A100 review at DCResource up

yes, interesting review.

the purple fringing in the night shots was really bad, is that a problem with the lens or the camera?

i compared the review to reviews of other cameras. as for noise, the olympus e330 did a better job and this surprised me.

noise at iso800 seemed fine to me in the review. noise at iso1600 was pretty bad, especially in the night shot. in the studio shot the iso1600 seemed usable to some extent.
does anybody know if they shoot in jpeg or do they raw and pp?
 
The colour fringing is down to the budget lenses but you won't see it in most prints.

They use Jpegs. Have you looked at the full-size 800iso cat shot ?Unacceptable noise & loss of detail due to in-camera noise reduction at work.

Jeff claimed the the slower start up was down to the operation of the dust removal system but it only operates at shutdown , however startup seems OK to me.

None of the major reviewers really slag off any camera (except perhaps P&S) but you need to read between the lines. Even Phil expressed reservations over the high ISO noise issue.

Keith-C
 
Yes, I also didn't understand the two comments about the dust-removal process being at startup and at shutdown. I had read before that it was at shutdown; has that been confirmed?
 
I respect Dave Eschells reviews no less if no more than Phil's. As opposed to DCResource IR has similar to DPR very thorough and detailed approach with Imatest thrown in for good measure. Dave's reviews complement Phil's reviews very well offering different angles and differnt way of studio setup and analysis. Same goes for free form gallery shots. They ususally also include Usage Report from one of non-staff prhotogs.

I have a gut feeling that IR will be much less happy with A100 than other reviewers.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml

Seems pretty favorable, although not quite as glowing as Phil's
review, I don't think.
--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus
 
Camera performance was superb. While the A100 doesn't start up as fast as the Canon and Nikon D-SLRs, this is due to the dust reduction system doing its thing. I'd rather wait a second longer to have dust-free photos, but that's just me

this is from his conclusion. is it just me or dust the dust off system work only when shutting down? sounds like a copy paste from olympus review...
 
Camera performance was superb. While the A100 doesn't start up as
fast as the Canon and Nikon D-SLRs, this is due to the dust
reduction system doing its thing. I'd rather wait a second longer
to have dust-free photos, but that's just me

this is from his conclusion. is it just me or dust the dust off
system work only when shutting down? sounds like a copy paste from
olympus review...
I agree, hard to take this review seriously at all when he makes daft mistakes like that...everyone knows the dust thing works at power off.

I would rate that as one of his poorest yet....a rush job..

IR do good reviews, more technical than most..they seem on the ball a lot more...DC are a kinda mini guide review...not a whole lot of use, ok for a browse.

--

 
The cut and paste may be more accurate than you think, and I think that he uses a template too. For example, he always criticizes the inability of a camera to use AA batteries, when such batteries have been shown to be far less efficient and powerful than the batteries now used by dSLRs. Granted, the Sony battery is priced high, but we all know that there will be generics coming.

Another one is his worshipping of the battery chargers that hang on the socket/wall instead of using a cord. Perhaps he has never stayed at a hotel with only a couple of spare sockets and then had one blocked by the oversized camera charger using the one next to it? Many hotels have electricity setups that cut the power when you leave, so you must charge your camera, razor, phone, iPod, notebook and who knows what else in today's world during the brief time that you are in your room, making socket access critical. And, having to move that big desk to get at the wall socket everytime you switch batteries is another hassle.

Granted, my second example really referred to those of us who travel alot, especially those who go outside the realm of the most developed countries, but, for me, it is valid, and I become tired of reading the exact same words in every review.

To be fair, I do read those reviews and appreciate the photos posted and many conclusions that are made, but I think that they could be a little more professional.
 
Granted, my second example really referred to those of us who
travel alot, especially those who go outside the realm of the most
developed countries, but, for me, it is valid, and I become tired
of reading the exact same words in every review.
Yes, I agree with all you said with regards to battery chargers. Fortunately, my 7D's charger and my previous DRebel's charger were okay. I travel a lot and I carry an extension cord so that I can use my AA battery charger (for my p&s) easily.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid
 
I actually like his reviews. sure, they aren't as in depth as phil's reviews and are more basic but that's actually what i like about them.

as for the battery thing. while he does refer directly to AA batteries, i think the general compliant is about proprietary batteries. back in the simple days of 35mm film SLR's most camera's would use CR-2, CR123 or other batteries which you could pick up anywhere (including your "outside the realm of the most developed countries"). what ever happened to those batteries? are any of them usable at all in digital cameras. why doesn't any manufacturer (except of pentax as far as i know) allow you to use batteries which you can pick up anywhere? i mean, when travelling i am lucky to have electricity at all, sometimes for more then a week or 2 and that makes life difficult when using proprietary rechargeable batteries.
 
as for the battery thing. while he does refer directly to AA
batteries, i think the general compliant is about proprietary
batteries. back in the simple days of 35mm film SLR's most camera's
would use CR-2, CR123 or other batteries which you could pick up
anywhere (including your "outside the realm of the most developed
countries"). what ever happened to those batteries? are any of them
usable at all in digital cameras. why doesn't any manufacturer
(except of pentax as far as i know) allow you to use batteries
which you can pick up anywhere? i mean, when travelling i am lucky
to have electricity at all, sometimes for more then a week or 2 and
that makes life difficult when using proprietary rechargeable
batteries.
Yes, it was convenient to have fairly standard batteries, but that is somewhat offset by using rechargeable batteries now. I don't know how many throw away batteries I went through over the years and how much that cost (usually about $12 a battery). At least now I have a few batteries (usually one or two from the camera manufacturer and one or two 3rd party batteries -- about $15 a battery) and they are rechargeable. It would be nice if most cameras used the same rechargeable battery though.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid
 
I think that there's a reason that noone really slags any camera; the major reviewers have been around for long enough to understand that what some people expect out of these sensors at 1600 and 3200 ISO is insane!

When's the last time that you saw a nice clean print from 800 or 1600 ISO color print film?

That's what I thought.
--
http://futurespeak.net/
 
Ok I'm insane now ! The comparison with film is a cop-out - make comparisons with the best today in digital otherwise why not bring wet colloidion plates into the equation ?

Keith-C
 
I always thought that the slower startup was mostly due to the body engaging the lens AF, something it does even when the AF switch is set to manual.
 
almost daily lens changes, per my experience. I have the the A100 for close to two weeks now with almost daily lens changes for my test. I started seeing dusts (at least 3 spots visible) early this week. Just followed the acceptable way of lens changing - pointing downwards and in a less dusty environment.
cheers,
gil
--
**************
Quiet please. Noisy Sony A100 testing is in progress : ).
http://art4less.smugmug.com
 
as for the battery thing. while he does refer directly to AA
batteries, i think the general compliant is about proprietary
batteries. back in the simple days of 35mm film SLR's most camera's
would use CR-2, CR123 or other batteries which you could pick up
anywhere (including your "outside the realm of the most developed
countries"). what ever happened to those batteries? are any of them
usable at all in digital cameras.
The answer is: They are not powerful enough for today's cameras. Those are more like watch batteries or computer motherboard batteries just meant to keep time, certain settings, etc.

why doesn't any manufacturer
(except of pentax as far as i know) allow you to use batteries
which you can pick up anywhere? i mean, when travelling i am lucky
to have electricity at all, sometimes for more then a week or 2 and
that makes life difficult when using proprietary rechargeable
batteries.
Do you honestly think that you will get any manufacturer to agree on using the same battery as others if it can be avoided? The reason given is that they must optimize the batteries for each camera model. Probably a little true, but you can buy generics so easily and cheaply now there really is no excuse for running out of power. I have about six batteries for my two cameras (KM 5D & 7D) and on one bike trip (with only 3 or 4) I did last over two weeks without recharging. The exception to all of this would be if you are going to be in extremely cold weather for an extended time without power and then you would have to haul a dogsled of whatever kind of battery that you need. Anyway, if you can find a store to buy your non-proprietary batteries, you can probably find electricity.

I will admit that I was a little disappointed that the new Sony line didn't continue the use of the KM batteries but I don't blame them for changing the batteries a little. According to some reviews they are now more powerful, meaning you would need fewer spare batteries. Plus, there are always those who prefer OEM batteries instead of generic so Sony can make a little more money keeping the price (needed for return on investment) down on the cameras themselves. I suspect that within a few months there will be many sources for good, affordable third-party brands available for the new line. Even with KM's small market share, I had no trouble finding cheap, but good, batteries in stores, and there are even better deals online.
 
I think this site is good for comparing the pics of the different cameras because he always take the same pictures.

I have read dpforums quite a bit but hardly any topic is about colors of the different cams straight out the camera. I therefore appriciate dcrecourse very much.

I certainly know I dont like the Nikons DSLR offering because of theirs ugly bluecast in the pics. The D50 is the exception though.

Photography is about getting a feeling about something you see. Its not about specifications etc. Althought the iso1600 of the Alpha is dissappointing it will be great to use it for black and white. Just look at Anton Corbijn black and white photos. Noise is his trademark!

To bad the Sony kitlens is lacking. I think 10mp cameras just need good glass to see great pics.

I know for sure that i Like the Alpha colors more than those of the Minolta. They are just more natural.
 
I know for sure that i Like the Alpha colors more than those of the
Minolta. They are just more natural.
Sorry to say the IMATEST results on colour accuracy show the 5/7D is more accurate in all hues bar red (which is somewhat off its normal point). Saturation is increased on the A-100 over the 5/7D too..

So lets put that old pony to rest..!

Still its a matter of taste....but the "natural" KM colour space is more um ....natural!

--

 
wow KM 5/7 more natural, all the pics always seems oversaturated too me ... and A100 pics looked more real ...
 
wow KM 5/7 more natural, all the pics always seems oversaturated
too me ... and A100 pics looked more real ...
Thats what the imatest results show..of course could be wrong here, I didnt test them!

Popular photography rate it at 7.37 out of 10 for colour accuracy:

They rated the 7D (same as 5D) at 8.17....(no link you can download the pdf review)

Not a big deal, but sometimes its hard to tell by looking at a camera...I know I thought the alpha was fairly neutral...

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/2698/camera-test-sony-alpha-100-dslr-page2.html

--

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top