Until they have some superb lens, i doubt the pros would want to switch their WHOLE system from Canon/Nikon to Sony in DSLR...

Also remember, having comparable features in the camera body is NOT everything especially in DSLR arena because lens (and obviously the photographer) are the two most important aspects of shooting DSLR.

If they can't come up with some superb lens with this camera, this "full-frame" camera will not appeal to the prosumer or the pros. It will only be another toy for those people with too much money and want to say "Hey I have a full friggin' frame DSLR" but they still use the kit lens LOL... D80 + Nikon 50mm f/1.4 can produce a better low light picture compared to Sony Full Frame SLR + Kit lens taken by THESE PEOPLE lol

illutionz

i think sony hates the idea of being a DISTANT 3rd place player.

they didn't buy Minolta because they wanted to pick up scraps from nikon/canons's table.

nikon and canon both used to have their highend film bodies much closer to 1,000$. yes i understand the difference between film and digital, but nikon and canon aren't the ones getting squeezed for lack of selling film. 8,000$ cameras are going to be definitely priced lower. probably not 1,000$ but 2,000-3,000 makes alot more sense.

endless

i could see it happening, but it probably won't.

shorty6049

lense is more when it comes to digital photography.

archercc

Even Canon's 5D was $3300 when it came out. I'm going to call BS on this. I don't know why Sony would do something like this when people like Canon are getting $7-8k for their top of the line. It would have to be seriously lacking any features, and stuffing megapixels to make up for it, which will only make the picture worse.

unleashed

Probably a Canon rep trying to sabotage Sony by posting false info... it's going to disappoint a lot of people.

Kobe_No_Means_No

The pros couldn't care less about the cost as long as the equipment performs. If this thing is a full frame for under $2k I'm going to bet that there will be some trade offs.

However considering most of us who drool over full frame sensors aren't pros, hooray for boobies! I'd be willing to part features like a trillion shots per second as long as the basics are there.

I've never been this excited over a Sony camera before.

jibbly

sony's stuff has always been overpriced (70-200).. so why start now?

flareak

For under $2k... seems like they are trying to wow less sophisticated prosumers with the big mega pixels (when compared to Nikons) rather than a full entry in the top level of pro cameras.

McLucky

p.s. Sony Alpha's take all Minolta AF glass, and take m42 with adapter. The Sony Zeiss glass trumps it all, though.

Ghung

Clearly, not very many Canon Rebel users know very much about the Sony line.

1) Sony has Carl Zeiss, fullframe, autofocus lenses that are better than any Canon L or Nikon lens. They've been slowly release these over the last couple of years, and 4 more are coming soon.
2) The Sony 70-200mm and 300mm 2.8 are holdovers from the Minolta take over, and are still handmade like Minolta did, and very expensive. The price has fallen $500 on the 70-200 in the last year, and a Zeiss replacement is expected. Most other Sony lenses are close to Nikon in price.
3) Sony has many current lenses like a 50mm 1.4
4) There are many studio/fashion pros who wouldn't mind picking up a few Zeiss lenses and this fullframe camera. This camera is expected to have the same sensor as the upcoming Nikon D3x.
5) I doubt the Sony will be under 2K, but I'm hoping now that it is. Sigh me up for a couple. It's resolution will be untouchable, even for the $8K 1Ds III.

Ghung

@illutionz: I'm not sure if they kept Minolta's glass R&D people around after taking over, but if they did then I have no worries. Minolta made some beauties over the years and unfortunately got dogged when the digital revolution kicked in. And hey, if they're smart, they'll allow old Minolta film lenses to be retrofitted into these new bodies. Pentax allowed this, even with m42 mounts (with adapter of course) and I think it was a smart move to include people with nice 35mm lens kits potentially gathering fungus in a damp closet somewhere.

jibbly

As a D300 owner who has invest close to 4 grand in glass. I would seriously think of getting this A900 if it was under $2k. I'm assuming Nikon's version (D3x) with the same sensor would cost over $5k+. Plus I've got a bunch of Minolta lenses that are waiting to be revived from storage.

As far as Sony Zeiss lenses go, they are suppose to be very good. On par, if not better, then many of Nikon and Canon's offering in certain market segment. The 70-200 f/2.8 is suppose to be vastly superior to Nikon's aging version(which I own). The problem, thus far, there really isn't a full-frame camera to test out these new lenses beyond a 1.5 crop at the moment (we'll see when this A900 is reelased).

Scaramanga

@Ghung:

As you mentioned in your first post, Sony is still slowly releasing these superb Carl Zeiss lens (dubbed ZA model). They still have a very limited lens selection at the moment as opposed to Canon or Nikon which has years worth of lens selection (meaning we can get SUPERB older lens at a very affordable price).

Also, Nikon is well known to have a GREAT flash system, great body construction, and superb primes. Whereas Canon is well known for their L lens and various models of full-frame cameras (which again means you can pick up an older model for much cheaper price).

Until Sony has a full line of Carl Zeiss (ZA model) lens, I will never recommend any Sony DSLR camera.

illutionz

@Scaramanga:

Let me know if you are selling your Nikon D300 System ;)

illutionz

WHAT! For under 2K. I got the money in hand already. Pass me the A900. I'm sure it'll be a quality cam like the rest of the alpha series. I can't wait.

Kareem King

The digicam technology is maturing nicely by now, maybe Sony wants to buy into the market and grab some of the limelight. I doubt the $2K number, but it's not impossible, these aren't a bunch of amateurs slapping together some electronics hardware, Sony has the engineering expertise. I for one hope they kick some serious ass and put some downward pricing pressure on the "big two". Good luck Sony, bring it on!

allenjnl

@Ghung: That's great news. I've got a shelf full of great m42 primes that I hate using on 1.5x sensors. Bill & Ted air guitar moment...EXCELLENT!

jibbly

i gave this just a bit more thought.

best buy clearanced all of their sony A700s a month or so ago... if this camera has similar speed specs to the 700, a under 2 grand price point makes a ton of sense.

endless

Sony is the best at everything. It has four letters.

Stacky Botrus

Why believe anything on DPReview? It is just a forum were anyone can write whatever fantasies they want. I have read so many false rumors there. Sony is always more expensive, not less.

stroumfaki

If this 25MP camera turns out to be real, I would be interested in its high ISO performance. Those are a lot of MPs to manage; but I am always in favor of lowering the price of a full frame.

hockalees

I'm a Sony Photo Specialty dealer, and HIGHLY doubt the <$2k rumor, BUT I wouldn't be at all surprised if they keep it WELL below the Price of the Nikon. Lets take an example from History:

Nikon D200: release price, $1599 10MP sensor manufactured by Sony (with some tweaks to power supply circuit and data-readout to improve speed and reduce long exposure amp-noise), pro level body.

Sony A100: Release Price $1000, same sensor as D200, lower performance image processing engine and data read-out, smaller, consumer oriented body, slower continuous rate and AF system. Same (arguably better at low ISO) image performance.

If we apply this formula to the expected $5k+ price of the D3x we get a Sony A900 that comes in arround $3200. Still EXTREMELY reasonable given the resolution and potential performance. And, as others have said, Sony didn't buy Minolta's Photo-imaging assets to pick up scraps, they mean business... I sort of doubt a PS3-Style sell-at-a-loss-to-saturate-the-market approach, but maybe they've wrung enough profit out of the lens, P&S and low-end SLR business to take a very small margin on the A900, though this has never been Sony policy in their dominant feild (Pro-Video)... We'll just have to wait and see.

jawzx

I've never understood why Pro level cameras do away with a built-in flash. What does it actually hurt to keep it in? Are you telling me there isn't a group of pros out there who wouldn't appreciate being able to shoot a flash shot without lugging out their huge hotshoe flash every time?

My dad shoots a LOT of pictures. He's not a Pro but he uses pro features as much as anyone. And if ANY full-frame camera was to come with a built in flash he would buy it in a second.

Muttonchops

@illutionz:
there isn't just the new ZA lenses, there a FULL lineup from mionlta alpha lenses. Some of them were designed in part by leica as well. i don't think you realise that the minolta mount and the sony mount are one and the same. If you've given half as much attention to looking it up as you've given to trolling the camera, you'd know all this. Check photodo.com for minolta lenses please.

@Muttonchops:
cuz on camera flash usually makes pictures look crappy.

hansning

The Minolta/Sony flash system is great to use. The wireless setup is pretty dang effortless and can yield great results with practice.

groovyone

@Muttonchops: Because no one who knew better would want an on-body flash. As hansning says, it just makes the picture look crappy. It's too on-axis so will get red eye, and almost any lens on a DSLR body will block the flash so you'll get shadow. I could see using it maybe to provide a little fill, but really it's just not worth including a useless little flash on a big body.

snubz

I agree Muttonchops, about the flash. Sure, the on camera flash isn't great, but in a bind it can work with a little diffusion. The Minolta Maxxum 9 film camera from the late 90's had one, and it is considered by many to be the best pro 35mm of all time.

[www.sds.com]

Minolta lenses are available and great. It's amazing to me that all these camera newbies have no idea of Minolta history. I remember when Canon's Rebel was laughable with all the Agassi commercials. The Rebel is called the "Kiss" in Japan. lol.

Ghung

@jibbly: yes hooray for boobies, and with 25 megapixels hooray indeed

ichi1

Sony may use the same rationale for DSLR body pricing as they have for PS3 pricing. They can lose money on the DSLR bodies and the PS3 as long as they make money on the lenses and the games.

zzvm

may sound silly and maybe it is - but if they can sell thousands more of the cameras at a lower price, the business model can pay off for them. They can only justify a lower price if it sells in far greater volume. Such a price would allow for that. They could recoup their R&D and mfg expenses more quickly and then profit later while wiping out the competition. It could also create tremendous problems for other manufacturers unless they adopt similar strategies. Decades ago this was called dumping and is illegal in the US because Japanese electronic mfrs would wipe out the competition with a similar strategy. It may not be dumping, but it may not be far from it either. But, it could be a BS rumor as well. Piqued my interest though.

YeomanCorvus

@jibbly: "The pros couldn't care less about the cost as long as the equipment performs."

Bullshit. Not all pros can afford the absolute top of the line, and not all pros need it. Example, my cousin, he's an old school cowboy (so he's broke) turned photographer, he's done multiple Gallery shows, he's done work for The Smithsonian, other artists have used his pictures as the basis of paintings, he's had statues made of his photos, etc. etc. What does he use? Sony A100. Why because it offered the best "bang for buck". Same resolution, same picture quality, just a little bit slower than the Nikon D200 for about HALF the street price. It's cheap enough that he isn't going to have to go hungry if he ends up dropping it while sliding down a hill. Plus it works with all the glass he had from his Maxxum 9.

Now, back on topic. I seriously doubt they will be selling the A900 for <$2k, but it isn't entirely implausible. As has been said before, Sony wasn't messing around when they bought Minolta, they would be stupid to sell it at a loss but selling it at cost may not be a bad business decision, as it would most likely allow them to "steal" some of Nikon's market share. Unlike with the PS3 and games they can't rely on lens sales to make up for a loss because people could use old Minolta lenses, or lenses from third party manufacturers, however if they can convince people to switch over and then build up a sizable investment in lenses, of any type, then they can charge more for the next generation when people are ready to upgrade.

The biggest challenge they would face with that plan is that right now the pros who have the money have pretty much all settled on either Nikon or Canon and have built up lens collections worth far more than the cameras.

something_unique_and_descriptive