# Sony Alpha series



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

Hi all,

    So I'm looking to buy a digital camera very soon, and was wondering about the Sony Alpha's because they look small like a point-and-shoot, but with bigger lenses. My question is, what do these cameras, if at all, give up compared to say the Rebels and the D series(Or even the bigger Alpha series cams) that are much bulkier then the Sony? Am I better off just buying one of the bulkier cameras in the long run? Thanks


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 27, 2012)

Well chicks do like em bigger...


----------



## ConradM (Nov 27, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> So I'm looking to buy a digital camera very soon, and was wondering about the Sony Alpha's because they look small like a point-and-shoot, but with bigger lenses. My question is, *what do these cameras, if at all, give up compared to say the Rebels and the D series*(Or even the bigger Alpha series cams) that are much bulkier then the Sony? Am I better off just buying one of the bulkier cameras in the long run? Thanks



Well the only Alpha that's still small is the A37 I believe. Compared to a Canikon costing similar it gives up nothing and actually has many advantages because of SLT.


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Well chicks do like em bigger...



haha...So what are the better digitals out there?  I mean is there really a big difference between Cannon and Nikon? Just about the same, right?


----------



## cosmonaut (Nov 27, 2012)

Maybe this will help. 
Compare camera dimensions side by side


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

cosmonaut said:


> Maybe this will help.
> Compare camera dimensions side by side



Thanks Cosmonaut. What I meant by "difference" was in the quality and technology wise. I always hear how Nikon people say Nikon is better, and vise versa. Correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't they the two best camera companies on the block?


----------



## ConradM (Nov 27, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this will help.
> ...



I can't comment on mid to high end DSLR's but Sony's IMO pull ahead in the entry level section. They offer more "wiz bang" features like higher FPS, IBIS, Focus motors, Higher Dynamic Range, Actual representation of what your picture is going to look like through the view finder.... etc 

If your budget is less than say $600 for a body I see no reason to get a Canon or a Nikon over a Sony. People will try to argue that Sony doesn't offer as many lenses. But chances are, if someone is shopping for an entry level camera, "only" having 100+ lens to choose from isn't a big deal.


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

ConradM said:


> ziggy84 said:
> 
> 
> > cosmonaut said:
> ...



Hey ConradM. Thanks for the info. Interesting. My budget is somewhere in that area. I was looking to spend around $600-$1000, maybe a few hundred dollars more for a camera with a lenses. With that price range, what do you think?


----------



## ConradM (Nov 27, 2012)

You could pick up an A57 and a 16-50 f2.8 for a little over a grand. Or you could pick up an A65 with the standard 18-55 kit lens and a Prime. 

If I were shopping for new gear right now I would go with the cheaper body and f2.8 lens.


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

ConradM said:


> You could pick up an A57 and a 16-50 f2.8 for a little over a grand. Or you could pick up an A65 with the standard 18-55 kit lens and a Prime.
> 
> If I were shopping for new gear right now I would go with the cheaper body and f2.8 lens.



What do you mean by and a Prime?


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 27, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > You could pick up an A57 and a 16-50 f2.8 for a little over a grand. Or you could pick up an A65 with the standard 18-55 kit lens and a Prime.
> ...



So $1000 is considered entry level? haha geez.


----------



## ConradM (Nov 28, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > You could pick up an A57 and a 16-50 f2.8 for a little over a grand. Or you could pick up an A65 with the standard 18-55 kit lens and a Prime.
> ...



A prime is a lens that doesn't zoom. A 35 or 50mm is what most people start with. The reason to get a prime is because they're affordable and have superior picture quality compared to cheaper zoom lenses.


----------



## ConradM (Nov 28, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ziggy84 said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...


You put that number out there not me.


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 28, 2012)

ConradM said:


> ziggy84 said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



Okay, I gotcha. Ya makes sense. Less glass, less moving parts. So the  SLT technology. What is the benefit over the SLR's? Just better  reliability because less moving parts internally? B&H photo has the A57 with 18-135 lens for $750, and a 18-55 for $100 cheaper


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 28, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > ziggy84 said:
> ...



I also saw they have the Nikon D5100 with 18-55, 55-200 VR lens, 16gb memory card, 2 UV filters, and camera bag for $796. Just sayin...haha


----------



## ziggy84 (Nov 28, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ziggy84 said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



I bought the recent issue of Shutterbug and saw the Lumix G5. Do you happen to know anything about Lumix? Correct me if I'm wrong, it's Panasonic right?


----------



## CP1 (Dec 9, 2012)

Get a NEX. Alpha cameras are really about the same size as other DSLR's in the same market level. NEX will get you the same sensor in a mirrorless (small) body, plus more support from Sony because they are investing more into the NEX line.


----------



## skieur (Dec 13, 2012)

ziggy84 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > ziggy84 said:
> ...



Benefit of the SLT over SLR is a quieter shutter, less camera vibration when the shutter is pressed, 100% viewfinder coverage vs. 95% for some SLRs, and real time viewfinder feedback on the visual effect of your camera adjustments.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 13, 2012)

And the disadvantage is that the EVF sometimes has trouble with lag, especially in low light.


----------



## skieur (Dec 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And the disadvantage is that the EVF sometimes has trouble with lag, especially in low light.



Of course, if you don't try panning your camera quickly in low light, it doesn't really matter.

skieur


----------



## Kolia (Dec 14, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > And the disadvantage is that the EVF sometimes has trouble with lag, especially in low light.
> ...



Of course, if any one of you had actually tried to use the EVF from a a65 and above in low light, you would know there is no lag...


----------



## fractionofasecond (Dec 14, 2012)

Kolia said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Same with my a37, there is no low light lag.  Sheesh at least Sony tried to make something new, instead of making the same old viewfinders for how many years?  Not to mention, it really helps when you need to make that quick adjustment between quick shots and don't have to take your eye off the viewfinder.  One thing I LOVE is when your shooting outdoors with a horrific glare on the screen and trying to view the picture you just took.  You can simply view your images through your viewfinder, with no glare!  But in some ways, I love the digital viewfinder, and in other ways, I hate it.  It has it's pros and cons.


----------



## jfrabat (Dec 19, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And the disadvantage is that the EVF sometimes has trouble with lag, especially in low light.



Depends on the EVF; OLED does not have lag (A65, A77 and A99)


----------

