Sony Alpha Cameras

wonder_lander

wonder_lander

wonder_lander

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,586
Location
Stone, Staffordshire
Over the next couple of months I should be in the market for a new camera.

I've currently got a sony-v1 POS and feel that now is the time to make the break to a DSLR.

I am a renowned Sony whore so as you can imaging this leads me to their range of DSLR's. I had a play with the A700 in Japan last year liked the way it felt in my hands so with this in mind can you provide your valid input into my purchasing choice?

My budget won't stretch to the A700 so it will either be the old A100, A200 or A350.
Will I get a better deal by buying the body only, the body + 1 lens or the body + twin lenses?

What would you advise to someone in this situation?

Once I've got the main camera and lenes sorted what should be my next purchases in order of priority and what sort of cost would you attribute to each item?

Tripod
Bag
Filters
Additional battery
Battery grip
More memory cards
Flash
Remote release
 
Well it will naturally come up in this thread that Canon and Nikon are the leaders in the market and hence have the greatest variety of accessories and the widest variety of lenses made for their systems. You do appear to be wanting to take this somewhere from looking at your list there, so it does need thinking about.

I'm not sure about the quality of the sony kit lens, but generally they don't tend to be amazing and you're often better off going with the body only option and spending a little more to get a decent lens. Again, I can't comment between the cameras either.

In terms of accessories, then the bag is the most important thing. Look after your kit and it will look after you (ish). After that would be the tripod for me, though it's between that and the battery grip and more batteries.
 
wonder_lander said:
Bag I would budget a decent amount for this, at least £35. I have a Crumpler pretty boy backpack that cost me £50.


Tripod £15-£50 (it really depends what you need, I just use a cheap 'Vanguard' one)

More memory cards - £6-9 for a fast 1gb CF card.

Remote release - £10

Filters - Hoya Polarizer ~£15, not sure what else you might want.

Battery grip - £50 for a cheap one, £100-£120 for the official one.

Additional battery - £12-15 for a cheaper one, offical are about £30-40

Flash - No idea on this.
Click to expand...

I would get a Canon or Nikon personally, the Sony seems like a great camera but you seem to pay a premium on lenses (and there's less choice).
 
Cheers for the feedback so far, I understand the argument for the other makes but all things considered I don't mind paying the extra for the Sony and beleive that in the future the premium that the lenses demand will be reduced as supply increases!
 
I've had a Sony A100 since October last year. The 18-70 kit lens it came with is by all accounts quite decent compared to other cameras bundled kit lenses. I got a Sigma 55-200 zoom not long after which cost £65 and with decent light those two lenses were adequate for the first couple of months while I was getting the hang of it. I subsequently bought three Minolta lenses of ebay, a 50mm F1.7 prime, 70-210mm F4 beercan, and a 135mm F2.8 prime. Cost was £50, £70 and £100 respectively. These lenses are a big improvement on my initial kit and zoom setup. I have had plenty of fun with these. The only thing missing is a wide angle but the Sigma 10-20 is available for the Sonly mount. Over the last month with all the new Sony models coming out I've considered upgrading. I bit the bullet last week and ordered an A700 since there are some cashback deals on at the moment. I bought the A700 body only for £699 including £100 cashback. Recieved it yesterday but not had much time to play. Part of the idea behind the upgrade was so I could give the A100 to my girlfriend, so I bought another beercan and a 50mm F1.4 on ebay last week so we should have enough lenses between us! Basically there are plenty of second hand lenses for the Sony and as you say prices may start to come down once they increase their market share. I have not had a play with the Nikons or Canons of this world but I know I am more was happy with my Sony A100.
 
I would strongly recommend looking at the Canon and Nikon camera/lens systems, with regards to lenses (and cameras!) you really do have much more/better options with these guys.
 
yak.h'cir said:
I would strongly recommend looking at the Canon and Nikon camera/lens systems, with regards to lenses (and cameras!) you really do have much more/better options with these guys.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up by explaining what more / better options I could get?

My heart is set on a Sony as a dedicated fanboy. You may think this is narrow minded but I see it as knowing my mind!

From what I can glean the DSLR market is very close therefore the choice of manufacturer is a personal preference if you can ignore the financial aspects which on this occasion I can!
 
the A700 is a very nice camera (yes, I've got 1) - imo it's better than the EOS 40D but not quite as good as the Nikon D300 (although there's not a lot in it) albeit that's substantially dearer.
Precise choice realy comes down to personal preferences in handling & features as they all produce pretty similar output.

Back to your choice:
I would say that unless you get an exceptional deal rule out the a100 - it's not bad at all but it's been improved on & replaced.
The A300 is basically the A200 plus movable Liveview but for some reason Sony UK don't seem to be carrying it but skipping up to the A350 which is essentially the A200 plus LiveView plus a 14.2MP sensor instead of the 10.2MP in the A200.
I would say that you would make your choice based on your desire for Live view or not rather than sensor.

As for whether the best deal is to get body only or with a lens/dual lens kit it's hard to say without knowing what type of photography that you think that you will be doing & of course budget ;).

re. lenses - yes, there is less choice new than for CaNikon but unless you have some esoteric need you will find something that suits & Sony seem to be building the system quite quickly atm.
Sigma & Tamron both support the Minolta/Sony mount too just leaving Tokina as the other main 3rd party lens maker who currently don't.

http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp is a good site for Minolta/Sony users if you want to get some feedback from someone that already has 1.
 
Last edited:
Hey wonder lander, maybe when you get your Sony us three can stage a coup d'eta of the photography forum, they don't like it up em :)
 
If you really want to go for Sony, then go for it, you've got access to 20+ years of minolta mount lenses in a thriving used market

One excellent advantage is Image stabilisation no matter what lens you use, and therefore IS where canon and nikon don't have an equivalent 'in lens' (notably primes)

I don't know much about the new alphas but the a100 does not give as good results as its main direct competitor at ISO-800 / ISO-1600

There are also not a great deal of USM lenses

However it's a decent system just now and things will undoubtedly move forward even more when their full frame body arrives

For lenses go with the kit lens and the 50mm 1.7 just now, if you need more reach look for something in the 70-300mm range

(I'm a Canon user by the way for the record :))
 
wonder_lander said:
Can you back that up by explaining what more / better options I could get?

My heart is set on a Sony as a dedicated fanboy. You may think this is narrow minded but I see it as knowing my mind!

From what I can glean the DSLR market is very close therefore the choice of manufacturer is a personal preference if you can ignore the financial aspects which on this occasion I can!
Click to expand...

There isn't anyone thing that I can point at that would show without a doubt that Canon/Nikon have a better system. I just know from my experience + reading over the years that these companies make the very best SLR systems. Now if you're 100% set on the sony SLR then go for it. I'm sure their cameras are perfectly good to use and are quite capable. But the consideration you should have is that with these types of cameras you are not just buying a camera, you're buying into a system.

Whatever you spend on a camera it will most likely pale into insignificance when compared to the amount you spend on lenses. Therefore in the future should you want to move to Canon etc it would be extremely expensive. This is the reason why I would suggest you really look at all the brands as well as the Sony. Goto a shop and try them out, have a play with a Canon 40d/450d and see how it compares to the Sony. Check out the lens you think you might be interested in and read some reviews about them. Make an informed decision rather then just sticking with the same brand you usually buy.

That's my advice anyway :)
 
Tis interesting to note that the sensor in the Nikon D300 is the same sony sensor in the A700 and the D60 sensor is the same sony sensor in the A200.

As mentioned, lots of Minolta lens around in the 2nd hand market, plus many moons ago the Dynax Slr's were cracking bits of kit.
 
Thanks for all the comments and feedback.

Budget isn't really set but I'm looking for a good starter so will stretch to whatever that entails. Just at this stage I can't justify the stretch to the A700 body plus lenses.

I'd be looking at all aspects of photography from nature, landscapes, buildings, motorsport, potrait etc so could really do with a setup that cover all these to certain extents although I appreciate that this may be a compromise!
 
Bubo said:
I've had a Sony A100 since October last year. The 18-70 kit lens it came with is by all accounts quite decent compared to other cameras bundled kit lenses. I got a Sigma 55-200 zoom not long after which cost £65 and with decent light those two lenses were adequate for the first couple of months while I was getting the hang of it. I subsequently bought three Minolta lenses of ebay, a 50mm F1.7 prime, 70-210mm F4 beercan, and a 135mm F2.8 prime. Cost was £50, £70 and £100 respectively. These lenses are a big improvement on my initial kit and zoom setup. I have had plenty of fun with these. The only thing missing is a wide angle but the Sigma 10-20 is available for the Sonly mount. Over the last month with all the new Sony models coming out I've considered upgrading. I bit the bullet last week and ordered an A700 since there are some cashback deals on at the moment. I bought the A700 body only for £699 including £100 cashback. Recieved it yesterday but not had much time to play. Part of the idea behind the upgrade was so I could give the A100 to my girlfriend, so I bought another beercan and a 50mm F1.4 on ebay last week so we should have enough lenses between us! Basically there are plenty of second hand lenses for the Sony and as you say prices may start to come down once they increase their market share. I have not had a play with the Nikons or Canons of this world but I know I am more was happy with my Sony A100.
Click to expand...


How's the A700 going?
 
Its going alright mate. I know I'm certainly not pushing it to anywhere near what it is capable of though. That's because with me though its just a side hobby. Up to now I haven't gone out of my way to go on expeditions on my own to far off places or spend ages waiting for that special shot like some of the guys on here do, and as such I know that all things being equal I would still have been perfectly happy with my A100 for the quality it gave with the sort of stuff I like to photograph. But as I said above I really wanted my girlfriend to have it and the A700 purchase was more a case of "why the hell not?" so I don't regret buying it one bit. In terms of the differences between the two, the main one is the high iso quality, for high iso shots the A700 is significantly better than the A100. In good light however you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between an A100 shot and a A700 shot aside from the increase in resolution, assuming the same lens was used. Having said that I know that the A200-350 range are supposed to be better than the A100 noisewise anyway. If I were you I'd go and demo the various cameras.
 
wonder_lander said:
Budget isn't really set but I'm looking for a good starter so will stretch to whatever that entails. Just at this stage I can't justify the stretch to the A700 body plus lenses.

I'd be looking at all aspects of photography from nature, landscapes, buildings, motorsport, potrait etc so could really do with a setup that cover all these to certain extents although I appreciate that this may be a compromise!
Click to expand...
you can get an A200 plus the kit 18-70mm for ~£330 & I think that for your motorsport the improved AF speed over the A100 would be useful & obviously would leave more budget for other lens(es) than the A350 which will run you ~£480.
But get to a shop & handle them all & see what you think.
 
wonder lander, please visit a shop & see how important liveview is to you (& specifically Sony's implementation as it's different from CaNikon & in some ways it's better & in others worse).
For me & my usage I could do without it but it may be just what you want.

There is an A200 twin lens kit with the 18-70mm & 75-300mm which you can get for £500 if you look.
Now these are typical kit lenses in that they are adequate rather than brilliant - however, your budget doesn't atm stretch to doing everything well but these would give you a good coverage as I would think that you need 300mm for motorsport.
Or you could buy the body & kit 18-70 (~£340) & choose another tele zoom (either new or sh) from someone like Sigma or Tamron with the rest.
Also allow for things like a bag, cleaning kit & some compact flash plus a tripod & flash if you think that you need them right away.

With the A350 there seems to be a kit with the 18-70mm & the 55-200mm which can come in under £700.
Now that doesn't give you as much reach as the 75-300mm but the 55-200mm performs above it's price level in image quality.
& at least 1 retailer does the A350 with the 18-250mm for under £700 - it's a very good walkaround lens (much better than the older 18-200mm, don't buy that) but does so at it's price level by not being a "fast" lens in terms of max. aperture.


In the consumer marketplace there are more than enough available lenses to satisfy enthusiasts let alone the average person.
Yes, there are areas where there are gaps (also true of Canikon albeit not so much) but Sony are adding at a rapid rate (something like another 5 lenses expected this year) as are both Sigma & Tamron.
The 2 weak areas atm are in things like T&S/PC & ultra tele primes but those are for professionals or very well heeled individuals (& I would stake money on the old Minolta ultra tele primes being reintroduced or replaced in improved form with SSM).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom