Sony Alpha DSLR-A100

luke_church

Preview at DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/

At least it seems that Sony want to do the job properly, and are attempting a serious entrance into the market:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp

Sounds like an everybody win situation to me.

Competition is good, and the mathmo in me is always keen in anything with a greek letter.

The anti-dust solution looks vaguely cool as well, with any luck it will actually work.

Just a FYI. :

Luke

ziggy53

luke_church wrote:

Preview at DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/

At least it seems that Sony want to do the job properly, and are attempting a serious entrance into the market:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp

Sounds like an everybody win situation to me.

Competition is good, and the mathmo in me is always keen in anything with a greek letter.

The anti-dust solution looks vaguely cool as well, with any luck it will actually work.

Just a FYI. :

Luke

Thanks Luke,

This is the first comprehensive glimpse of what the name "Alpha" will mean regarding a Sony dSLR camera. I'm anxious to see what the reviewers think about hi-ISO quality, exposure accuracy, focus speed and accuracy, the quality of the lenses and the relative value of the system compared to Canon and Nikon.

Lots to come I'll bet.

Steve Cavigliano

Like Ziggy, I am waiting with bated breath to see how the Alpha tests out. The specs look very nice. I like the size, ergonomics, big LCD, AS/IS built-in, the self cleaning sensor concept (I'll believes it when I sees it...lol), eye activated focusing, 10mpxls and spot metering mode. Not too happy about the ISO1600 limit, 3fps, 6 continuous RAW frames, expensive flashes and if Phil's numbers are accurate, VERY expensive lenses :uhoh

Granted some are Zeiss lenses, but a Sony 300mm F2.8 for $6000 and Sony made 35mm F1.4 at $1400, sound quite over-priced

We shall see

Steve

ziggy53

Pssst,

It would appear that the new Sony Alpha 100 has the same exact max resolution (3872 x 2592) as the Nikon D200. Dare I think ...?

ziggy53

luke_church

ziggy53 wrote:

Pssst,

It would appear that the new Sony Alpha 100 has the same exact max resolution (3872 x 2592) as the Nikon D200. Dare I think ...?

ziggy53

As Sony make Nikon's sensors, and CCD/CMOS fabrication plants are incredibly expensive to setup.....

Yes, I think you may dare

cmason

luke_church wrote:

As Sony make Nikon's sensors, and CCD/CMOS fabrication plants are incredibly expensive to setup.....

Yes, I think you may dare

From the DPReview:

Interestingly Sony has gone for CCD rather than CMOS with this camera, so it's not the same sensor as used in the DSC-R1. We've no official confirmation but it seems likely that this is the same 23.6 x 15.8 mm CCD used in the Nikon D200.

marlof

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

self cleaning sensor concept (I'll believes it when I sees it...lol)

That's what I thought about the SSWF sensor cleaning in my Olympus. Then again: I've changed tons of lenses, and only once saw dust bunnies in three pictures, which were gone in the pictures since then since the SSWF procedure was started since then. I have not cleaned my sensor in one year of DSLR usage. I wouldn't even know how to do it.

liquidsquid

Being an R1 owner, and my dad having a lot of Minolta lenses, this is great news to me! I love Sony's intuitive ease of use on thier products. We shall see how the reviews pan out.

marlinspike

I really like it. As I was saying to my bro, if I didn't shoot sports, I'd buy that and use that. I think that is the best camera out there for 75-85% of people out there who would call themselves consumer or prosumer. For high level sports, Canon is king, but if your biggest involvement in sports photography is taking pictures of your kid playing sports, then I think this is the camera I would recommend. Also, having a Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 has led me to assume those Zeiss lenses that are being made for that mount are "for teh win." I would be surprised if they beat L.

Harryb

marlinspike wrote:

I really like it. As I was saying to my bro, if I didn't shoot sports, I'd buy that and use that. I think that is the best camera out there for 75-85% of people out there who would call themselves consumer or prosumer. For high level sports, Canon is king, but if your biggest involvement in sports photography is taking pictures of your kid playing sports, then I think this is the camera I would recommend. Also, having a Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 has led me to assume those Zeiss lenses that are being made for that mount are "for teh win." I would be surprised if they beat L.

The specs look OK but I've seen many cameras come down the pike with great specs that didn't cut it in real life. There are still lots of questions to be answered such as: AF speed; noise levels at higher ISOs; color handling; metering; battery life; ergonomics; durability; RAW (Sony's RAW performance the R1 was abysmal); the quality and pricing of its lens line-up; etc.

Its looks good so far but we need more a lot more info before calling it "the best camera out there for 75-85% of the people".

marlinspike

Harryb wrote:

There are still lots of questions to be answered such as: AF speed; noise levels at higher ISOs; color handling; metering; battery life; ergonomics; durability; RAW (Sony's RAW performance the R1 was abysmal); the quality and pricing of its lens line-up; etc.

Does AF speed really matter if you aren't shooting sports? And the high iso noise honestly has all gotten so good that even if it isn't as good as a 20D, it's most likely good enough. Honestly everything has gotten so good, including the stuff that isn't good, that the main reasons I say thats the best are: IS in the body, anti-dust, zeiss lens support, ergonomics, reasonable price considering the market.

Harryb

marlinspike wrote:

Does AF speed really matter if you aren't shooting sports? And the high iso noise honestly has all gotten so good that even if it isn't as good as a 20D, it's most likely good enough. Honestly everything has gotten so good, including the stuff that isn't good, that the main reasons I say thats the best are: IS in the body, anti-dust, zeiss lens support, ergonomics, reasonable price considering the market.

AF speed matters beyond sports. Try shooting a two year old with a slow focusing camera. :cry ISO performance has been good on most cameras but not all. You have a few zeiss lenses available but not a whole line-up and probably there will be versions of these lenses available for other brands. The camera body's price is fine but what about its accesories such as lenses and flashes? The camera body is the smallest expense you have with a DSLR system. Also how strong is Sony's committment to the DSLR line? If they don't get the market impact they are looking for will they drop out of the race?

As I said the specs look fine and it will probably be a fine camera but lets wait for its release and some reviews before making any claims about it one way or the other.

marlinspike

Harryb wrote:

You have a few zeiss lenses available but not a whole line-up and probably there will be versions of these lenses available for other brands.

I doubt it. Zeiss seems to be making their compact by having agreements with specific companies. They've already indicated they don't want to deal with getting licensing from Canon for the EF mount, and they noted that they were asked by Nikon to start making the ZF line since Nikon was beginning on the path of phasing out manual focus lens production, and IIRC Sony asked them to build lenses for the mount.

I hear you on slow AF, but even a Rebel 300D is fast enough for that, and I doubt this will have any slower AF than a rebel. Finally, I doubt sony would ever drop out of dSLR. They got Minolta to have a jumping block, and they were making the sensors anyways. I guess youre right, we won't know until there is a production version...maybe this will get Canon off their duffs and they'll bring in body IS and antidust to the market.

gtc

accessories
Being an e-x Sony shooter i can say that they appear to make most of the cash from accessories-good quality but pricey-something to keep in mind

The features look pretty good though- internal IS and anti- dust are real advantage-this is where Sony shines-'innovative' cutting edge features.

I wish they would incorporate their proprietry laser focussing system for low light shots-very useful and accurate on my old Mavica 500.

I agree with Harry and lets see how it performs

the Zeiss lenses will of course be made in Japan but the quality control of Zeiss and Sony is first rate-the lenses will be Zeiss design and quality and thats something of a selling point.

Only up to 300mm though...

Harryb

marlinspike wrote:

I doubt it. Zeiss seems to be making their compact by having agreements with specific companies. They've already indicated they don't want to deal with getting licensing from Canon for the EF mount, and they noted that they were asked by Nikon to start making the ZF line since Nikon was beginning on the path of phasing out manual focus lens production, and IIRC Sony asked them to build lenses for the mount.

I hear you on slow AF, but even a Rebel 300D is fast enough for that, and I doubt this will have any slower AF than a rebel. Finally, I doubt sony would ever drop out of dSLR. They got Minolta to have a jumping block, and they were making the sensors anyways. I guess youre right, we won't know until there is a production version...maybe this will get Canon off their duffs and they'll bring in body IS and antidust to the market.

Minolta had Minolta for a jumping block and you saw what happened there.

Maybe its me but I'm I don't get all that excited about this anti-dust stuff. Dust on the sensor is so overblown that's it's funny. I've been shooting with a DSLR for around 5 years now and when the sensor gets a few dust bunnies it takes all of 5 minutes (at the most) to give it a swipe and you're back in business. In body IS is nice but all the tests show that the VR or IS on the lenses is usually more effective than the in body IS.

When choosing a camera its usually best to look at the basics: ergonomics; metering; AF speed and accuracy;color handling; noise; flash system; and lens system. Everything else is just window dressing to me, its nice but not essential.

marlinspike

Harryb wrote:

I've been shooting with a DSLR for around 5 years now and when the sensor gets a few dust bunnies it takes all of 5 minutes (at the most) to give it a swipe and you're back in business.

Usually 5 minutes for me too (actually like 1 minute), but I've let things go for a while and I just spent about 30 minutes and I still have some dust. I think I'm just gonna live with it.

luke_church

Harryb wrote:

Maybe its me but I'm I don't get all that excited about this anti-dust stuff. Dust on the sensor is so overblown that's it's funny.

But hey, it's a good way to sell cameras seemingly

Bit like direct-print features on DSLRs...

Or 72MP resolution on a P&S with a plastic lens that can only resolve 5MP, and the only way that you can get around the noise floor is by averaging clumps of 8 pixels together...

It's all about the marketting, and I have to admit, Sony's marketting for the A100 was fairly fancy. Not that I'll be buying it.

Luke

cmason

I am convinced that Sony will push the 'feature function" envelope in areas where they are really expert: consumer electronics. This will in turn make the others better as well.

Here is an example: (I want this on my Canon!!!)

Harryb

luke_church wrote:

But hey, it's a good way to sell cameras seemingly

Bit like direct-print features on DSLRs...

Or 72MP resolution on a P&S with a plastic lens that can only resolve 5MP, and the only way that you can get around the noise floor is by averaging clumps of 8 pixels together...

It's all about the marketting, and I have to admit, Sony's marketting for the A100 was fairly fancy. Not that I'll be buying it.

Luke

That's my biggest fear - feature lust. I'll keep on swabbing my dusty ole sensor if I can get lower noise at high ISOs, better WB, improved color rendition, faster AF performance, and improved ergonomics. They are pretty good now but there's room for improvement. Once they get that stuff handled then they go play with the bells and whistles all they want.

Then they can start puttering around with live preview, anti-shake, dust busting, making the camera a combined movie/still camera, MP3 player, telephone, and fax machine.

erich6

Yesterday I had a chance to stop by a Sony Style store and they had the Alpha available. I briefly put it through it's paces and was underwhelmed. It looks good on paper but I didn't like the feel of the camera. It feels cheap. The shutter seems sluggish and has a very plastic sound to it. I also didn't like the way the camera fit in my hands and the access to controls while shooting but then that's always a matter of who's doing the shooting.

Erich

JCDoss

CMason, that LCD feature that you're talking about has been a feature of Konica-Minolta cameras since the Maxxum 7 film camera in 2000 (or so). It's not new, and it's not Sony's innovation... it was Minolta's.

Isn't this Alpha-100 simply a rebadged KM Maxxum 5? If not, what did Sony actually do to the camera besides rename it?

ziggy53

JCDoss wrote:

CMason, that LCD feature that you're talking about has been a feature of Konica-Minolta cameras since the Maxxum 7 film camera in 2000 (or so). It's not new, and it's not Sony's innovation... it was Minolta's.

Isn't this Alpha-100 simply a rebadged KM Maxxum 5? If not, what did Sony actually do to the camera besides rename it?

I think the best comparison to the Sony Alpha 100 is the Minolta Maxxum 7D. By that standard, the Sony:

Is supposed to cost a bit less.
Has 10MPix versus 6MPix
Larger buffer
New processing engine
Loses the ISO3200
Less exposure compensation, +-2 EV vs +-3EV for the 7D
40 segment metering, vs 14 segment for the 7D
Higher resolution LCD display
Loses the "Extra Fine" JPG setting
Different battery

So some good stuff, but some negatives too.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=sony_dslra100%2Ckonicaminolta_7d&show=all

ziggy53

claudermilk

OK the larger buffer & expanded metering is the only good things I can see there. 10MP to 6MP is meaningless in most cases and a different processing engine doesn't mean much. Lower price is nice, but the cost of that seems prohibitive. All the rest seem to be chopping it off at the knees. Not that I was really looking, but losing ISO3200 is a deal-breaker right there. Overall that list really makes me wonder what they're thinking.

Forehead

If you're used to MORE, less sucks. But now if you're used to LESS, this camera would be MORE. Right now, I'm so used to (but enjoying less and less) the tiny-format 5MP sensor, slow write speed (in spite of my Lexar Pro 80X CF cards), paltry ISO 400 (although the ISO 50 setting's been handy for lightning shots but hey, ND filters can compensate for that), and soft scenery shots that are apparently peculiar to Nikon E5400 (that shot I posted yesterday of Sedona really doesn't do it any justice!). Of course, without true lens interchangability, settling for lens attachments that show obvious barrelling is also a MINUS anymore.

There are a few of us out there (like me) that are intrigued by this new Sony (I've earlier considered the DSC R1 but forget it now!), and can't really afford the 4-8 GRAND for those mega-pro models. So for those of us "on the grow", I think the Sony A100 would be a significant step forward (up) on the ever-steepening growth curve!

claudermilk wrote:

OK the larger buffer & expanded metering is the only good things I can see there. 10MP to 6MP is meaningless in most cases and a different processing engine doesn't mean much. Lower price is nice, but the cost of that seems prohibitive. All the rest seem to be chopping it off at the knees. Not that I was really looking, but losing ISO3200 is a deal-breaker right there. Overall that list really makes me wonder what they're thinking.

Forehead

Next week, I have two days of site (industrial water) samplings to do at Stanford University. I've got plotted on my Streets and Trips map for that area a Sony Style store a few miles away from there in Palo Alto. I'm finally gonna get my chance to try out the Sony cameras (I've given up going to Ritz--they NEVER have what I want)!

I have been warned, however, about the A100's plastic construction. If it feels too weak, or shows any hint that it could crack under the slightest pressure or impact (life--and its many accidents--does happen), I'm probably gonna have to shake my hands and walk away.

erich6 wrote:

Yesterday I had a chance to stop by a Sony Style store and they had the Alpha available. I briefly put it through it's paces and was underwhelmed. It looks good on paper but I didn't like the feel of the camera. It feels cheap. The shutter seems sluggish and has a very plastic sound to it. I also didn't like the way the camera fit in my hands and the access to controls while shooting but then that's always a matter of who's doing the shooting.

Erich

Forehead

I'll keep that in mind as I visit the Sony Style store in Palo Alto CA next week!

You might want to fix that leaking tire, there :lol

ziggy53 wrote:

Pssst,

It would appear that the new Sony Alpha 100 has the same exact max resolution (3872 x 2592) as the Nikon D200. Dare I think ...?

ziggy53

Forehead

No more expensive than an Intel FAB!

luke_church wrote:

As Sony make Nikon's sensors, and CCD/CMOS fabrication plants are incredibly expensive to setup.....

Yes, I think you may dare

Forehead

Licking the sensor and cleaning it with your t-shirt seems the way to do it :lol4

marlof wrote:

That's what I thought about the SSWF sensor cleaning in my Olympus. Then again: I've changed tons of lenses, and only once saw dust bunnies in three pictures, which were gone in the pictures since then since the SSWF procedure was started since then. I have not cleaned my sensor in one year of DSLR usage. I wouldn't even know how to do it.

Forehead

Say...how IS that R1 working out for you? Any regrets?

liquidsquid wrote:

Being an R1 owner, and my dad having a lot of Minolta lenses, this is great news to me! I love Sony's intuitive ease of use on thier products. We shall see how the reviews pan out.

Forehead

"Am I going MAD, or did the word THINK escape your lips?"

From WHAT movie?

ziggy53 wrote:

Pssst,

It would appear that the new Sony Alpha 100 has the same exact max resolution (3872 x 2592) as the Nikon D200. Dare I think ...?

ziggy53

ziggy53

Forehead wrote:

"Am I going MAD, or did the word THINK escape your lips?"

From WHAT movie?

You may be going "mad", but at least you'll never be me!

No idea about a movie, but we await your titillating (ziggy said titillating) description of the new Sony Alpha camera.

Thanks,

ziggy53