Anyone have the new Sony Alpha DSLR yet?
If so, what do you think of it? Have any demo pictures to show us?
If so, what do you think of it? Have any demo pictures to show us?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sony Alpha
- Thread starter Glenn Wolsey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Check out the link in this thread....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/224555/
The new Nikon D80 seems to be a bit better in comparison.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/224555/
The new Nikon D80 seems to be a bit better in comparison.
I get to play with it at work. If you know how to use the Konica Minolta cameras (especially the KM 5D), you know how to use the Alpha.
I'll try to get some test shots of the Water Tower, in Chicago, tomorrow.
I'll try to get some test shots of the Water Tower, in Chicago, tomorrow.
From what I've seen, the Nikon D80 is a MUCH better camera for the money, when you take into consideration the availability of lenses and such. The D80 does much better at 1600 ISO and above than the Sony. If I were in the market for a new camera, I'd wait until the D80 is on dealer shelves, have a look and a play with it before plunking down money for any camera.
yea the d80 does have better high iso performance and more lenses but the sony is a lot of camera for your money, super steady shot and in camera anti dust systems do it for me, and once the carl zeiss lenses are out then it will have a wicked set of lenses!
True. I don't think the lack of lenses for Sony's mount will last for long, and those other features it has are fantastic. However, I'd get the D80 simply because the noise from the Alpha would drive me nuts.
I think this probably comes down to each to there own.
In reality all the cameras in this price range are not that different its just personal choice of which feature set!
In reality all the cameras in this price range are not that different its just personal choice of which feature set!
check out http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1037
they have also a very good detailed review on this site.
but be careful:
lot's of people there who say the sony has too much noise. it's in every single thread. reality is the sony has more noise than the canon. that was expected. it depends how often you use iso 800 and up.
my experience is it's a great camera with a complete set of functions for the beginner and moderate hobbyist. the price is great. good package overall. no problems yet.
if you need special features like extra low noise at high iso then go canon. if you need more than 3 fps then buy an expensive nikon or canon. if you need a good average package go for the sony. but keep in mind that you spend most of the money in lenses. and it's not clear if sony will be in the market for very long and reach the number of lenses available to nikon or canon.
they have also a very good detailed review on this site.
but be careful:
lot's of people there who say the sony has too much noise. it's in every single thread. reality is the sony has more noise than the canon. that was expected. it depends how often you use iso 800 and up.
my experience is it's a great camera with a complete set of functions for the beginner and moderate hobbyist. the price is great. good package overall. no problems yet.
if you need special features like extra low noise at high iso then go canon. if you need more than 3 fps then buy an expensive nikon or canon. if you need a good average package go for the sony. but keep in mind that you spend most of the money in lenses. and it's not clear if sony will be in the market for very long and reach the number of lenses available to nikon or canon.
the things I don't like about the new SONY:
1) No dedicated ISO and WB buttons
2) Low sync speed (1/160)
3) No secondary LCD
4) High noise levels
5) The metering apparently "flips out" when you have a brighter section in the pic, underexposing everything.
These are really details that may or may not bother the rest, I think it is a nice camera for the price, but I won't pass judgement until I handle one.
1) No dedicated ISO and WB buttons
2) Low sync speed (1/160)
3) No secondary LCD
4) High noise levels
5) The metering apparently "flips out" when you have a brighter section in the pic, underexposing everything.
These are really details that may or may not bother the rest, I think it is a nice camera for the price, but I won't pass judgement until I handle one.
maxi said:
that seems to be the consensus among most people at the various forums. i agree with most of them. although i would put the noise as most important problem at number 1. i haven't experienced the metering problem though.
there seem to be also a few revision a problems like problems with the flash, software errors and so. apparently i was lucky and didn't have any problems yet.
if sony want's to compete in the long run they will have to adress all these points in the next model because canon and nikon are not sleeping. they will improve and sony has to catch up with their pro models.
sony has to be even better to convince people to choose a new unproven company in the dslr field.
Steady Shot
I own an alpha and love it. I take my pictures during the day, outside, and the big complaint about noise with iso 800 makes me chuckle. Those are not the shots I take.
What I absolutely love about the alpha is the steady shot mode. It is built into the camera, you don't need special lenses for it. Each and every lens works. It enables me to hand hold and get candids I never could before.
Nor am I concerned about the lack of Sony lenses. There is a wealth of Minolta lenses that work on it and are currently on e-bay cheap because of Minolta pulling out.
Finally, 10 megapixels is hard to beat if you want high resolution photos. Again, that goes back to my roots of taking portraits outdoors.
The alpha is very much worth a look if you are looking for a moderately priced DSLR that takes works with you to take outstanding pictures. IMHO
I own an alpha and love it. I take my pictures during the day, outside, and the big complaint about noise with iso 800 makes me chuckle. Those are not the shots I take.
What I absolutely love about the alpha is the steady shot mode. It is built into the camera, you don't need special lenses for it. Each and every lens works. It enables me to hand hold and get candids I never could before.
Nor am I concerned about the lack of Sony lenses. There is a wealth of Minolta lenses that work on it and are currently on e-bay cheap because of Minolta pulling out.
Finally, 10 megapixels is hard to beat if you want high resolution photos. Again, that goes back to my roots of taking portraits outdoors.
The alpha is very much worth a look if you are looking for a moderately priced DSLR that takes works with you to take outstanding pictures. IMHO
Sony good bang
I absolutely agree with G5. Personally, I think if you're going to shoot at that high of an ISO, you should shoot film, cuz it's not ugly. Digital will never look as good as film in regards to grain quality. So, if you're serious with photography carry a digi and a film. ****, carry a medium format and a digi. Plus, I think 1/160th is plenty for sync speed, and I don't have to spend a crap load of money for each lenses to get image stablization. Under much care and thought, I ended up buying a Sony Alpha yesterday. I was going to buy a 20D but my camera guy sold all of them, and I couldn't afford the 30d. When my camera guy told me the ef-s lenses don't work with the full-frame CANONs I realized there isn't really a point to buying a 20D as a starter. It'll be expensive whichever system I start withif I were to upgrade. I think Sony's in it for the long haul, and sure, Sony isn't doing full-frame, but so what? It's 10MP and cheaper, plus you have the Zeiss lenses. They're expensive, but only a couple hundred bucks cheaper then Canon L lenses, which sold top dollar used on E-bay. With Sony I can buy high quality Minolta lens comparatively cheaper than Canon IS and L lenses. I don't know...I'm wasted right now.
I absolutely agree with G5. Personally, I think if you're going to shoot at that high of an ISO, you should shoot film, cuz it's not ugly. Digital will never look as good as film in regards to grain quality. So, if you're serious with photography carry a digi and a film. ****, carry a medium format and a digi. Plus, I think 1/160th is plenty for sync speed, and I don't have to spend a crap load of money for each lenses to get image stablization. Under much care and thought, I ended up buying a Sony Alpha yesterday. I was going to buy a 20D but my camera guy sold all of them, and I couldn't afford the 30d. When my camera guy told me the ef-s lenses don't work with the full-frame CANONs I realized there isn't really a point to buying a 20D as a starter. It'll be expensive whichever system I start withif I were to upgrade. I think Sony's in it for the long haul, and sure, Sony isn't doing full-frame, but so what? It's 10MP and cheaper, plus you have the Zeiss lenses. They're expensive, but only a couple hundred bucks cheaper then Canon L lenses, which sold top dollar used on E-bay. With Sony I can buy high quality Minolta lens comparatively cheaper than Canon IS and L lenses. I don't know...I'm wasted right now.
superfiend said:
Try shooting fill flash outdoors with a sync speed of 1/160th.
I'm confused about your 20D though. You are upset that EF-S lenses don't work on 35mm frame cameras and then you turn around and say that you don't care about the 35mm frame. So why does it matter that EF-S lenses don't mount?