I looked at this camera late last night while I was working on the Mac, using Nocturne so my eyes wouldn't hurt. Needless to say, the camera looked really weird for some reason, and now I know why. Does it have to be clear?

@JustEaton: I think that's just the show/display version. The one (that will be) for sale has a conventional black body...

@Mandatory_Field: Phew. Made me a little nervous. Sony has done stranger things in the past. ;)

Although they're charging an extra $50 to remove the 500 cheesy demo images the stock model comes with.

@JustEaton: why are you so stupid?

@c00ler_dood: Why are you so full of anger and rage?

@c00ler_dood: Many Manufacturers have made clear versions of their product, as a limited edition, or even just to do it. Elinchrom has made clear Monolights, and although I can't name them right now, there have been others. For a camera, as long as the path of light to the sensor is blocked, it's "clearly" a neat gimmick!

I bet its made of clear unabtainium. I mean whatever it is I,m looking at

25MP? Are you printing billboards?

@tehronin: 25MP is actually 35mm film quality, so we're basically back where we were.

@frigg: Lol! Good one from the Amish (and Mennonite) community....

25 mega-pixels or not... The unfortunate thing about this camera seems to be the lenses available for it. Many of the reviews on these Sony/Zeiss lenses have not been very favorable. Nikon, Pentax and Canon all offer some pretty nice lenses. Just because a lens comes from "Zeiss" does not automatically make it good. Each manufacturer seems to offer low cost lenses with below average performance. They also offer premium lenses which tend to cost a lot more. The most expensive ones don't automatically deliver the best results either. I suggest reading the product reviews from professional sources like dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams before you invest in an expensive camera like this. You are not just buying a camera... You are investing in a system.

@c00ler_dood: I clearly stated that I first saw the image in "night vision," thought it looked strange and asked if it was a clear model, which the article didn't specify. Get over yourself.

@conception: Hmm.....film has no megapixel rating. It depends on your film speed, quality and color style. Not only that, film is three dimensional, and therefor is very very hard to measure in megapixels at all.

On another note, that camera is gonna have serious light leaking issues!! Kinda like the invisible man, with out pupils to block the light, he would be in eternal agony and completely blind!!

Just because everyone is apparently mentally deficient, that last post's second half was done in the ancient chinese art of sarcasm.

@tchavalas:
Umm, where are you seeing bad reviews of Sony lenses? Of all the reviews I've read including the very detailed ones on photozone.de, the Sony lenses are no worse and sometimes better than the rest.

You are right about investing in a system but hardly anyone will buy into the Sony flagship camera without doing their homework or already be invested in the system. Also, don't jump to any outrageous conclusions about the system from the 1 review you read.

@conception:
Its hard to put a MP rating on film. You can scan film at 1000MP but that doesn't mean you will see any more detail than a 16MP scan. From my own personal experience, scanning ISO200 35mm negatives at 14MP is optimal. Anything more doesn't really show any more detail on screen or in prints. You can get more out of slower finer grain films but no one really uses those frequently these days.

I have the sony A700 and its great, and this camera is very similar, save for the megapixels and the sensor size, but full frame isnt for everyone, and neither is that many megapixels. You're talking about getting about 30 photos on a 1gig card at that filesize. sony is building their system all the time though and one of the reasons people dont seem to like sony (yet) is that they're used to their canon and nikons, and havent looked into what sony has to offer. Canon and Nikon are great, but i love my sony more than I think i ever would a C or N, just becasue i find it really easy to navigate the menues, the feel in your hand is awesome, and you can still buy used minolta AF lenses and they will all work just fine on a sony camera. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

It doesn't matter how good the sensor is if the autofocus isn't up to pro quality. That's the only thing stopping these other companies from taking half of Canon's market away.

Nikon's focusing is better than Canon's and Sony's without a doubt. tchavalas please post some bad reviews on Sony lenses, especially in comparison to Nikon and Canon glass. I'd say they are at least on par and I get 4 photo mags and read the top blogs daily. The only thing that was stopping the other companies from getting Canon share was Canon's CMOS, thanks to Sony, now Nikon and Sony have the high ISO shooting ability too.

If the camera body is clear like that, the memory card will get exposed--rendering it useless for photography.

@Slartibartfast: HAH!

My Zeiss 16-80mm performs amazingly well, and the 70-200G SSM is one of the top lenses out there. I have NOT seen anything bad said about the 24-70 f2.8 Zeiss, or the 85 f1.4 and 135 f1.8. I am sure all would perform very very well on the A900.

Is it FF (full frame)? Check!
Lens made by whom? Carl Zeiss, Check!
What kind of sensor (will it "average" the pixels..meh)?
That's the key one...sensor.

Oh, lastly, price?
(Hey, it is a 24.6MP, not 25MP) Damn rounding it off...