Sony Alpha....

Stacey.PenderUK

Stacey.PenderUK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
103
Name
Stacey Pender
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys, Just a quick question as I am always seeing Canon and Nikon banded around and as yet no one has mentioned having a Sony Alpha?!

So the question.........

Does any one have a Sony Alpha?! :D Lol

When buying my Sony (say "Buy" I mean I told he got!! :lol:) I chose it over any others around at the time (And I researched Lots!) and havent found it a let down but am interested as to how others have found it?

I am interested in any other comments of course!



Thank you in Advance!!!!!



[S1]Team Sony![/S1]
 
I never even considered the Sony range when i got mine, have read some good things about the latest one and of course Nikon use Sony sensors in their new models and give awesome results!

I guess its not that i havent heard anything good or bad, just that ive heard nothing really about them and never known anyone who owns/ed a Sony SLR!

the main thing is that it makes you happy, which it does, so job done!

:thumbs:

Got any pics we can have a peep at?
 
Of the camera?? lol = )
 
i got one when i first came over to digital as i had a minolta wet film set up. I did the swap to canon as i found there was a lot of noise in any images over 200asa. The auto focus wasn't great (especially for moving targets) and a lot of the functions that you're regularly looking to alter quickly when using more on the manual side are quite fiddly to get to. There were loads of really nice features like the anti shake system and the sensor cleaning system, but just too awkward to use IMHO.

I've been very pleased that I swapped. that said, minolta lenses were always stunning and there's more non minolta/sony lenses available now. Reading the reviews on the new model, it seems that they've sorted the noise problem out but now it's up price wise with some of the big hitters so it would need to be very good!

If it's working for you then relax and be happy! If you're finding the limitations with it then my advice is go for one of the others sooner rather than later and gradually build your kit up over time.
 
I'v heard they are quite good, but Sony are fairly new to the whole DSLR market, only been in it for a few years. The first Sony DSLR, the α100 was annoucned in 2005 and sold in 2006 and the α700 came out within the last 4 months or so.

Plus the range of accessories and lenses for Canon and Nikon is so much bigger than on a Sony DSLR.
 
Hanger3.jpg

DSC00541.jpg

DSC00439.jpg

DSC00409.jpg

DSC00458.jpg


A few- And yes any A mount Minolta lenses fit the camera, I think any doubts I may have or get some times is through the fact that the majority of users are Nikon, Canon etc and are very much hyped up (rightly so im sure)Feel free to comment on the images....Ta!Stacey
 
I liked the sony that I had a chance to use. The image quality was really good, the onboard stabiliser was impressive and the menus/controls made alot of sense once I started to actually use it.

The AF is on the slow side but that was the only thing I could possibly pick at.

Compared to the canons and nikons I've handled in the same price bracket, the sony felt better put together too. :)
 
Thanks all for your comments- I felt a bit overwhelmed at first with the controls but have started to use the camera in RAW and have found myself so much more at ease with them by taking that little more time and thought, I enjoy using it and as many of you have pointed out is the most important thing!!
 
I bought the A100 last year and was delighted with it and I have just bought the A700. Must say, I've never had any problems with images over 200 ISO myself.

As far as lenses are concerned, there are a number of Sony lenses available and the range is growing quite quickly. As well as the minolta lenses, there are also the Tamron and Sigma ranges, so there are a fair few out there. Also, with Image Stabilisation in the Alpha bodies, you don't have to spend extra cash on the lenses as you do with Nikon and Canon.

Having said that, Nikon and Canon are at the top for a good reason. They have been doing it for a very long time and are very good at it. But that doesn't mean they will be up there forever. The advent of digital has brought the Electronics giants (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung...) into the market, so future competition will be fierce, and that can only be good for the consumer IMVHO! ;)
 
A fellow photographer to join team Sony!!! lolDelighted is a good term.... I agree- How is the A700?- I just got my A100 in June and my bf ran when i mentioned the A700!!!! I just started going into RAW and complete manual recently so am enjoying it even more!Stacey = )
 
I'm still getting used to the A700, but I'm loving it so far. The A100 is a reworked Minolta Dynax 5D, whereas the A700 is pure Sony!

The build quality is superb and, for me anyway, the buttons, dials and screen are extremely well laid out and very intuitive.

Glad to see you're getting into RAW, it does give you so much more control in post processing, especially if you want to change the White Balance. It's also amazing how much more you can do when you use it on Manual settings. I use Aperture priority a lot as I tend to shoot moving things and it gets difficult to adjust the shutter speed constantly.
 
I have a Minolta 7D and have recently upgraded to the A700. I loved the fact that old Minolta lenses were available which were optically very good for the 2nd hand price. The "Beercan", a 70-200 F4 is a great piece of glass which can be picked up for £100-150 and, I don't think could be matched by anything in the price range from Canon or Nikon, particularly as the anti-shake in the body effective makes it an IS lens. Even the Nifty Fifty is a 1.7 rather than a 1.8.

As I have upgraded my kit, however, I have seen some downside in the higher end stuff, the Sony 70-200 2.8 G is £1800 in the UK which is just ridiculous when you consider that you could get the equivalent Canon and a 40D for that price. I almost switched brands but ended up buying that lens in the US for nearly half the price. I guess I'm now committed to the Alpha mount but I'm pretty happy with that...

family650.jpg
 
Yes, the Sony lenses do come up a bit pricey. I paid £279 for the 50mm f1.4 compared to £223 for the Canon and £189 for the Nikon equivalents (Warehouse Express prices). That's why I think that Tamron and Sigma are a good bet at the moment.

I can only hope that, if Sony genuinely wish to compete the the big guns, their lens prices will come down in the near future.

That's a gorgeous picture BTW!:thumbs:
 
I've got a KM 5D but to be honest I wish I'd bought the Nikon D50. At the time it was a choice between the 5D, the D50 or the 300D. The 300D was too small and the D50 didn't have as many AF points as the 5D or the in built IS. So why do I wish I'd bought the Nikon.

Despite the number of old minolta lenses around there's always more Canon and Nikon lenses around and the fact that there's fewer Minolta lenses means they hold their value ridiculously in many cases, add that to the fact that Sony lenses are over priced and that the mount isn't fully supported by any of the third party manufacturers (eg Sigma and Tamron despite the fact that Sony own a large stake of Tamron) gives me an overall felling of poor options and high prices compared to C&N.

In the last 6-12 months I've started to find the limits with my 5D which had made me look at my options and tbh I can't see many reasons for sticking with the A-mount given my current equipment list.

What really puts the nail in the coffin for me is the reports of back and front focus issues with the A700, something which seems to have plauged most KM/Sony models at some point. Perhaps it's because I only hear of them on the Dyxum forum but I've never read on here or the other two forums I've used which aren't dedicated to a particular make about Canon or Nikon cameras having BF/FF issues.

Having said all that i've used my camera once since october so unless I find something to get me motivated all this is hypothetical and I won't be buying another camera of anymount.

Kev
 
RAW files? Same as most other people, Lightroom or Photoshop.

The focus issues aren't just a glass prblem they're a body problem too. By using a test chart you autofocus on a certain referance point and with certain examples the actual picture will be in focus either in front or behing the intended focus point. You can have a body calibrated (moving the sensor on the 3 way axis to which it is mounted) to a particular lens but it may have the effect of increasing the problem with other lenses which is why it is a combination of lens and body problems. I guess it comes down to quality control.
 
The focusing issues aren't on every camera they make but it does seem to affect quite a few.

As for Sigma and Tamron, take a look at their website or the Warehouse Express one and you'll see that quite a few of their lenses aren't available in the A-Mount (to be fair quite a few of those aren't available to Pentax or Olympus either but it highlights how different their support is for the big two). Sigma have publicly stated that they won't do more until they're satisfied that Sony are a long term player and they've increased their market share. They also won't add the HSM motor to A-Mount lenses for faster focusing either.
 
NOt until Sony start making big inroads into the market and personally I don't think that will happen until they address their pricing. Sony can't rely on the Minolta legacy people forever, they need new blood and if people took the time to evaluate complete systems they'd realise that Sony is considerably more expensive than Canon and Nikon when it comes to lenses and accessories, that needs to be addressed if they're to attract new blod and take some of the market share.

Atleast now there's signs they're in it for the long run with the full frame model already previewed and talk of the A100 replacement due some time this year. Support from Sigmas support though seems to be dependant on market share though and not on commitment to the market, if the latter were the case they'd be better supporting Pentax and Olympusmounts than they are.
 
The Alpha 100/200/700 with a Sigma 28-70 2.8, a Sigma 10-20mm, a Minolta 1.7 50mm and a Minolta 70-210 F4 (Beercan) is a fantastic setup and compares very well in terms of price and quality to anything Nikon or Canon can provide, particularly bearing in mind all the lenses are effectively IS.

If you want new fast Sony lenses, that's where Sony become uncompetitive.
 
But people are build very good systems using the Sony bodies along with the 3rd party lenses. There are only one or two Tamron lenses and a handful of Sigmas which are not yet compatible so this is a wealth of choice out there when it comes to lenses.

It's only a matter of time until Sony cotton on and prices will come down.
 
SW4peter said:
If you want new fast Sony lenses, that's where Sony become uncompetitive.
Click to expand...

Or Sigma or Tamron. No 50-150/70-200/300mm 2.8 in the Sony mount. Explains why 2nd hand prices are so ridiculous.
 
Kev M said:
I've got a KM 5D but to be honest I wish I'd bought the Nikon D50. At the time it was a choice between the 5D, the D50 or the 300D. The 300D was too small and the D50 didn't have as many AF points as the 5D or the in built IS. So why do I wish I'd bought the Nikon.

Despite the number of old minolta lenses around there's always more Canon and Nikon lenses around and the fact that there's fewer Minolta lenses means they hold their value ridiculously in many cases, add that to the fact that Sony lenses are over priced and that the mount isn't fully supported by any of the third party manufacturers (eg Sigma and Tamron despite the fact that Sony own a large stake of Tamron) gives me an overall felling of poor options and high prices compared to C&N.

In the last 6-12 months I've started to find the limits with my 5D which had made me look at my options and tbh I can't see many reasons for sticking with the A-mount given my current equipment list.

What really puts the nail in the coffin for me is the reports of back and front focus issues with the A700, something which seems to have plauged most KM/Sony models at some point. Perhaps it's because I only hear of them on the Dyxum forum but I've never read on here or the other two forums I've used which aren't dedicated to a particular make about Canon or Nikon cameras having BF/FF issues.

Having said all that i've used my camera once since october so unless I find something to get me motivated all this is hypothetical and I won't be buying another camera of anymount.

Kev
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I dont get the point of this reply... :thinking:Kev have you used/own a Sony A100/A200/A700 or not as far as I'm aware the KM brand no longer exists and is not therefore a current Sony model? I have had a KM Dynax 7000i from new and found it a fantastic camera although the past few years it is stuck at the back of my cupboard gathering dust. I also think that replys of "My Nikon/Canon has more equipment than yours, so it's better" are not really useful or relevant.:thumbsdown: As for the focusing issues I only use my A100 as an enthusiastic user but have never found this to be a problem (even when taking shots of a low flying Spitfire at around 200mph on a hillside in Kent or a Dragonfly using my 75-300 Sigma Lens). No doubt those with professional Nikon/Canon Cameras being used in a professional manner would expect more than the Sony can give, but that doesn't make it a bad camera...does it? At the end of the day the Nikon/Canon brands will always be looked at as a better bet if you need or have the cash to expand your kit. But if you are looking for an alternative that can produce good resuts the Sony's are worth a look. If you have that "Camera Eye" and natural talent for seeing a good shot the camera and kit you own won't make that much of a difference anyway?

.... Back to the original point. I do have a Sony A100 :thumbs:and I am very happy with it. When looking at others in its price point I found that for me the build quality was far better (and i'm am not knocking the Canon/Nikon's in this area but they have a very light and cheap plastic feel D40/50 & 350/400). From the pics posted I think the Sony is doing very well. My only gripe is that all the independant Camera shops in my area fail to stock any Sony/A mount lenses etc.:bang: So I will have to rely on ordering stuff without being able to try it out. If Sony wish to compete in this market they need to get geared up for this in their Sony shops. In terms of the layout of the menus and functions I think the Sony is very well laid out the only problem here is my old brain forgetting where the things are as I don't get a chance to use it as much as I'd like.

Stacey I very much like the b&w image and wondered if you could let me know the lens you used. I am currently looking to get another lens for my A100 but am torn between a Wide angle (almost fisheye). a true macro (sigma 105mm f2.8 macro) or the 17-70mm f2.8 macro (my fave at the moment as I think this may give the best in terms of flexibilty) but confused by the techie bits on this lens as it seems to have better macro specs than the 105mm.

[S1]Team Sony[/S1]
 
I have a Sony a100 and love it! I have a few issues with high iso levels noise and all but nothing im too bothered about at the moment.
I really think the best thing about the camera is the compatability with minolta lens which are brilliant! I have picked up a 70-210 zoom and F1.7 prime lens in perfect condition with cost me £50 a piece inc postage off ebay! They both talk brilliant shots. Being a poor student I cant afford to spend any cash on lens' so this has been a major bonus for me.
 
The only issue I have with my A100 is noise. I do think that they produce more noise than it should, even at ISO100. Sometimes very noticeable on a crop of a shot - even at something small like 20% or so.
 
RAW for me and use Lightroom to process and organise photos. The DRO option on the A700 makes JPEGs a lot more usable in my opinion. Here is a test I did shortly after getting the new body.

By the way, there have been some comments on noise on the A100, this is no longer a problem on the A700, I have been very impressed with the low noise up to ISO 800 and the noise above that ISO is, if it makes any sense, far more film like than other cameras I have used.
 
I was an early adopter. Having regained my interest in photography with a bridge camera I wanted to upgrade to a DSLR. My 35mm is a manual focus Contax, so I had no system tie-in.
At the time I was looking the A100 was not yet released but a friend in the trade gave me the heads up. I have little faith in Sony but knowing it was actually a Minolta made it a viable option.
I tried all of the other manufacturers offerings, canned the idea of the 350D which I'd initialy intended to buy because it is made for girly hands and mine just swamped it. I considered Nikon but at the time I would have had to spend D200 money to get close to the spec of the A100. Because I got the drop on most other early adopters I was able to buy a good back catalogue of lenses on eBay before the prices took off.

The camera has been reliable and well made. The image quality has been very good. I much prefer the output to that of my friends D70's and 350D's.
The focus can be slow and erratic at times, mainly in poor light with certain lenses although overall I think it is not as good as some of the others in it's class.
The noise issue is real but I have to say it should be kept in context. I have no real problems with well exposed images at any iso setting. The problems with iso >400 and in some cases >200 are mainly due to underexposure. I believe that Sony deliberately designed the A100 to underexpose slightly because the image processor is so good at recording detail in shadows. This way they could effectively extend the dynamic range. But when you start amplifying the limited information recorded in the darker regions you generate noise. By setting a little EV+ the noise can be considerably reduced. I believe that the latest firmware update actualy does this, having effectively recalibrated the exposure but I still have to check the histogram and adjust occasionaly.
The results are still a little noisier than the competition but from comparisons I've made pixel peeping at full res there is more detail there too. I was initially annoyed at having to fork out extra for Neat Image but the net results are pretty good. Better than the water colour effects I've seen from some of the alternatives.

But here's the rub. At this moment if I was asked to recommend a Sony DSLR I would have to decline. As has already been mention in earlier posts, Sony's lens pricing is pure kookoo land. The major selling point of in body IS is almost totally negated by the fact that you can buy a stabilised CaNikon lens for less than the equivelent unstabilised lens from Sony. The Sonolta lenses are optically very good but not better than the competition, so this premium is unjustifyable. The only reason I can envisage for this premium is that the rumours of supply issues are true (allegedly there is one man hand building the 70-200ssm lens at the rate of one a day). The ludicrous price would help to keep demand at a minimum but it has also bumped the s/h prices up to ridiculous levels.

I would like to upgrade to the A700 or the proposed A900 this year but unless I see a significant drop in the new lens prices I'll be switching to another system. Fortunately my lenses are now all worth twice what I paid for them, even the ones I bought NEW!! So this is actually financially viable.
 
I am now using RAW as and when (very little) I can get out and about!

Hammerhead It was the standard lens 18-70mm Lens- Tis about all my kit extends to atm = ( Unfortunately this also means that I cannot comment on any of the lenses mentioned in ur post......Please give me a PM or something let me know what you went for!

Russbates what buyer did you get them from? would be interesting to have a look and always feel better with a recomendation!!!

Ta!

Stacey x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top