Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006
Got my Sony Alpha today!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
BobF@nospam.com - 03 Aug 2006 01:41 GMT There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in.
Unfortunately I didn't have time today to play much since all hell broke loose at work with a city wide power failure, I had to run around checking backup battery's and generators... plus my truck was in the garage I had a spare with no AC and man it was hot, and my cell phone broke and... hey I didn't eat yet...
Anyway, I managed to reset the camera and an old mem card and set some things on the menu... took a few test shots...
So far...
Well it really feels like a Minolta, with the knob/button menu features, and multi-page menus... reminds me of my Dimage... way way different from my D70.
The steady cam feature seems to work very well - I took a hand held shot of a CD at 1/10 sec, 70mm, f5.6, ISO 400, and it is sharp! The small writing around the edge is perfect! Can't wait to really test this...
Lots of people are talking about this camera, lots of brand snobs as well. I know a guy who will say it's crap just because it isn't a Canon. (as if he had anything to do with Canon superiority... all he did was buy one - wow what talent!) I know another who will love it because it's Sony! He's a Sony freak! So what? It's a camera, it takes good pictures, it was cheap. I like it. If you don't like it, don't buy one.
If you aren't on the design teams for any of these cameras, you really have no say in them. What you think is merely your opinion. And opinions are like a.sholes - everyone has one, and they usually stink!
Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to compliment my D70, and am on a budget since I want to get a truly advanced camera maybe next year, and have the D70 as backup. I would have loved to buy the 30D or the D200, but I want to wait to see if Nikon will bring out a quieter sensor. Since I have a bag full of Nikon lenses, I want to stick with Nikon. I know if I bought the Canon I'd want a ton of Canon lenses as well. With the Sony, I may buy only 1 more lens.
Anyway - more on how this camera performs tomorrow. I will be basing my comparisons on my D70 since that's the only other camera I own in this league.
Peace!
Bob
David J Taylor - 03 Aug 2006 07:31 GMT []
> Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to compliment > my D70, and am on a budget since I want to get a truly advanced > camera maybe next year, and have the D70 as backup. Wouldn't the D50 have been a more obvious choice, as it takes the same lenses?
David
RichA - 03 Aug 2006 17:21 GMT > [] > > Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to compliment [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David Why have two DSLRs with only 6 meg each?
David J Taylor - 03 Aug 2006 17:42 GMT >> [] >>> Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why have two DSLRs with only 6 meg each? "six megapixels should be enough for anybody" - well someone must have said that!
David
Bill - 03 Aug 2006 21:20 GMT >> Why have two DSLRs with only 6 meg each? > >"six megapixels should be enough for anybody" - well someone must have >said that! Of course - it was Bill Gates when he bought his first DSLR.
ACK!
:-) Jeremy Nixon - 04 Aug 2006 06:29 GMT > Why have two DSLRs with only 6 meg each? It equals one 12 meg one, at a fraction of the cost.
 Signature Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
BobF@nospam.com - 04 Aug 2006 00:47 GMT >[] >> Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to compliment [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >David Well, I wanted a better camera, so I would have gone with the D200, but I couldn't find one.
Then I wanted to try all of the features of this Sony/Minolta, since I have 2 Minolta cameras already - but no interchangeable lenses... It has the same sensor as the D200...
Boys and their Toys, I guess...
David J Taylor - 04 Aug 2006 07:24 GMT >> [] >>> Now why did I buy it? Because I needed a backup camera to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Boys and their Toys, I guess... Now that I /can/ understand!
David
DonB - 03 Aug 2006 08:26 GMT > There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. I can't see a lot of logic in your decision making, but I admire your enthusiasm! Don
Siggy - 03 Aug 2006 12:57 GMT >> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. > I can't see a lot of logic in your decision making, but I admire your > enthusiasm! > Don From the way he was banging on about the 'steady cam' feature, I would guess that was a good enough reason as the D50 doesn't have such a thing.
Joan - 03 Aug 2006 13:36 GMT My D50 has an 18-200 VR on it most of the time.
 Signature Joan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
: >> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. : > I can't see a lot of logic in your decision making, but I admire your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : From the way he was banging on about the 'steady cam' feature, I would : guess that was a good enough reason as the D50 doesn't have such a thing. Mike Warren - 03 Aug 2006 13:43 GMT > My D50 has an 18-200 VR on it most of the time. How are you finding that lens, now that youv'e had it for a while?
-Mike
Joan - 06 Aug 2006 12:23 GMT Fabulous Mike. I went to a wedding yesterday and took along a 50mm 1.4 to see how it would go, but I only used it for about half an hour indoors and then switched back to the 18-200, it's just so versatile.
Some of the wedding pics are on flickr, but they'll only be visible for a few more days as I don't like putting people pics in the public domain without their permission, but just wanted a few friends to be able to see them. I've left the EXIF in place.
 Signature Joan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
: > My D50 has an 18-200 VR on it most of the time. : : How are you finding that lens, now that youv'e had it for a : while? : : -Mike Mike Warren - 06 Aug 2006 14:27 GMT > Fabulous Mike. I went to a wedding yesterday and took along a 50mm > 1.4 to see how it would go, but I only used it for about half an hour [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > domain without their permission, but just wanted a few friends to be > able to see them. I've left the EXIF in place. I had a look but couldn't find the EXIF data. Probably just too late at night after working all weekend. They all look sharp.
-Mike
Joan - 07 Aug 2006 11:35 GMT Might be the flickr interface you're not familiar with. There are pages with multiple small images. Click on an image to get to that image's page. Down on the right, if there is a link saying "more properties", that leads to the EXIF.
I post a lot of shots without EXIF, but for the wedding this weekend, I've left it in.
 Signature Joan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
: > Fabulous Mike. I went to a wedding yesterday and took along a 50mm : > 1.4 to see how it would go, but I only used it for about half an hour [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : -Mike Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 15:15 GMT > My D50 has an 18-200 VR on it most of the time. I have 6 Minolta lenses that benefit from A/S every time.
VR is better by about a stop v. A/S, but at least I don't have to replace my 100 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8, all fairly expensive lenses.
 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.
BobF@nospam.com - 04 Aug 2006 00:58 GMT >> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in.
>I can't see a lot of logic in your decision making, but I admire your >enthusiasm! >Don Well, logic? Sometimes I'm good, sometimes...
The logic for me is that this camera will serve me well for most of my picture taking, and won't cost me a fortune. If I never buy another lens or attachment for it, I'm way ahead financially.
These are my reasons for the purchase:
10meg (D200) sensor
VR built in
Sensor cleaning function
Dynamic range adjust in hardware
18-70 Macro lens - will suit my product shots perfectly, this plus anti-shake negates need for f1.8 lens.
Minolta and Sony lenses - 18,000,000 available!
Sony is going to support this venture with gusto!
$1200 package - (cost of one good Nikkor lens.)
Sometimes you have to buy on impulse - it's good for your mental health. No one ever said on their death bed - " I'm glad I never bought anything I wanted and am leaving my estate a million dollars."
J. Clarke - 04 Aug 2006 14:22 GMT >>> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 >>> in. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 18-70 Macro lens - will suit my product shots perfectly, this plus > anti-shake negates need for f1.8 lens. Uh, why would you need either anti-shake or an f/1.8 lens for "product shots"? And anti-shake won't make the basketball stop moving.
> Minolta and Sony lenses - 18,000,000 available! How many Canon and Nikon lenses are available then?
> Sony is going to support this venture with gusto! Just like they supported their venture into PDAs?
> $1200 package - (cost of one good Nikkor lens.) For certain values of "good". And are the lenses in that package "good" by Nikon standards?
> Sometimes you have to buy on impulse - it's good for your mental health. > No one ever said on their death bed - " I'm glad I never bought anything I > wanted and am leaving my estate a million dollars."
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 01:18 GMT >>>> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 >>>> in. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Uh, why would you need either anti-shake or an f/1.8 lens for "product >shots"? To get more light... I can't always light my products, or they are lit by available light on stage. I like to take live shots of things in use. Of course, I would like to have a Canon with high ISO, to achieve the same results, but that would have cost $2000, not $1000.
>And anti-shake won't make the basketball stop moving. I never said I do sports photography. In fact, I have no shots of a basketball in my collection...
>> Minolta and Sony lenses - 18,000,000 available! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >For certain values of "good". And are the lenses in that package "good" by >Nikon standards? Carl Zeiss good enough for you? Anyway, you don't have to buy one, it's a free country.
>> Sometimes you have to buy on impulse - it's good for your mental health. >> No one ever said on their death bed - " I'm glad I never bought anything I >> wanted and am leaving my estate a million dollars." J. Clarke - 05 Aug 2006 05:06 GMT >>>>> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got >>>>> 2 in. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Carl Zeiss good enough for you? I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog.
> Anyway, you don't have to buy one, it's a > free country. > >>> Sometimes you have to buy on impulse - it's good for your mental health. >>> No one ever said on their death bed - " I'm glad I never bought anything >>> I wanted and am leaving my estate a million dollars."
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Nobody - 05 Aug 2006 11:48 GMT Do you have to quote an entire message just to add 1 line of comment ?
J. Clarke - 05 Aug 2006 12:43 GMT > Do you have to quote an entire message just to add 1 line of comment ? <plonk>
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Nobody - 05 Aug 2006 14:59 GMT ><plonk> You certainly are.
Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 15:26 GMT >>Do you have to quote an entire message just to add 1 line of comment ? > > <plonk> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone.
 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.
J. Clarke - 05 Aug 2006 17:59 GMT >>>Do you have to quote an entire message just to add 1 line of comment ? >> >> <plonk> > > Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. OK. <plonk> Are you happy now?
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alan Browne - 06 Aug 2006 18:25 GMT >>Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. > > OK. <plonk> Are you happy now? Totally indifferent. But of course you can't read this if I'm in your KF.
 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.
Jim Redelfs - 05 Aug 2006 18:14 GMT > Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. Amen! However, it should be referred to as "extraneous" text since it certainly is relevant but redundant.
Multi-generational quoting comprising several screens-worth of quoted text, with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of poor taste and laziness.
/RANT
 Signature :) JR
J. Clarke - 05 Aug 2006 21:13 GMT >> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > text, with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of > poor taste and laziness. Well, I guess you can go in the killfile too. Never seen so many people with nothing better to than whine about posting style.
When the lot of you get lives get back to me.
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
DoN. Nichols - 05 Aug 2006 22:07 GMT According to J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid>:
[ ... ]
> > Multi-generational quoting comprising several screens-worth of quoted > > text, with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of > > poor taste and laziness. > > Well, I guess you can go in the killfile too. Never seen so many people > with nothing better to than whine about posting style. So -- you might as well plonk me, too.
> When the lot of you get lives get back to me. Keep this up, and you will see an empty newsgroup.
Enjoy, DoN.
 Signature Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
ian - 06 Aug 2006 03:40 GMT >>> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > When the lot of you get lives get back to me. add me to the list.
J. Clarke - 06 Aug 2006 05:13 GMT >>>> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > add me to the list. No. I'm not in the mood. Twit.
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ian - 06 Aug 2006 15:01 GMT >> add me to the list. > > No. I'm not in the mood. Twit. Then welcome to mine knob end!
Jim Redelfs - 06 Aug 2006 16:24 GMT > I guess you can go in the killfile too. It's going to be VERY crowded in there.
> Never seen so many people with nothing better to than whine > about posting style. Using terms like "plonk" and "killfile" you probably aren't a newbie. Given that, your reaction to the complaints about your unedited article (reply) are surprising but VERY revealing.
> When the lot of you get lives get back to me. I have a better idea: When YOU grow some thicker skin, get back to US.
 Signature <sigh> JR
G.T. - 06 Aug 2006 19:26 GMT >>I guess you can go in the killfile too. > > It's going to be VERY crowded in there. Sounds like he's growing weary of plonking but he can add me if he's still plonking people who express displeasure at his unclipped post.
Greg
 Signature "All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
J. Clarke - 07 Aug 2006 05:45 GMT >>>I guess you can go in the killfile too. >> >> It's going to be VERY crowded in there. > > Sounds like he's growing weary of plonking but he can add me if he's > still plonking people who express displeasure at his unclipped post. No, just becoming recalcitrant at being given orders by a.sholes.
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alan Browne - 06 Aug 2006 18:57 GMT > When the lot of you get lives get back to me. We have lives. Which is why we don't like cluttered posts that waste our time. Be courteous, edit and save everyones time as that is what is done for you.
See also: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
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.
John McWilliams - 06 Aug 2006 06:00 GMT >> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of poor taste > and laziness. Or arrogance. Or ignorance, or.......
Back to irrelevant/extraneous.... I submit that often text left in many posts is both.
 Signature john mcwilliams
Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.
Kevin Agard - 06 Aug 2006 23:10 GMT >> Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with but a SINGLE line (or two) of original reply is the epitome of poor taste > and laziness. Agreed. And have you noticed that is often the very same people who refuse to "trim" previous posts who are the first ones bitching about top posting?
Alan Browne - 08 Aug 2006 03:02 GMT >>Then plonk me too. Removing irrelevant text is a courtesy to everyone. > > Amen! However, it should be referred to as "extraneous" text since it > certainly is relevant but redundant. It's no longer relevant to the thread fragment, which is (obviously?) what I meant.
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.
Jim Redelfs - 08 Aug 2006 13:39 GMT >> Amen! However, it should be referred to as "extraneous" text >> since it certainly is relevant but redundant.
> It's no longer relevant to the thread fragment, > which is (obviously?) what I meant. Yes, it was (more-or-less?) obvious. I got stuck on semantics.
 Signature :) JR
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 14:30 GMT >> Carl Zeiss good enough for you? > >I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog. Thats always the best option. Sometimes a camera that says Sony is a Minolta!
Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 15:27 GMT > I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog. And what Zeiss "dogs" do you have experience with?
 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.
J. Clarke - 05 Aug 2006 17:58 GMT >> I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog. > > And what Zeiss "dogs" do you have experience with? What I might or might not have is irrelevant to the issue. What counts is the performance and you can't tell anything about the performance by reading the label.
 Signature --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ian - 05 Aug 2006 21:15 GMT >>> I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the performance and you can't tell anything about the performance by > reading the label. So what dogs have you had.
Alan Browne - 06 Aug 2006 18:23 GMT >>>I go by performance, not label. A dog that says "Zeiss" is still a dog. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the performance and you can't tell anything about the performance by > reading the label. I've never heard of Zeiss making a dog lens. In the lenses offered by Sony for the A100, I would put the prime lens as a slam dunk and any shortcomings it may have will be at the margins. The zoom lens will not be as good as a prime, obviously, but as zooms go, again I would expect exceptional performance.
I'll hapilly wager that the upcoming CZ lenses will not be less than excellent, perfection being a journey, not a destination.
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.
Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 15:25 GMT >>$1200 package - (cost of one good Nikkor lens.) > > For certain values of "good". And are the lenses in that package "good" by > Nikon standards? I can cherry pick Minolta lenses v. Nikon and deflate the myth. Minolta don't have as many lenses but they do have excellent lenses in the right categories ... For example, the 100 f/2.8 macro, the 80-200 f/2.8 and 20mm f/2.8 are sharper than their Nikon counterparts. The differences are so small, of course, as to not matter vert much at all.
Of course you're not going to get this in a "kit" lens where Minolta and Nikon each have good and mediocre lenses.
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.
P - 03 Aug 2006 09:05 GMT > There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only > got 2 in. I'd love one, if only to use my Minolta AF lenses and flash.... but Sony won't be making a vertical grip for it, and that's the one thing I can't live without...
Pete.
Pete D - 03 Aug 2006 09:17 GMT > but Sony > won't be making a vertical grip for it, and that's the one thing I can't > live without... > > Pete. Why not?
Pete D
P - 03 Aug 2006 15:58 GMT >> but Sony >> won't be making a vertical grip for it, and that's the one thing I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pete D I've had it on all my cameras for years (Minolta film, Canon digital), and it just seems so natural to have the essential controls available in the correct position when taking portraits. Plus, especially with my current 350D, it brings the camera up to a reasonable size for my hands!
Pete.
SMS - 03 Aug 2006 18:36 GMT >>> but Sony >>> won't be making a vertical grip for it, and that's the one thing I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correct position when taking portraits. Plus, especially with my current > 350D, it brings the camera up to a reasonable size for my hands! I can't imagine not having a vertical grip. I was dubious when I got one for my old film camera, but once you use one, you'll never be without it again.
Jeremy Nixon - 04 Aug 2006 06:31 GMT > I can't imagine not having a vertical grip. I was dubious when I got one > for my old film camera, but once you use one, you'll never be without it > again. I have one; it's built into my camera. It's a pain in the a.s. I'll never use it, and have to keep making sure it's shut off because I press the stupid button by accident and sometimes the shut-off thingy gets nudged back on by accident. I'd specifically rather *not* have one.
 Signature Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
RichA - 03 Aug 2006 23:19 GMT > > There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only > > got 2 in. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pete. The aftermarket may step in and supply one, if Sony sells enough cameras.
Alan Browne - 04 Aug 2006 12:29 GMT >>There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only >>got 2 in. > > I'd love one, if only to use my Minolta AF lenses and flash.... but Sony > won't be making a vertical grip for it, and that's the one thing I can't > live without... Vertical grips are one thing I've found I can live without.
 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.
Alan Browne - 04 Aug 2006 12:30 GMT > There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. Congrats.
I look forward to hearing your experience with the camera. Post!
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.
jaffa_brown@yahoo.co.uk - 04 Aug 2006 14:04 GMT Hi all,
I purchased a sony a100 as well, and very happy that I went that way. I tried a Canon 350D and a a100 for a day and the a100 was far better and swung it for me. The pictures I have taken so far are well exposed and pin sharp. I put a full review on the Amazon web site if anybody is intrested what it is like ot use, with pros and cons, or I can post it here if anybody is really interested - but its fairly lengthy.
Regards
Jaffa
> > There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 14:58 GMT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is intrested what it is like ot use, with pros and cons, or I can post > it here if anybody is really interested - but its fairly lengthy. Yes, Please re-post here for the group. Thanks, 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.
jaffa_brown@yahoo.co.uk - 09 Aug 2006 09:47 GMT All,
My review of the A100 (also posted on the amazon web site)....
The Sony A100 is the first in the new line of "a" series (pronounced Alpha) cameras from Sony. The A100 comes in various forms including body only, single lens (18-70mm) and twin lens (18-70mm and 70-300mm) set. The body of the camera is available in all black, or a mixture of Black and Silver.
I purchase the twin lens set in all black. In the bright metallic box, you get the Camera body, the twin lenses, a memory stick duo to Compact flash converter to put in the camera, camera strap, Battery, battery charger (charging is off camera), USB to computer lead, USB to tv lead (to show the pictures on the TV), software disk (containing a USB driver, RAW file editor and basic file viewer), a user guide (black and white, fairly cheap paper manual about 90 pages), and several brochures on lenses and other products, and then the product guarantee.
The cameras headline features are the 10.2 megapixel sensor, the new anti-shake (now called super shake) system, vibrating image screen to remove dust, and fast image processor. Beyond this, it has all the features you could possibly want from a digital camera.
The battery is charged off camera, and you get a UK 3 pin plug. The camera can charge the battery though a power port directly into the camera body, but the cable for this is an optional extra. If you are travelling abroad, different plugs are also optional extras. Charging the battery takes about 2 hours, and gives you power for around 750 shots (assuming flash on 1/3 of shots).
Photos are captured onto a memory card, which can either be a CompactFlash or a Memory Stick Due. A dummy CompactFlash comes with the camera that acts as a converter inside the camera for the Memory stick Duo. You cannot use full size Sony Memory sticks in the camera. No memory comes with the camera, so you will need to purchase one to take pictures. I went for a 4Gb card, which will store 982 full size, hi-res photos in JPEG format, or 292 RAW photos.
The camera has a very sharp and bright picture display on the back. This is used for the control of the camera settings and viewing previous pictures. However, when taking a picture, the current view cannot be shown on this screen (for say, taking shots over the heads of a crowd). Instead, you need to use the viewfinder. When you put your eye to the view finder, the main display goes off saving battery life. In both the viewfinder and the main picture display, all the information is show including memory status, speed, aperture, histogram of picture, index of pictures, settings of camera (colour settings, exposure etc). The menu and controls are access via two control wheels, a spin controller and a menu direction control. I found the controls and menu options very easy to use.
At the top of the camera, the two wheels control different functions. On the left, settings are available for settings ISO levels, colour controls, system overrides, advanced controls etc. The wheel on the right controls the picture modes (landscape, portrait, macro, night, sunrise/sunset, sports), speed/aperture priority etc. The control wheel sits in front of the shutter trigger, and is perfectly placed for changing the settings whilst looking through the view finder.
Taking pictures is a joy, and the results are stunning. However, the movement of the mirror inside the camera is fairly loud (there is a clunk when you take the picture). I have a small worry that taking pictures in quite places (churches etc) may cause a few heads to turn in my direction. If anything, the clunk is the only downside of the camera. Lens focusing is very quick, reasonably quiet, and works well on both lens sets. The lenses that come in the pack are both Sony, and to be honest, are not that impressive to look at (no nice guide windows), but they do the job, feel robust and take nice pictures.
The camera sits nicely in the hand, and isn't too heavy. My hands are fairly large, but the buttons seem to be in the right place. The only button I had a problem in finding is the focus preview button which is located at the front of camera below the lens. I scrabbled around to find this, but should not be so much of a problem once I get used to it. The build quality of the camera feels good, at least as good as the Dynax range I have previously. The top of the camera has a strange mottled look which is a bit odd.
One thing that I found most impressive is the bracketing and multi-shot options. Pressing the multi-shot button allows 10 or so picture options including single shot, multi shot, bracket, multi-shot bracket, self time (2 seconds), self time (10 seconds), remote etc. Because of the new image processor chip, the multi-shot is very very fast - I kept my finger on the shutter release and it took 3-4 shots a second, and produced 2 bracket shots per shot, which resulted in around 12 shots being stored per second without delay or pause. I tried to see if the memory in the camera would cause the multi-shot to fill up and stop, but it kept on shooting the pics - very nice.
As I say, all the options are here including; Setting resolution sizes (smell, medium, large and fine), output format (JPEG, RAW or both), colour levels, balance levels, exposure settings, manual control, auto control, flash options (fill, red eye, back flash, forward flash, sync etc).
All in all, very happy with my purchase.
Jaffa
> > Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne - 10 Aug 2006 00:27 GMT > All, > > My review of the A100 (also posted on the amazon web site).... Thanks for the detailed review. Post pics!! (Full rez)
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.
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 01:58 GMT >> There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Cheers, >Alan SO far I'm off to a rocky start, but I am stressed out at work and not paying enough attention!
Anyway... last night I set the date and time, but then noticed the pics are 2098... I must have hit the down when going right... Then I noticed the time was wrong - it's a 24 hr clock and I put in 6 instead of 18...
The first pic I took was numbered DSC01653... I wanted number 1 so I tried resetting... wrong reset... turned off the "remember file number", removed the flash card, put it back, got #1, turned 'remember' back on... all OK now. ( I guess it got that number from my old card, not sure.)
Some things can't be selected, such as "advanced DR" if you are in various modes, so it goes back to "normal" if you pick the wrong ISO or metering, and if you don't check you won't know. EG I put it on advanced DR and then picked ISO 800 and it got cancelled. Doesn't tell you, you have to know. or look. BUT the DR does work, it brought out the dark leaves in a forest, selective gamma by robot... so far a pleasant result.
Tried the steady shot - took a hand held pic of an aerosol can at 10 feet indoors with no flash, full out 70mm zoom and 1/10 second - the small print on the can is perfect in focus! There is a little "meter" to tell you how much you are shaking. (hangover meter?) With a little practice, it could teach you how to hold a camera!
Tried some shots into the sun, got a grayed out look but not too bad, the camera flashes the whiteout AND the blackout pixels in histogram view.
Shot a piece of wire on a white piece of paper - got a perfect 66% shot of gray! Brought it back in the computer with 'levels' and its not too bad, but you will need manual camera settings to do this right.
Tried the magnification features in playback - very impressed! You can zoom in up to x12 in small steps, you can get a 'curser' view and move it around and change its size and then apply it or go back or de-zoom or whatever - lots of fun and quite useful. I zoomed in on a truck in the distance and could read the name on it.
It has a lot of white bal settings, including temp and custom. Tried the custom (white paper) under fluorescent light and it was good. The auto ISO gave me a greenish bluish tint. It can remember this setting for other pictures, even after a power off.
Turned off the 'auto rotate' settings because the menu was making me dizzy...
Tried the continuous - 3 shots a second as long as you want! Lots were blurred so I have to look into that, probably had the wrong focus type.
General snapshots around appear to be a touch light... would prefer more saturation or a darker theme... this can be programmed I guess.
The big LCD on the back is great indoors, out in the sun it requires some shade...
The kit 18-70 lens is marked macro but technically it isn't... at 70mm the closest I could get was maybe 7 inches, and the picture has a 3" wide field. It should be 3/4 inch for real macro. But that is a lot closer then the Nikon kit 18-70.
Most tests so far in P mode, will try the other modes next. Also manual mode for you, Alan!! Noticed it has rear curtain sync, will try that. It also has remote channel control flash, will have to get a big flash for it.
More later!
Bill - 05 Aug 2006 03:18 GMT >The first pic I took was numbered DSC01653... I wanted number 1 so I tried >resetting... wrong reset... turned off the "remember file number", removed the >flash card, put it back, got #1, turned 'remember' back on... all OK now. ( I >guess it got that number from my old card, not sure.) That's not a good sign.
I believe with sequential numbering the image number is remembered by the camera, not the memory card. It sounds like the camera may have been returned already, tested and not reset at the factory, or played with at the retailer.
>The kit 18-70 lens is marked macro but technically it isn't... at 70mm the >closest I could get was maybe 7 inches, and the picture has a 3" wide field. It >should be 3/4 inch for real macro. But that is a lot closer then the Nikon kit >18-70. FYI - the Nikon D70s with the 18-70 kit lense can close focus down to the same range at the Sony kit lense - less than 8 inches from the front element.
The 15 inches (0.38m) that Nikon and most sources quote is in relation to the focal plane near the back of the camera, identical to Sony which is also 0.38 meters. That's total focal length from the subject to the sensor across the entire zoom range, not the front element.
The rest of your post is interesting and I look forward to seeing more details.
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 04:23 GMT >>The first pic I took was numbered DSC01653... I wanted number 1 so I tried >>resetting... wrong reset... turned off the "remember file number", removed the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >returned already, tested and not reset at the factory, or played with at >the retailer. The camera is absolutely clean and new - maybe it was just a random from the factory, or maybe they test it that much. Did you know some printers have 10,000 prints on them tested at the factory?
>>The kit 18-70 lens is marked macro but technically it isn't... at 70mm the >>closest I could get was maybe 7 inches, and the picture has a 3" wide field. It [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >is also 0.38 meters. That's total focal length from the subject to the >sensor across the entire zoom range, not the front element. Since I don't have my Nikon I can't directly compare the 2 lenses.... bummer! But I don't remember focusing that close...
>The rest of your post is interesting and I look forward to seeing more >details. Bill - 05 Aug 2006 05:41 GMT >>I believe with sequential numbering the image number is remembered by >>the camera, not the memory card. It sounds like the camera may have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The camera is absolutely clean and new - maybe it was just a random from the >factory, or maybe they test it that much. If it's from testing, that's good.
> Did you know some printers have 10,000 >prints on them tested at the factory? My HP had 21 pages showing on the EPROM when I bought it (sealed in the box and new), so yeah I expect basic testing.
But 10,000 prints is half the life of some inkjets these days, so I trust you're referring to something much more substantial, like a high output network laser?
By the way, prints and pages are not the same thing, at least not for my HP printer. It reports several 4x6 prints as just one page of usage. I think it has something to do with area, perhaps equaling 8.5x11 pages.
>>FYI - the Nikon D70s with the 18-70 kit lense can close focus down to >>the same range at the Sony kit lense - less than 8 inches from the front [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Since I don't have my Nikon I can't directly compare the 2 lenses.... bummer! You can read the facts online from Nikon and Sony about the close focus distance ratings.
>But I don't remember focusing that close... Really...well I just happen to have my friends D70s here (I don't want to give it back either!) and I'm able to focus down to about 7.5 inches at 70mm with the 18-70, give or take half an inch because my girlfriend won't hold the tape measure for me because she thinks "THIS IS STUPID".
Ahem...I gotta love her for being so open about her feelings.
:-) BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 14:44 GMT >>>I believe with sequential numbering the image number is remembered by >>>the camera, not the memory card. It sounds like the camera may have been [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >trust you're referring to something much more substantial, like a high >output network laser? yes, of course, a big laser printer/copier! The reason I say that is I used to work at a business machine dealer, and one of the huge printers that came in was shipped by a guy not quite on the ball... it had his test sheet still under the cover, the counter wires were unplugged, and all his factory test logs were there as well, all the problems he found and fixed and all the little "stamps" from the assembly line people, I guess. It noted that a test run of 10,000 was completed. It didn't come with the toner or drum or anything, we installed a new one and tested it again before selling it. Maybe this one was a lemon, who knows!
>By the way, prints and pages are not the same thing, at least not for my >HP printer. It reports several 4x6 prints as just one page of usage. I >think it has something to do with area, perhaps equaling 8.5x11 pages. I used to try to keep track of the photo area I printed, but gave up...
>>>FYI - the Nikon D70s with the 18-70 kit lense can close focus down to >>>the same range at the Sony kit lense - less than 8 inches from the front [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >to give it back either!) and I'm able to focus down to about 7.5 inches >at 70mm with the 18-70, That's really odd because I went and bought the 50mm 1.8 because it focused closer, and I REALLY don't remember getting closer then 1.5 feet... is it possible my kit lens was different? Dam I got to get my Nikon back! I'll ask my nephew as well, he has a D70, not sure if he got the kit lens... any way to test without a camera?
> give or take half an inch because my girlfriend >won't hold the tape measure for me because she thinks "THIS IS STUPID". It might have to do with measuring and 7 inches...
>Ahem...I gotta love her for being so open about her feelings. > >:-) Bill - 05 Aug 2006 20:01 GMT >>>But I don't remember focusing that close... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >closer, and I REALLY don't remember getting closer then 1.5 feet... is it >possible my kit lens was different? Not likely...there is only one Nikkor 18-70 DX lense that I'm aware of.
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom18-70mmf_35-4 5g_if/index.htm
This is the site I use for Nikon lense information. It has all the features, specs, and MTF charts needed to do comparisons.
> Dam I got to get my Nikon back! I'll ask >my nephew as well, he has a D70, not sure if he got the kit lens... any way to >test without a camera? Sure...read the specs on the two lenses from the manufacturer. That's how I found out the Sony lense focuses to the same distance.
We were out having a few drinks last night before I did the rather quick measurement, so I did a better test today with the 18-70 using a tripod and a tape measure.
I turned the focus beep on so I didn't have to look through the viewfinder all the time, although I still visually confirmed focus from time to time. I used a spare Sandisk memory card as the focus subject attached to a telescoping tool held firmly on the desk so I could just slide it back and forth as needed.
It turns out the distance is actually 0.36m or 14-1/4" from the focal plane to the subject at both 18mm and 70mm. From the front element it is 0.19m or 7-1/2".
The 18-70 lense has a distance scale that shows 0.38m at the closest marked range, however the focus ring turns a few hairs past that point of minimum focus. I'm guessing the sample variation allows a few millimeters of distance variation so I could actually get a bit closer than what Nikon specifies. I'm sure they err on the side of caution so that all 18-70 lenses meet the minimum focus distance rating of 0.38m.
I'm sure Sony does the same thing and you can probably get a few hairs closer than they specify too.
BobF@nospam.com - 06 Aug 2006 00:41 GMT >>>>But I don't remember focusing that close... >>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >I'm sure Sony does the same thing and you can probably get a few hairs >closer than they specify too. I guess I used the back film plane measurement one time and the front of lens the other... that solves the numbers I remember... getting old!
David Kilpatrick - 05 Aug 2006 10:29 GMT > Since I don't have my Nikon I can't directly compare the 2 lenses.... bummer! > But I don't remember focusing that close... These close focusing things - film plane distance, front of lens distance, repro ratio - can be confusing. I tested the 18-70mm Sony, 70-210mm 'beercan' Minolta, and 18-200mm Konica Minolta. The Sony focuses to 0.38m, the 18-200mm focuses to 0.45m, and the beercan to 1.1m
Each lens will cover almost exactly the same field (approx 85mm width) at its longest zoom and closest focus - the field covered by the beercan at 210mm, 1.1m is slightly more close-up than the 18-200mm at 200mm, 45cm, or the 18-70mm at 70mm, 38cm.
This is due to the different use of front cell focusing and internal focusing in the three lenses, all using alternative types of focus adjustment.
David
Fred McKenzie - 05 Aug 2006 19:24 GMT > These close focusing things - film plane distance, front of lens > distance, repro ratio - can be confusing. I tested the 18-70mm Sony, > 70-210mm 'beercan' Minolta, and 18-200mm Konica Minolta. The Sony > focuses to 0.38m, the 18-200mm focuses to 0.45m, and the beercan to 1.1m David-
I also have the 70-210 f/4 Minolta lens, although I never heard it called "beercan" before. I purchased it used, but never had a chance to use it on my film cameras. Naturally I had to try it, along with the rest of my collection, on the Sony Alpha. Surprise! I observed the most vivid purple cast or fringing I've ever seen (small objects against cloudy sky, 210mm f/4).
I assume it was caused by the lens, since the same subject was photographed by several other lenses without the effect. Have you ever observed this with yours?
Fred
David Kilpatrick - 06 Aug 2006 11:05 GMT >>These close focusing things - film plane distance, front of lens >>distance, repro ratio - can be confusing. I tested the 18-70mm Sony, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > photographed by several other lenses without the effect. Have you ever > observed this with yours? Yes, the last one I had was very prone to it. I have been through three s/h 70-210mms before finding one with no serious decentering or wear. It is not completely free from this purple fringe (not chromatic abb) in twig/sky conditions, but far better than the last one I had (and sold).
I suspect most rave review owners of the 'beercan' have good examples of the lens. They probably varied a bit when new, and time will have made many worse.
My worst current lens for this effect is the 17-35mm f2.8-4 D.
David
Alan Browne - 06 Aug 2006 18:49 GMT > I also have the 70-210 f/4 Minolta lens, although I never heard it called > "beercan" before. I purchased it used, but never had a chance to use it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > photographed by several other lenses without the effect. Have you ever > observed this with yours? I've seen this occur in overexposed BG's (snow) with fine detail in focus FG (thin branches in the woods). By getting the BG exposed at the edges of the histo, the fringing disapeared.
I let the chance go to buy a used 70-210 f/4 Minolta before ... a mistake I won't make again.
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.
Alan Browne - 05 Aug 2006 15:03 GMT >>>There probably aren't a lot of these around... the Sony store only got 2 in. >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > you, Alan!! Noticed it has rear curtain sync, will try that. It also has > remote channel control flash, will have to get a big flash for it. Thanks for the overview.
I'd suggest that you take a more simple and deliberate approach and work from the most basic up to the more advanced features. I've seen the DR samples on dpreview and I'm of mixed opinion regarding the result: Technically, the DR appears very good, I'm not sold on the aesthetic.
Rear sync will only benefit you in the right conditions, eg: a relatively dark background; tripod shot at 1/15 with a moving subject. Other than that the effect is not very visible.
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.
BobF@nospam.com - 05 Aug 2006 18:30 GMT >Thanks for the overview. > >I'd suggest that you take a more simple and deliberate approach and work >from the most basic up to the more advanced features. I've seen the DR >samples on dpreview and I'm of mixed opinion regarding the result: >Technically, the DR appears very good, I'm not sold on the aesthetic. One test I made the other morning was of the forest line off the road, DR on and off. The DR on 'Advanced' was a definite scene booster. All of the wet tree trunks that were just black lines came out as brown wet trees. (Because they are) Also some of the dark foliage was brought out as well. The sky was left alone.
However, another test I tried showed no difference... not sure why. It gets cancelled in certain modes...
>Rear sync will only benefit you in the right conditions, eg: a >relatively dark background; tripod shot at 1/15 with a moving subject. >Other than that the effect is not very visible. Ya, I gotta go play in the traffic...
>Cheers, >Alan Did I tell you the VR at 70mm can give a good focused shot at 1/10 sec? Impressive!
Alan Browne - 06 Aug 2006 18:32 GMT > Did I tell you the VR at 70mm can give a good focused shot at 1/10 sec? > Impressive! I'd say that's as much luck and a steady hold as the A-S (whatever Sony call it). I don't expect it to deliver more than 2 stops of "steadying", so for 70mm, I'd put it at around 1/20 sec for a "safe" bet. At that, it would really depend on how large one intends to print.
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.
|
|
|