Since my old compact digital camera popped its clogged I've been looking at SLR's and decided on the Sony DSLR-A100 as it got good write ups and is good value. But when I went round a few forums I saw a few people mentioning Sony were about to bring out a refresh version. Anyone know anything about this and any opinions whether it would be worth waiting etc?
New Sony DSLR soon?
- Thread starter Bubo
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,764
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
They are I think but personally I wouldn't go near them simply because the lens/accessories support isn't there.
"personally I wouldn't go near them simply because the lens/accessories support isn't there"
That's not quite true as there are many secondhand minolta lenses available at very good prices. If you were to decide on an Alpha-albeit first or second generation, I would simply go for the body only and shop around for the many lenses I have just been on about.
http://www.infodigitalcamera.com/blog/342/sony-alpha-high-end-amateur-model/
That's not quite true as there are many secondhand minolta lenses available at very good prices. If you were to decide on an Alpha-albeit first or second generation, I would simply go for the body only and shop around for the many lenses I have just been on about.
http://www.infodigitalcamera.com/blog/342/sony-alpha-high-end-amateur-model/
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,764
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I know about minolta lenses compatibility, but buying a camera is more than just the body, its the system you are buying into. And Minolta/Sony just doesn't have the same range compared to Canon/Nikon. Minolta always have had nice bodies, even in Film SLR days but the pros goes with Canon and Nikon simply because the lens and accesories.
Sony can create more lenses and accessories over the next few years, but why wait when you can use Canon or Nikon now?
I suppose it would boil down to value for money. Admittedly I am biased as I own a sony alpha deciding to go for it instead of a 400d. I do not regret the decision as the anti shake is a godsend in low light conditions without a tripod. Obviously the L series lenses and the new EOS mk3 are of unbelievable quality and performance but are well beyond my price range and presumably most people's as well. 
I should point out that I am a rank amateur when it comes to photography, I am taking the oppurtunity to step up from a basic compact to entry level SLR. I don't ever see myself wanting to buy half a dozen lenses for every occasion. I'm sure the proffesionals would look at a shot taken with a basic lens and compare it to the same shot taken with a pro lens and laugh at the difference in quality, but to be honest the level I'm at I almost certainly wouldn't be bothered about that difference knowing how much decent lenes seem to cost.
I should also point out that the anti-shale mechanism is very interesting to me, given that taking pictures in low light was next to impossible with my old compact. Thats also why I ant to get a proper camera so to speak.
I should also point out that the anti-shale mechanism is very interesting to me, given that taking pictures in low light was next to impossible with my old compact. Thats also why I ant to get a proper camera so to speak.
The new A300(?) is supposed to have a press launch in Italy on the 6th of September with the semi-pro model coming early 08.
As far as lenses etc. whilst the Minolta/Sony A mount doesn't have as comprehensive a system as CaNikon what it lacks are basically the more esoteric, very low volume (& hence very expensive) items - for 99% of users it's not a problem.
& then of course there are 3rd party items from people like Sigma, Tamron, Metz etc. - largely the same products as available for CaNikon from the same sources.
As far as lenses etc. whilst the Minolta/Sony A mount doesn't have as comprehensive a system as CaNikon what it lacks are basically the more esoteric, very low volume (& hence very expensive) items - for 99% of users it's not a problem.
& then of course there are 3rd party items from people like Sigma, Tamron, Metz etc. - largely the same products as available for CaNikon from the same sources.
Ethan, since you say you have got the A100, have you invested in any lenses? How is the 18-70 kit lens that comes with it, would it be better to just buy the body as RL says? I would be using it for standard middle distance type shots mainly and also fancy taking up the popular pastime of taking close ups of creepy crawlies at some point.
i'm going to quote this for one reason, you WILL look at the diversity of lenses, you will eventually need lenses for different things, i.e, portraiture you'd be best with a prime, macro usually needs a dedicated lens, then you'll need a wide angle for landscapes, then a big zoom for airplanes / birds / focal points in the distance, there isn't a single lens that will cover this, and the 'superzooms' (18-300mm) aren't very super at all, just average. If it were my choice again i'd be looking at the canon 400D or the Nikon D40(X), there's a good review in this months practical photography and both score 5/5, but then i am biased, i have the 30D.
At the end of the day, it's what you feel is most comfortable for you, go to a camera shop and have a try of them all.
I would just actually buy the body if you can get a very good price for it. I am only a amature but I have a kenko 2x converter, the bog standard 18mm to 75mm and the 75-300mm kit lense that came with the camera. I have since bought a Tamron 200mm to 400mm lense wich performs quite well. This cost me 100gbp second hand. There are loads of better Minolta lenses on Ebay for cheaper than the kit lense or if you do not like Ebay then buy second hand from the dealers Ffordes or Mifsuds etc. Still plenty of bargains. The standard kit lenses are of average to good quality but you can buy better second-hand cheaper.
Last edited:
the Tamron 18-250mm is very good but with 1 drawback - it has very slow (but very accurate) autofocus. For some people that will be irrelevant but for others (e.g. sports photography) it will matter.
Just confirms your no 1 lens can do everything well supposition really ...
Anti-shake on the camera is little more than a gimmick precisely for beginners to buy into. It simply isnt and cannot be as effective as IS on a lens.
And that said, to be honest you dont even need that. Why do you want to not use a tripod? A good tripod costs a fraction of what a lens with IS costs. Unless the circumstances dont allow you to use one, its really the best solution. Once you get used to carrying a tripod, thats part of photography.
About long lenses, the bottom line is all 300mm zooms that dont cost a few hundred are mediocre. For better quality you can either compromise and get a 70-200mm f4 or spend some extra money on a lens like the 400mm f5.6
Personally I dont have a big use for zooms. I walk around with a 50mm prime most of the time and only really use something else when doing macros or when doing landscapes and I want to go wider (20mm f1.8 and 35mm f2). I bought a cheap 75-300mm zoom just for casual shooting, and it does the job, but I know its ******* compared to even a $70 lens like the 50mm f1.8
And that said, to be honest you dont even need that. Why do you want to not use a tripod? A good tripod costs a fraction of what a lens with IS costs. Unless the circumstances dont allow you to use one, its really the best solution. Once you get used to carrying a tripod, thats part of photography.
About long lenses, the bottom line is all 300mm zooms that dont cost a few hundred are mediocre. For better quality you can either compromise and get a 70-200mm f4 or spend some extra money on a lens like the 400mm f5.6
Personally I dont have a big use for zooms. I walk around with a 50mm prime most of the time and only really use something else when doing macros or when doing landscapes and I want to go wider (20mm f1.8 and 35mm f2). I bought a cheap 75-300mm zoom just for casual shooting, and it does the job, but I know its ******* compared to even a $70 lens like the 50mm f1.8
Why not?
Pure physics, the same way as the best place for the engine in a car is in the centre, the best place for IS is further forward in the lens. Additionally the IS on a lens is designed specifically for that lens, whereas the anti-shake on the body is a compromise for all the lenses you might put on it.
Sensor IS is fine for wide to medium focal lengths but when you go above 200mm the movement required to stabilise the shot is too much for a sensor to cope with. It simply cannot move the distance fast enough to be effective, not with current technology anyway.
I'm sure you're right but with one drawback. Dosh. As I said before I am only upgrading from a compact, I only want a new camera to do the same stuff I was before but a bit better, i.e. ultra casual, no tripods in sight or anything like that. Yeah I may very well get dragged into the whole thing after I get a "proper" camera but at the moment the simple cost of all the lenses and other stuff is very very effective at moderating my initial purchase. I'm sorry if I offend anyone thinking I'm not fully commiting myself to the photography game by not splashing huge ammounts on gear straight away.
By no means am I offended, I am just saying dont give a lot of importance to on-camera IS, because its almost a non-feature in real life situations, and mostly designed as a selling point. As SDK points out its most effective at short focal lengths, but thats precisely where you least need IS. It doesnt mean you have to go out and buy IS lenses either
By no means am I offended, I am just saying dont give a lot of importance to on-camera IS, because its almost a non-feature in real life situations, and mostly designed as a selling point. As SDK points out its most effective at short focal lengths, but thats precisely where you least need IS. It doesnt mean you have to go out and buy IS lenses either
I beg to differ concerning your suggestion it is just a gimmick etc
The anti camera shake makes one hell of a difference pending the type and situation you will use a lense: particulalry on the Sony. For example using my Tamron 5.6 400mm is extremely useful in low light without a tripod. My Brother's 400d cannot cope using the same lense and under the same conditions due to the lack of shake reduction. The 400d could not cope using the standard 300mm kit lense either which I was very surprised about.
Similalry it is not always practical-even though it might be desirable-to carry a tripod around with you all of the time and so in this respect it certainly is not a gimmick. Once again, look at the cost of anti camera shake lenses from Cannon, which you have already mentioned when with the Sony it is given away free.
Non feature in real life situations? Real life situations show me that a large component of photography relies on taking photographs of the unexpected or coincidental and not just the static, close-up or pre-planned. A superzoom which includes a short focal length coupled with an anti-shake capability would be a must for these kinds of instances (depending on both the requirements of distance for the user and any available light.
Since when has Is only been very good at wide to medium focal lengths since Is was also designed to assist in taking clearer images at long focal lengths? It is these kinds of focal lengths I have already mentioned that you would gain the most benefit.
Last edited:
Wrong - like all things they have their own pros & cons but overall there is very little actual performance difference between the 2.
They come at the same problem from different directions but the end result is very similar.