Yes, I know him. And I don’t know of him ever using 35mm gear in an assignment that wasn’t a film or digital Nikon (or fillm rangefinder). and I know that, despite this being a Sony fansite, no amount of wishful thinking is going to change Bob’s longstanding relationship with Nikon, and that it would be quite odd for any pro to ‘test’ new pre-release gear for a paid assignment. And given Bob’s association with Nikon, it certainly would not be an assignment for Sony.

I’m of the changed opinion that this image is a Nikon body for sure, though. So I’m definitely agreeing with you on the shot. It would be exceedingly odd for him to allow himself to be shot on location with another brand.

@Slavomir: agreed in some areas… though I never believe online tests enough to sway me from going down to the local shop and testing for myself in real world situations what a lens is going to do for me. The 16-35 is an excellent example of one that I read mixed reviews on but now use for interior architectural work that people are truly happy with… and I can’t fake what it does optically. Sometimes real world experience has to trump the numbers. I prefer to see it in print and Sony’s lenses print very, very well. I love my Nikon stuff as well, don’t get me wrong… but I firmly believe that Sony’s optics are both misunderstood and sorely underrated.

Absolutely no way this is a Sony DSLR or lens.

I photoshopped the image a bit and:
- There’s clear blue color around two white points. With very clear gap in between (clear blue pixel without any white tint) so it cannot be Zeiss logo.
- The text on the lens hood does not resemble any of those Sony produce now. So or it’s something new from Sony or it’s not Sony at all. Note that Sony lens hoods have short text in the middle while this one has two texts near the edges of leaf, more like Sigma lens hood (or perhaps other I don’t know of).
- Camera profile resembles more Canon (or Nikon) than any other current Sony camera.

Sorry if I made your hopes go away… but I think that it’s not Sony DSLR.

Not arguing about the quality of the files from the A900! The camera is amazing. I actually waited a long time to go digital. I wanted it to at least match what I was getting from my Pentax 67II, and I must say that with the Sony 50mm 1.4, the Minolta 100mm f2 and the Minolta 200mm f2.8 APO, the quality actually is better than 6x7cm transparencies…I’m still amazed after 6 months. As I do landscape work, I perhaps tend to be more picky than most people, and soft corners are not acceptable to me.

The CZ zoom lenses have been testing terrible, and a lack of an amazing 24mm prime (the one Minolta made sucked) and a 35mm f2 (I have the Minolta, so no complaint for me) is pretty lame. Sony revived some of the bad lenses from Minolta, which is surprising to me after releasing the amazing A900 and now A850.

I do have most of the lenses I would like to own, but I would love to have a stunning 24mm, and Sony making a 100 f2 with new coatings would be nothing to frown upon, and that goes for a 35mm f2. I agree that the 100mm macro is a great lens, but I prefer the 100 f2 for many reasons. If they did a 24mm TS lens, I think I’d be speechless.

Believe me, I WANT Sony to do well, but they do have to much better in their lens department!

@Slavomir: I would normally assume by your statements that you’ve never actually shot anything on an A900 or an A850 because these words would never have left your keyboard had you owned one… but you appear to own an A900 so I have to remove my assumptions. I can tell you in return, however, that I have die hard professional friends working in every field imaginable from high-end scientific to photojournalism for the Denver News Agency that have gone out to shoot with my A900 and have come back utterly blown away by the images they get with as little effort as they have to put forth. Two of them are now owners, despite their companies’ devotion to C and/or N. I have portfolios of work from these cameras that drop jaws on a daily basis. I’m always amazed at the output available from the A900 (and hence the A850). The new 28-75 f/2.8 SAM may not be built as well as the 24-70Z but it most certainly holds its own in sharpness. The 100mm Macro is tack on full frame. And I have 60×40 posters from the 135 that will change anyone’s attitude about it immediately. The 16-35 tends to be a little soft at the corners, true, and the 24-70 has a touch of vignetting wide open at 24, also true… but so do all of their competitors, and in both cases these lenses tend to correct their issues at low apertures like f/3.5 or f/4. At least Sony’s lenses have the diffractive ability to deal with the high pixel density of today’s high end cameras… when a lot of their competitors’ often do not.

Regardless: you get into pro level gear from any one manufacturer you will be getting quality product for the most part. They all have their oddities but in the end, the Sony, Canon, and Nikon faithful are generally well rewarded for their full frame investment.