 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Is this a good time to invest in Konica-Minolta/Sony a?
<Newbie alert on.> I was so determined to buy 350D but the size was a big turn off for me after I went to the store to actually feel the camera. I noticed the cheap feeling of the plastic body and also, its so tiny that I could not hold it with all the fingers to get a good grip. Knowing my budget, I was told by the salesman that KM 7D bodies are going around $700 these days, with magnesium body and lots of buttons. I picked one up in the store and it felt really good. I saw some sample images too - impressed me greatly. I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they appeared a bit pricy) for their new a system. I was wondering if these lenses could be used on previous KM models such as 7D or 5D. As 7D is not a new release I am sure the pros and cons are already sorted out in great details, but with the magnesium body and a promise of great variety of new lenses (both from Sony and Zeiss) - I am thinking of buying 7D as my first DSLR. Can you guys share your knowledge/experience on this camera or investing in the KM line please? Any thoughts or my questions/comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Steve You have many choices open to you in this price range. If you have Minolta AF lenses and can wait I would go ahead and order the Sony alpha. If you do not have an invested interest in Minolta glass you can choose from a smorgasboard of dSLRs in this price range. While users on this group have irrational preferences for one model/brand over another the truth is that most users would be happy with almost any of them. > You have many choices open to you in this price range. If you have Minolta > AF lenses and can wait I would go ahead and order the Sony alpha. > If you do not have an invested interest in Minolta glass you can choose > from a smorgasboard of dSLRs in this price range. While users on this > group have irrational preferences for one model/brand over another the > truth is that most users would be happy with almost any of them. The Alpha looks to be a pretty good package, has anyone seen a price yet? >> You have many choices open to you in this price range. If you have >> Minolta AF lenses and can wait I would go ahead and order the Sony alpha. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The Alpha looks to be a pretty good package, has anyone seen a price yet? B&H is taking advance orders. Check their site.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>You have many choices open to you in this price range. If you have Minolta >>AF lenses and can wait I would go ahead and order the Sony alpha. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The Alpha looks to be a pretty good package, has anyone seen a price yet? $900 @ b&h (body) (pre-order) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp > that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they > appeared a bit pricy) for their new a system. Personally, I'd be leery. Sony has a way of killing off perfectly good technology through tying people down to the "Sony-Only" philosophy. Look at betamax and minidiscs as the most classic examples. But, of course, that's just me. However, if you're looking to invest long-term into a system with the intention of spending a lot of money and purchasing a wide variety of products, then I really don't think that Sony will ever have as wide of an offering as Canon or Nikon. In fact, looking at the SAL 70-200 f/2.8 and SAL 300 f/2.8, they're so amazingly similar to Canon models (and not just in color) that I would be *VERY* surprised that they weren't either built by or licensed from Canon. The 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters look awfully similar to Canon models as well. Overall, Canon or Nikon will give you over twice the lens options, more room to move up into more professional cameras, a wider variety of accessories, and whether you agree with me about Sony killing off good technology or not, are much more likely to stay in the game for the long-haul. In terms of variety and longevity, it's a non-starter. Now, that's not to say that everyone needs to move into professional cameras, buy 400mm lenses, use different focusing screens, wireless remotes, or other things that don't seem (at least from my casual glance) to be yet offered by Sony. You may, instead, be attracted to having image stabilization in the body as opposed to the lenses (that is a feature which I personally find highly desirable), or like particular lenses in the lineup. If so, that's fine. I'm not in any way a Canon or Nikon zealot, and if the Sony makes more sense to you, by all means, go for it! steve >> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > steve But for most people that will buy matbe 3-4 lenses or maybe only two it seems to be a good compromise. >>> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >>> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > But for most people that will buy matbe 3-4 lenses or maybe only two it > seems to be a good compromise. Depends on which lenses they need. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >>>> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Depends on which lenses they need. Really? Depends on more than that. I know lots of people that have "bought in" to Canon or Nikon because of the huge range of lenses and add ons available and most of them use just one lens (the standard zoom) all the time, a few use a 70-2/300 occasionally and thats it. . . . >>> But for most people that will buy matbe 3-4 lenses or maybe only two it >>> seems to be a good compromise. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > available and most of them use just one lens (the standard zoom) all the > time, a few use a 70-2/300 occasionally and thats it. I agree. The average buyer isn't going to buy a flock of lenses that cost over a thousand dollars a pop, so the enormous range of extremely high-priced lenses available in those mounts is really meaningless to him. I know 35mm SLR owners who either a) never bought a second lens for their camera, or b) bought a second lens, used it once or twice and then never used it again. And they would never even dream of buying one of the expensive pro grade lenses, no matter what their needs were. >>>>> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >>>>> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > available and most of them use just one lens (the standard zoom) all the > time, a few use a 70-2/300 occasionally and thats it. If those are the lenses they need then they have a plethora of options. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> I learned from >>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > If those are the lenses they need then they have a plethora of options. Yes in any of the D-SLR camera ranges, all will work. >> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > lineup. If so, that's fine. I'm not in any way a Canon or Nikon zealot, > and if the Sony makes more sense to you, by all means, go for it! With Pentax offering IS in the body shortly, there's another option, and Pentax has been in the game longer than Sony has existed. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > With Pentax offering IS in the body shortly, there's another option, and > Pentax has been in the game longer than Sony has existed. So has minolta, sorry Had. >> With Pentax offering IS in the body shortly, there's another option, and >> Pentax has been in the game longer than Sony has existed. > > So has minolta, sorry Had. And Minolta are offering which camera? Can't live in the past. >>> With Pentax offering IS in the body shortly, there's another option, and >>> Pentax has been in the game longer than Sony has existed. >> >> So has minolta, sorry Had. > > And Minolta are offering which camera? Can't live in the past. I believe that his point is that Pentax could get in trouble and end up belonging to Lego or whoever else wants a DSLR line at the time and has money just as KM ended up belonging to Sony. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> With Pentax offering IS in the body shortly, there's another option, >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > belonging to Lego or whoever else wants a DSLR line at the time and has > money just as KM ended up belonging to Sony. Yes thats true and as long as they keep the same lens mount and have the same great ergonomics and are making better cameras every couple of years I will probably still be a customer. >> I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >> that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > technology through tying people down to the "Sony-Only" philosophy. Look > at betamax and minidiscs as the most classic examples. They are using the KM mount and are using CF for storage not just memory stick. Therefore that particular worry isn't valid in this specific case. > But, of course, that's just me. However, if you're looking to invest > long-term into a system with the intention of spending a lot of money and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they weren't either built by or licensed from Canon. The 1.4 and 2.0 > teleconverters look awfully similar to Canon models as well. That could be a good thing. As for wide range of offerings there are very few people who need such a wide range of specialist stuff. The vast majority will not need tilt shift lenses. This is a consumer grade slr after all. > Overall, Canon or Nikon will give you over twice the lens options, more > room to move up into more professional cameras, a wider variety of > accessories, and whether you agree with me about Sony killing off good > technology or not, are much more likely to stay in the game for the > long-haul. In terms of variety and longevity, it's a non-starter. There is now a glut of KM stuff in the 2nd hand market and as for longevity of the machine itself 18 months is about it for any DSLR these days. > Now, that's not to say that everyone needs to move into professional > cameras, buy 400mm lenses, use different focusing screens, wireless > remotes, or other things that don't seem (at least from my casual glance) > to be yet offered by Sony. That particular camera is aimed at people who wouldn't want them anyway. You may, instead, be attracted to having image > stabilization in the body as opposed to the lenses (that is a feature > which I personally find highly desirable), Agreed. and if the Sony makes more sense to you, by all means, go for it! > steve >>I learned from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp >>that Sony would be bringing out a whole line of lenses (though they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > technology through tying people down to the "Sony-Only" philosophy. Look at > betamax and minidiscs as the most classic examples. Given that it uses the AF-mount and CF memory, it seems that Sony are doing as little as possible to offend the owners of 16 M lenses out there... > Overall, Canon or Nikon will give you over twice the lens options, more > room to move up into more professional cameras, a wider variety of > accessories, and whether you agree with me about Sony killing off good > technology or not, are much more likely to stay in the game for the > long-haul. In terms of variety and longevity, it's a non-starter. Minolta pro lenses are every bit as good and in some cases better than their Canon/Nikon counterparts. Very few people (whether Canon, Nikon, or others) ever get into the big glass. I certainly have nothing against Nikon or Canon, but the argument above is just a puff of air except for a tiny minority of shooters. >> Overall, Canon or Nikon will give you over twice the lens options, more >> room to move up into more professional cameras, a wider variety of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I certainly have nothing against Nikon or Canon, but the argument above is > just a puff of air except for a tiny minority of shooters. If you had bothered to read the rest of the message in question, you would have found that it made more or less the same argument - I said that most people wouldn't need the extensive lineup of accessories, and pointed out areas in which the Alpha would actually be better for them. Did you fail to read the entire message, or just feel like being contrary? steve >>> Overall, Canon or Nikon will give you over twice the lens options, more >>>room to move up into more professional cameras, a wider variety of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > areas in which the Alpha would actually be better for them. Did you fail to > read the entire message, or just feel like being contrary? I read the first para and replied, period, as it sounded like the usual retread argument. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Canon is still WAY out ahead of the other players in the 35 mm DSLR market. They are even way ahead of Nikon (To the dismay of Nikon fans.) It is largely because Canon produces their own sensors. I will confess, Nikor glass is still the best. The way I see it is this: Buy a Canon D20 or the D30 and use it to learn to be a good photographer. Then, because you wont be able to help yourself, buy the 5D using your wifes credit card. Sony-Schmony. -Pete http://petephotosarizona.blogspot.com/ > <Newbie alert on.> > I was so determined to buy 350D but the size was a big turn off for me [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks > Steve Sure. But compare to the other offerings as well. I'm personally not impressed with the A100 as it doesn't meet my needs (other than the 10 Mpix). But it will use my _great_ Minolta lenses so I do hope that Sony come out with a "next level" (or even the next one up). Sony also have a good realtionship with Carl Zeiss and have announced three CZ lenses for the A-mount. Two of these are mouth watering focal lengths (85 and 135) at fast apertures and the other is a 5:1 ratio variable aperture zoom (disappointment). At least the first two will be something to make the Nikon/Canon crowd blush! (Then again, CZ are making some lenses for some Nikons so just the Canonites will be drooling...) Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Sure. But compare to the other offerings as well. > > I'm personally not impressed with the A100 as it doesn't meet my needs > (other than the 10 Mpix). I think the OP was more interested to go for 7D, rather than A100 >>Sure. But compare to the other offerings as well. >> >>I'm personally not impressed with the A100 as it doesn't meet my needs >>(other than the 10 Mpix). > > I think the OP was more interested to go for 7D, rather than A100 Whatever. If he buys that, he'll therafter drool for the A100 and successors. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>Sure. But compare to the other offerings as well. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whatever. If he buys that, he'll therafter drool for the A100 and > successors. Isn't that the same with *every* equipment we buy? I remember, @the Nikonians.org they have coined a term for this - "NAS", which stands for Nikon Acquisition Syndrom. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.