Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: New Sony Alpha  (Read 13215 times)

Khurram

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2006, 02:20:59 pm »

I got a chance to handle this camera on Sunday.  Sony had a booth setup at the Spruce Meadows Masters this weekend.  I've got to say, that this looks like a real slick camera.  Was a bit too small for my taste, but the wife loved it (she especially loved the eye start AF focus - again not really for my taste).

AF seemed pretty fast, and while i didn't take any shots, was impressed with the build quality of the lenses - especially compared aganist Canon's consumer grade lenses.

THe pricing was also competitive to the Rebel XT in Canada, but the Sony seems to be a much slicker camera, with much better lenses (I'm not comparing the built quaility of Canon's L lenses, but Canon's regular consumer lenses).

The guy working the stall new nothing about photography but really empasized the zeiss lineup.  Be interesting to see the test reports on these lenses when they are out.  The brouchure also had a pretty solid lineup - 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 and either a 17-35F2.8 or a 16-35F2.8.  So they do have a pro/advanced amatuer oriented offereing.

For myself, i'm hoping this will lead to further price reductions.
Logged
----
[url=http://www.pbase.com/kssphotog

Dennis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2006, 05:57:43 am »

Quote
Most interesting to me is the fact that Sony can offer a body and kit lens with this level of performance at the sub $1000 level.
The D200 sells for $1700. Just compare EOS 300D vs. 10D or 350D vs. 20D at introduction date. The body of the A100 is really cheap, it's like a $600 Maxxum 5D.
Logged
Best Regards

Dennis.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2006, 09:53:29 am »

Quote
OK, I shoulda said "image performance".   

Mirror lockup may be a part of the self timer function.

fps on the Sony remains to be seen.  For most users and especially landscape photographers, this is a non-issue.  Sports guys, please ignore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
fps does not remain to be seen; it is 3fps. Other feature differences are also clear.

I find it strange that some people now believe that the only difference between SLR's justifying different prices is the sensor, and in this case only the size and pixel count, since that is about all we know for sure about the A100's sensor (it is not necessarily the same as the one in the D100: Canon makes two 8MP sensors for the 350D and 20D, but that does not make 20D/30D overpriced compared to the 350D.)

35mm film SLRs vary greatly in price despite all using the same "sensors", so clearly there are lots of reasons why two 10MP 16x24mm format digital SLR's could be worth very different prices.
Another recent example: the 350D vs 30D, both with 8MP sensors.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2006, 12:04:43 pm »

Quote
fps does not remain to be seen; it is 3fps.
<snip>
Other feature differences are also clear.
<snip>
I find it strange that some people now believe that the only difference between SLR's justifying different prices is the sensor,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

3 fps, eh? Guess I should read more carefully.  In any case, 3fps is pretty darn fast.  Is that rate quoted shooting RAW?  or JPG?

I assume  (since I read it on the Internet   )  that the sensor is the same as that in the Nikon D200.

Going out on a self-justifying limb here, but...

To me a camera is basically two things: image quality and viewfinder clarity.  The rest is just support stuff.  Ease-of-use and ergonomics are a not-too-distant third.  Given the product cycle/lifespan of these DSLR things, I'll take lower build quality and lower price over tank-like construction, IF other things remain equal.  

Even though I earn money with them, I don't depend on these purchases for my living.  If I did, I'm still not sure I'd opt for the higher-priced spread.  Cheaper unit cost means I can afford more redundancy.  If you'r'e going to Antarctica on a ship, which would you prefer - one D200 or two Sonys?

Peter
Logged

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2006, 01:21:04 pm »

Quote
3 fps, eh? Guess I should read more carefully.  In any case, 3fps is pretty darn fast.  Is that rate quoted shooting RAW?  or JPG?


Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Phil has the specs, some sample shots, and some casual observations on DPR.  In particular he talks about the viewfinder.

You should find the link on the front page.  If not, go Cameras->Sony->A100->Preview
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2006, 01:26:48 pm »

Quote
To me a camera is basically two things: image quality and viewfinder clarity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe for you; in which case you probably had no need to go beyond a mid-prices amateur 35mm film SLR with a decent VF and loaded with good film. Clearly many photographers found reasons to pay significantly higher prices for improvements in other aspects of film SLR's, so surely you should be open to the idea that the extra cost of the D200 is justified to its intended customers by feature advantages.

P. S. The lower frame rate is one hint that the A100 might use a different less expensive sensor; getting 5fps from the D200 requires four channel read-out, otherwise used only in more expensive DSLR models. Also, Sony has apparently said in an recent interview that the sensor for the A100 is a new design.

My guess: a new Nikon with the A100 sensor to replace the D70s, later this year.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2006, 07:12:02 pm »

BJL,Jun 14 2006, 10:26 AM]
 surely you should be open to the idea that the extra cost of the D200 is justified to its intended customers by feature advantages.

Absolutely.  Just (maybe) not for me.  I'm taking this stance based on how quickly I've needed to upgrade my digital cameras in the past.  Lightweight body construction never has time to present problems.  I've passed them on to other family members long before they wear out.


P. S. The lower frame rate is one hint that the A100 might use a different less expensive sensor; getting 5fps from the D200 requires four channel read-out, otherwise used only in more expensive DSLR models. Also, Sony has apparently said in an recent interview that the sensor for the A100 is a new design.

Several good points that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for keeping me up to date.



BJL: My guess: a new Nikon with the A100 sensor to replace the D70s, later this year.


Good.  My D70 is getting old.  Not worn out, just old.  Kinda like me.  Besides, its viewfinder is apalling.

Peter
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2006, 08:54:27 pm »

On viewfinders...nobody is going to be so unwise as to suggest the Alpha's VF is near the D200...its the same as the KM5D (which I have), however compared to the D50, EOS 350, its miles better...and it crushes the E-500 to bits! Though the pentax cams are very good also. The D70 is the same as the D50...I believe..hence its a bit small ish! not great..

I think a VF is pretty important myself. The single reason I rejected the Oly (even though I have Oly stuff), is that damn terrible VF....its a disgrace.

The D200 has a lot going for it build, handling wise, and seals etc..and the VF is damn good!

However uk pricing suggests £700 for the Alpha and kit lens...way above the Canon and Nikon stuff...almost entering into 30D land..not far off..strange move from sony on that one! I am sure the 10.2mp will sell it for the megapixel freaks though...
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
New Sony Alpha
« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2006, 06:39:01 am »

Quote
On viewfinders...nobody is going to be so unwise as to suggest the Alpha's VF is near the D200...its the same as the KM5D (which I have), however compared to the D50, EOS 350, its miles better...and it crushes the E-500 to bits![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
VF mag. is one place that Pentax has taken the high ground compared to K-M/Sony in particular. The first realistic goal for Sony is to catch up with #4 Pentax/Samsung, who I see still ahead for now: they are getting a 10MP sensor (the same Sony one?) have now got SR to match, and cover a wider variety of models and price levels.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up