Just got my latest Popular Photography mag and they have rated the Sony Alpha A100 dslr as their camera of the year. They base it on how much a camera defines, or redefines, photography. Some of the features that gave them the rating was the high megapixel, the image stabilization, and the price. They feel that the alpha has made other manufacturers follow suit with similar features.
Good, bad or indifferent, all us alpha owners should be proud. This is our moment in the limelight, and we should be hollering from the rooftops that our choice for this new camera was a good one. There have been many here who have dissed this camera to no end, calling it a fisher price model, or a toy amongst the REAL dslr's, but my choice has given affirmation to my decision to buy this camera. Thanks Popular Photography.
I've considered the Sony as something to look at perhaps down the road when they're done tweaking. What's the status of using 3rd party flash with the Sony DSLR currently? I'd heard/read (maybe?) that the only flash that supported all functionality was the Sony brand flash units. Have you heard otherwise?
If they ever fix their noise problem, i'd be happy to switch back to KM Sony
I've always loved my older Minolta (pre Konica) 35mm equipment --was good stuff. KM never got serious attention from me in the digital world, nor did they ever give me many excuse to want to upgrade my 35mm stuff. I have my doubts that Sony will change my mind.
I'm no brand loyalist either... notice I'm pretty wishy-washy on the Canon/Nikon thing :-)
Good, bad or indifferent, all us alpha owners should be proud. This is our moment in the limelight, and we should be hollering from the rooftops that our choice for this new camera was a good one. There have been many here who have dissed this camera to no end, calling it a fisher price model, or a toy amongst the REAL dslr's, but my choice has given affirmation to my decision to buy this camera. Thanks Popular Photography.
Just goes to show. I was walking around the State Fair of Texas last month with my camera on a monopod. Several people noticed and were interested. One guy in particular, stopped, did an exagerated double take, and said "Nah, there's no headphones, it can't be a Sony!"
well I dont think this is the right place to bash the camera.
I've played with the A100 in the Sony store and it actually felt better built than the 350D (now I've made enemies with Canon fans, oh no!). No squeeks/creaks when gripped really hard. The lens it had on at the time was a zoom lens (didnt pay attention which lens, I'm not a dSLR user) and it moves from wide to tele very fluidly. If you call this camera and the Sony lenses bad, then what do you call a creaky 350D? well, maybe by chance, the 2 350D bodies that I squeezed was a bad one?
p/s: gonna go SQUEEZE some more bodies soon. Canon's corporate office is just 2 floors away from where I work :)
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+
using the Sony system is a sign of prestige :p
but seriously, you can always use the old Minolta lens on the new body.
Not just the old lenses. Any lens with the 'bayonet' mount will fit the Sony, meaning any lens made by Tamron or Sigma now as well, not just Sony or KM brand lenses.
... Also on body IS is nothing new, as companies have been doing it for a while.
Does Canon or Nikon have that yet, or do you still have to factor that extra expense into every lens purchased to put on a Canon or Nikon camera body? Certainly putting IS/VR on each individual lens has to create an additional expense?
... Also on body IS is nothing new, as companies have been doing it for a while.
Does Canon or Nikon have that yet, or do you still have to factor that extra expense into every lens purchased to put on a Canon or Nikon camera body? Certainly putting IS/VR on each individual lens has to create an additional expense?
From what I understand, tt also adds another piece of glass in the lens. This negatively affects the light coming in, albeit probably not noticible to the naked eye.
This was the reason I went with the Pentax K100D--for the IS/VR. I don't want to pay for IS/VR every time I buy a lens.
