an image away from dead center.

I asked the other photogs who were using the Alpha system and they also couldn't figure out how to manual adjust the focusing points to get the system to focus outside of the dead center. Mind you, none of us read the manuals that came along with the cameras but this is what I mentioned earlier. The ignition for a car is always right of the steering column. If a car manufacturer were to shift it below the radio or inside the glove box, you'd be stumped for days.

Depending on what you'd point the camera at, the focus would shift and catch something to the left or right of center, above or below the center as well. I had this one situation where I had to shoot a guy at a podium and the camera default focus would pinpoint the podium and not the guy speaking. This proved to be a major drawback as I had to push the lens into manual and catch the subject that way. This is something Nikon and Canon would not have any problems with.

Another odd thing about the focus of the camera is that the autofocus would completely stop all together. I mean just absolutely stop, flash or no flash. Just completely stop. I'd have to turn off the camera and restart. Sometimes, more than once. I can't explain why it would do this. It just did.

More to come about the flash output and final thoughts.