# Sony A100



## Chumpy (Aug 14, 2006)

Hi
I'm making a move into photography, with little experience in this hobby.

However, I want to buy something which would allow me to grow with the hobby.

I'm considering buying a Sony A100.

Does anyone have any view on this camera??

Which lenses does it take?? I hear it takes all Minolta lenses...??

Any opinions appreciated.


----------



## mkalcevic (Aug 14, 2006)

I'm in the same boat you are right now.  I'm also considering the alpha.  To me it looks really good.  all the features are there that I want and more.  It does take most of the minolta lenses, but if you're anything like me, by the time you can afford to pick up new lenses, there'll be a whole line specifically for this body.  For me the biggest selling point is having the IS built into the body.  I'm sure you'll hear plenty of views from others on here, as I have, but it comes down to what you want in the end.  look at my post in the equiptment forum.  there're a few different opinions in there, but mostly they're all saying buy what you want in the end.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 26, 2006)

The Sony won't take all Minolta lenses. It'll take auto-focus Minolta lenses, not the older manual ones. I just thought I should point that out. Other than that, the Sony has got some good reviews, and the previous Konica-Minolta DSLRs on which it's based were very good indeed. Basically, it's a very good DSLR; whether it's more suitable for you than any of the other very good DSLRs on the market now is something you can only really decide by trying them out yourself. Bear in mind though that you can get a 6-megapixel DSLR for up to $200 cheaper, and you may not need the 10 megapixels the Sony offers.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 26, 2006)

I haven't really heard all that much good about the alpha, stick to Nikon or Canon.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 26, 2006)

That's odd, I've heard lots of good things about it. Googling for reviews shows the following in favour of the camera...

_http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/alpha100.html_

_http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/108/page_1.html_

_http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml_

_http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/review.php?reviewId=1694_

_http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/proquality_digital_slrs/0806sonyalfa/_

_http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/2694/buying-advice-comparing-the-sony-alpha-100-and-nikon-d200.html_

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/SonyA100/index.shtml 

Meanwhile, one review complains about image quality at high ISO levels and suggests its anti-shake system may not be as useful as advertised... but still calls the camera's specification a "killer line-up" and calls it the "best value digital SLR on the market"... and that was the negative review!

_http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/SonyA100/index.shtml_


So I'm really not sure why you should automatically discount the Sony in favour of Canon and Nikon, unless you're someone who automatically discounts everything that isn't Canon and Nikon. Which presumably doesn't cover Chumpy since he's new to photography, so I'm inclined to let him make his own decisions, and stick by my original suggestion of trying out the various brands and models yourself.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 26, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> That's odd, I've heard lots of good things about it. Googling for reviews shows the following in favour of the camera...
> 
> _http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/alpha100.html_
> 
> ...



No, I'm someone who talked to real people who have tried the camera and were less than impressed.  I don't discount anything based on brand names.  He asked for opinions and I gave one to him, I'm sorry if it doens't agree with yours.  My opinion is not based on brand name or internet reviews, but talking to actual people who have shot with the actual camera. I don't appreciate the tone and comments in this last paragraph.  You know nothing about how I came to my opinion and made invalid assumptions.  Not eveyone is going to agree with you and not all internet reviews are accurate.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 26, 2006)

Sorry if I offended you, but to be fair I didn't like the tone of the post I was responding to either. I've spoken to "real people" too (so are internet reviewers fake people?) and I've tried the camera. AFAIK you haven't, so really, why would an opinion based on what someone you know has told you be any better than an opinion based on what a reviewer says? I'm well aware that not all internet reviews are accurate. Which is why I provided several. What makes you think the opinion of your friends is any more "accurate", when they may not be looking for the same thing in a camera as someone else? At least with internet reviews the guy can read some opinions on the specific pros and cons of the camera, beyond simply "people I spoke to don't like it".

You specifically said "stick to Nikon or Canon", thus ruling out not only the Sony but also the previous Konica-Minolta models, plus any Pentax, or the other brands now entering the DSLR market... in other words, ruling out anything that isn't a Canon or Nikon. So I don't see my assumption being all that invalid. I didn't actually suggest Chumpy buy the Sony; I told him to try all the competing models. You on the other hand specifically said to avoid it in favour of two particular brands, based purely on what other people have told you.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 26, 2006)

I haven't shot with the camera but I've held it and have seen images.  A lot of noise above ISO 400, most images were soft (that's probably a lens thing), seemed flat to me.  For some reason you seem to feel the need to defend this camera like it's personal.  You like it, great, I don't.  My opinion is just that, an opinion, there is no right or wrong with opinions.  I've had my experiences with the Alpha and some people who've used it, I formed my opinion based on that and that alone.  And yes, I would rule out other cameras in favor of Canon or Nikon, so?  There must be reason why they are the top two and everything else gets compared to one or both.   That's my opinion and what I'd recommend, no one has to agree with the opinion or follow the recommendation.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 26, 2006)

Well my apologies again if I overreacted. I don't have any particular interest in defending this specific camera, I do however get a little defensive of all brands except the big two. Why? Because hearing about their inherent superiority all the time gets old quickly. I don't expect people to agree with me all the time. I don't expect them to agree with me very much at all. But when people disagree I prefer them to have reasons and put them across, rather than repeating the same old mantra of "Buy a Canon or Nikon, don't consider anything else", with the implication for the rest of us being "You're wrong, what's the matter with you, why can't you see the light?"

I'm sure you have very good reasons for thinking those two companies make the best cameras. But in posts like this, people are rarely told the reasons, they're simply told to buy a Canon or a Nikon as though it were some received wisdom that should be passed on. Reasons that are given include availability of lenses and accessories (as if the average amateur would really need to aquire a specific lens or flash anywhere in the world at a moment's notice), and the quality of the glass on higher-end lenses (which won't be bought by most users anyway). The reasons given for the superiority of Canon or Nikon mostly involve the reasons professionals use them, and the people asking what camera to buy on a forum are unlikely to be professionals. Professional use aside, of course there are reasons why Canon and Nikon are top, and everything gets compared to them. But those reasons include the fact that professionals have always used their professional models and they're the most recognised brand names. The fact that some other companies are not particularly good at marketing. And the automatic assumption by a fair few people that anyone who wants to take good photographs needs a Canon or Nikon to do so.

No, no-one has to agree with your opinion. But it's not easy for people new to photography to make an informed opinion when _*everyone*_, from clueless shop assistants to intelligent people on internet forums, seems to be telling them "Go for Canon or Nikon. They're popular, there must be a reason they're popular. Professionals use them, there must be a reason for that too. Why would you consider anything else? Go for Canon or Nikon." Maybe I'm being unreasonable, it's just that when it comes to consumer choice I don't just believe in "Survival of the fattest", I like competition and like having other companies around to occasionally make products that are more innovative or more affordable, and I think it helps if consumers are aware that going for those other companies is a valid choice too.


----------



## castrol (Aug 27, 2006)

We're having this same argument on another forum. Someone made a good point.

Sony makes TV's, stereos, CD players, cameras and a plethora of other devices.

Nikon makes cameras, microscopes, telescopes and other lens based equipment.

Just an observation.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 27, 2006)

That is a good point. Another would be that Sony has been making compact digital cameras for a few years now, is pretty good at it, knows what it's doing on the technology side, and has inherited a system of cameras and lenses from Konica-Minolta, who did make lens-based equipment - very good equipment at that. There's also Pentax, who have been making quality cameras and lenses for a long time now and continue to do so. And how often are their cameras recommended on forums? Things about other products that mark them out as unique - like the KM/Sony cameras' anti-shake technology, or Pentax's much clearer viewfinders - are ignored or conveniently dismissed as gimmicks. I really have nothing against either of the "big two" and if I could afford to buy their higher-end lenses and cameras - the ones that actually do set them apart from the competition - I would. I just don't understand the assumption that the average user would inherently be better off with an entry-level Canon or Nikon.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 27, 2006)

These discussions do tend to erode quicky, and rarely do they help the original poster.
I guess what Chumpy can take from this is that no camera is perfect and not everyone is going to like all cameras.  You need to decide for yourself what you like and what is acceptable and buy that.  It a personal decision, everyone is different.


----------



## usayit (Aug 27, 2006)

I for one am very excited about Sony's entry.  I held it in store and I liked it very much although not enough for me to trade in years of Canon acquisitions.  If I were starting all over again and interested in a consumer level DSLR, I'd seriously consider the Sony over a Canon Rebel equivalent.  Choices and competition in the market is a good thing!  There is a whole lot of nice stuff packed into that camera and for a good price.  The fact that they maintain backwards compatibility with KM autofocus lenses  adds a lot of value to their offerings.     I'm even more excited to see Sony's release of the Carl Ziess line of lenses... kinda shows Sony's intention to provide some offerings to the professionals.  We've got an excellent electronics manufacturer with a CCD line obtain photographic expertise from a recent acquisistion.... very interesting.

I admit, I don't have access to shoot with the camera myself but from the samples on dpreview 400+ISO seems pretty darn acceptable.

Wonder if they have packaged deals A100 + Playstation 3?  

From dpreview @ 400iso
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03029.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03070-raw-acr.jpg
From dpreview @ 800iso
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03041.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03041.jpg
From dpreview @1600iso
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03056.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sonya100_samples1/dsc03066.jpg

From a business point of view, I'd be a little concerned if I were Nikon.  Sony provides CCDs to Nikon and now Sony is a player in the DLSR market.


----------



## Don Simon (Aug 28, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> These discussions do tend to erode quicky, and rarely do they help the original poster.
> I guess what Chumpy can take from this is that no camera is perfect and not everyone is going to like all cameras. You need to decide for yourself what you like and what is acceptable and buy that. It a personal decision, everyone is different.


 
Well said. We can argue all we want about the merits of various cameras, but even if we were all in agreement that one particular model was by far and away the best, that still might be completely the wrong camera for someone else. Most of this thread has been me embarking on one rant or another, but to be honest the only thing I said that's remotely useful to Chumpy was the point I made in my first post and which just came up again - only you can know what works best for you. If you like the look of a camera, try it out in the shop. If you still like it, see if you can borrow someone else's. Take shots in every kind of light, at every time of day and night, of every kind of subject. Anything you're not happy with (whether its in the images produced or in the way you use the camera), try a different camera and see if it does it better. Remember that buying an SLR is not the same as buying a point-&-shoot; you're buying into a whole system of lenses and accessories, so it really is important to take it for a test drive and make sure it's the best choice for you.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 28, 2006)

Time out folks... Lets take a few observations that are FACT, not conjecture. 

1: Minolta is still making the chassis of the camera, just branding it with Sony's name. 
2: The sensor was and still is made by SONY, not Minolta or Konica. Thus, in that part of any argument, nothing has changed from when the 7D was introduced except for the sensor size, and the use of the 5D body. 
3: The lenses are still the same, same factory, same glass, just a Sony name on them. 

As for the Nikon/Canon: Ford/Chevy: Red/Green (New Mexico Res. only) question, go with what you like. Even if it is a Pentax, Minolta, or Lieca. 

Now. Onto answering some of the questions poised by Chumpy. 

Any glass that is out there with an adapter will fit the camera. It is all the Minolta "A" mount system. There are adapters galore for the system, just look for them. The question you need to ask yourself is; "Do I want to pursue this or not." if you have an investment in Minolta glass, stick with it. If not, the field is wide open.


----------



## Staci_A100 (Dec 28, 2006)

castrol said:


> We're having this same argument on another forum. Someone made a good point.
> 
> Sony makes TV's, stereos, CD players, cameras and a plethora of other devices.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with Soocom1 whole-heartedly. I had been using an EOS 10D and decided to move up, and to be honest I would not have bought the A100 if it were actually something Sony made.

This is a Minolta camera, not really Sony's creation...I bought it and am extremely happy with it. It does have a noise problem at 800 & 1600 iso speeds but not much more than my old camera, and most shots are still very usable at those speeds.

I can take 750 shots before having to stick another battery in, which is amazing! The biggest selling point for me was the anti-shake. It makes a huge difference...nice pictues even when I'm a little shaky.

I've seen a few people saying this is an entry-level camera...not a chance. It's a very capable DSLR and should not be shot down because of the brand name stuck on it.


----------



## Chumpy (Dec 28, 2006)

Yep... I started this thread, when I didn't know what to buy.

I looked at the Sony, a few Canons, and a couple of others.
On paper I was always drawn to the Sony, because of its impressive spec., and functionality. I was only drawn to Canon because of their name, abundance of lenses and 'pro' connection (which are all well deserved).
However, comparing the Sony against the 400D & 350D, it is far superior to me from a build and spec perspective. I am happy with its results, and I believe it is neck-and-neck from a photographic results perspective (at least).

I think of it this way......
If the Sony had the Canon badge on it, I would have bought it long before I deliberated over which to buy.
If the Canon had the Sony badge on it, then I would have discounted it from my reckoning long ago.....
It was the (in my opinion) better spec of the Sony, versus the Canon name....

I bought the Sony, and am very happy with it.... Thats not to say the Canon isn't a very good camera, but the Sony is for me, for now.


----------



## Staci_A100 (Dec 28, 2006)

Not to mention any Maxxum AF lens can be used with it...I had a film Maxxum SLR so I instantly had many of the lenes I needed  There's a lot of them out there too, so no need to spend so much on those "Sony" lenses. Happy shooting!


----------

