starting from scratch - would you buy the alpha??

The two lenses I plan to start with will be the Sony 50mm F1.4
prime and the Sigma 24-135mm F2.8-4.5 zoom. I also plan on getting
the Sony HVL-36AM flash and 4GB of Sandisk Extreme III memory.

The 50mm prime is a very sharp and bright lens, recommended as a
good walk-about lens. It will also be interesting to use a
fixed-focal-length lens. The Sigma is a good, fairly bright zoom
lens, approx 5.5x zoom. It's also fairly cheap and is quite well
rated for quality.
You do realise the 50mm will have the same fielkd if view as a 75mm lens when mounted on the a100 (in 35mm terms)?

And that the zoom range of the 24-135 will give an equivalent field of view of 36-202 (again in 35mm terms)?

If 36-202 is what you want, fair enougn but you might want to consider the Sigma 18-125 which gives 27-188 equivalent. Not much less at the long end but usefully wider at the wide end.

There is a review of this lens on slrgear.com
Later on, I intend to get the Sigma 24-70mm and 70-200mm F2.8 macro
lenses. Each of them will outperform the 24-135mm in terms of
brightness and minimum focus distance, and between them they'll
have a 8.3x zoom. They're also a bit more pricey, though.

I want to get the 85mm F1.4 prime also, and will also need to get a
wide angle lens, which will probably be another prime.
There aren't any really wide angle primes available. The 20mm prime works as a 30mm on the a100 (not much wider than the 24mm "wide end of your propsoed lenses) and the 28mm works as a 42mm (in terms of field of view) which is really a standard lens.

If you want true wide angle on an a100 you have to buy a zoom such as the Sigma 10-20 or the 11-18 from Sony.

I suppose you could buy a 14mm Sigam which becomes equivalent to 21mm on a aps-c sensor camera but it is a huge thing and I am not sure of they make it in the KM/Alpha mount.

There is a 16mm fisheye but it is a fisheye not a wide angle and I am not sure the reason why anyone would buy this lens for a cropped sensor d-slr as due to the crop factor it becomes ( I would imagine) merely a poorly corrected 24mm lens.

Dave

Finally, at
some point I'll get a mirror or reflex telescopic lens.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
It isn't "poor" ISO 1600, it just isn't great.
You choose the wording. There are better performing DSLRs for ISO 1600 shooting.
It is comparable to the Nikon D200 or D70, and is still better than
most compacts at ISO 400 (there are a couple of recent Sony and
Fuji compacts that can produce better quality at ISO 400).
Point and shoots noise issues was one of the main reason I went to a DSLR and would expect the A100 to be much better. I've seen people get some nice results from the A100 at ISO 1600 when shooting RAW and doing noise reduction. The JPGs out of the camera haven't been as good from what I have seen. People just need to be aware that they may require post processing to get good images from the A100 at high ISOs.
It will still produce useable prints at 9"x6", given some modest
noise repair in post-processing.
Agreed. As I stated before I did ISO 1600 and 3200 shooting of my son in indoor track with my KM 5D. They cleaned up well and printed nicely with Noise Ninja. I could notice a difference when printing with an without NN but not much. I could really see it when I used these pictures as my screen saver at work.
I agree that if the poster was requiring professional-qualiy,
large-size prints from ISO 1600 images then he might think twice
about picking the Sony Alpha 100.
Agreed. But someone needing to print large prints that don't require high ISO should seriously consider the A100 since it captures great detail.
However, I do not agree that you should never use the Alpha 100 at
ISO 1600, nor do I think that it is fair to say that someone
shouldn't buy the camera if they're ever going to shoot at that
sensitivity.
Never said that the poster shouldn't consider the A100. I simply said that this was a weak point of the camera and he should be careful if ISO 1600 is important to him. The main reason I moved from a P&S was to take pictures of my children in their various activities. High shutter speeds at low light requires high ISO. If this isn't the type of picture that he is likely to take then it is no issue.

Don't get me wrong I like the A100 and want it and Sony to succeed. I already have some KM lenses that I could use on a new Sony body in the future. I like that Sony has kept much of the good things from the KM DSLRs. The worst thing that could happen is someone buy the A100 and then complain about it all day long on the net and to their friends if it doesn't meet their needs. I have aleady seen posts to the effect that "This camera isn't any better than my point and shoot when it comes to noise". We don't need more of them.
 
I'd wait for Nikon D80 reviews.

IMHO D80 body is superior to A100 in terms of ergonomics, meetering, AF and viewfinder.

However, I like Minolta glass I've got for a fraction of the price of Nikon or Canon VR/IS lenses.

Tough call really.

--
K M 5 D,
1 8 - 7 0 F 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 ,
5 0 m m F 1 . 7,
7 0 - 2 1 0 F 4
28 - 75 F 2 . 8 ,
75 - 300 F 4 . 5 - 5 . 6
M e t z 5 4 M Z - 4
 
What you have to remember is that you are buying a system and not just a body. You want to look at the available lenses, flash equipment, etc

All of the available bodies will allow you to get fine pics. My only hesitation about the A!00 is Sony's record of charging high prices for its accessories. So far the only two Sony lenses I can get prices for (the 70-200 2.8 and the 50mm 1.4) are priced considerably higher than the comparable Canon and Nikon offerings. This basically negates the alleged savings from having AS built into the body at this time. You could always buy Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma glass but you should not be forced to go that route.

Harry
--
http://behret.smugmug.com

'if you ain't having fun, you ain't doing it right'
 
If I were starting again, I would seriously consider the others (specifically Canon, Pentax, Nikon, in that order).

Thinks I don't like about my 5d:

1) loud mirror slap
2) lazy eye with flash (sometimes)

3) limited lens selection, especially used market (this might not be a problem in 5 years)
4) crappy LCD (sony fixed that with the A100)
5) Expensive or non-existant f/2.8 lens

Things I like:

1) ergonomics of the camera. I think the 5D is better then the A100, BTW.
2) Anti-Shake
3) picture quality, sometimes. When I take a good one, it's really good

Don't under-estiamte the value of ergonomics. Not just how the camera feels, but how fast and easy it is to change the following:

1) Aperture and/or shutter
2) ISO
3) Exposure Comp.

At a minimum, the camera need to feel good in your hands. Nikon and Pentax really get that. Sony wort of, and Canon no understand it :-) That said, I know many people with Rebel XTs that love them. I shot with one for an evening and it wasn't that bad. Light, fast and quiet.

As for lens, get a, 18-70 and a 70-200 to start with. If you the Sony, get the "beercan" lens. Youcan find them around for

Hope this helps.

--

Thanks,

Allan Marcus
Maxxum 5D
Mac OS X
 
This will be my first dslr and i'm considering the Nikon d50 or the
Canon Rebel as well. I like the higher megapixels ...
Although the higher pixels are kind of nice to have, for all intents
and purposes of "most" picture taking and displaying, a 6 mpxl
camera would do "MOST" people quite nicely. That said, you
may want to check out the Pentax K100D as well. I tried it today
and it has a lot going for it. Brighter viewfinder than the Sony,
more rapid focussing, nicer feel in my hands... and the kit
lens looked nicer... although it only goes to 55mm rather than
70mm (equivalent lenses in 35mm is 28-80 vs 28-105. Both
lenses produce roughly equivalent image quality.

The difference in Canadian dollars is $799 for Pentax and $1169
for the Sony. You could probably buy the appropriate flash unit
for the difference in price.

For the 2 lens kit, the Pentax offers an 18 to 200mm range for
$999US, vs an 18 to 300mm range for the Sony at $1499. You
do have a 10 mpxl sensor in the Sony and a 6 mpxl sensor in the
Pentax, with much less digital noise in the Pentax at ISO 1600.
In fact, the Pentax offers acceptable ISO 3200 photography
while the Sony does not.

For the difference in price, you could get the top Pentax flash,
which is quite good.... wireless, just like the Sony.

If you have more money, and can afford it, you might consider
the new Nikon D80 which is coming out with an 18-135 VR lens,
for about $1500 US... I think. I read it last night, and what with
my memory as it is, I can always be wrong. :))

Many are happy with their Canon 350's, and I have a friend whose
daughter has one. She raves about it... and in fact just bought a
new Top Of The Line Mac laptop to process her DVD's and stuff.
(just under $5000 Canadian!!!!!) Needless to say, she is happy-happy!

:)

My point is, that you will probably be very happy with whatever
you get... once you make your decision... don't look back and
wonder, "What if I had bought......". That is a road to gloom.
Many people on these forums here take wonderful pictures with
their P&S, and they don't whine and moan aboout what they
bought or didn't buy. Spend the energy taking pictures...
and good luck.
Also, what lens or lenses would you purchase with the Alpha?
As I indicated above, if you go the Sony way, a good start for
the least put out would be the two kit lenses. They can take
reasonable photos. You can always get better, but there is always
the law of deminishing returns in this high end. Like in stereo
equipment, you can get a reasonable system for $2500, but to
get a system that OBVIOUSLY sounds better, you would have
to go to the $5000 systems.... and to improve that so others
would notice a difference, you need to double that again.

In fact, with photographic equipment, you can't really see a lot
of difference if you double the price.... very reasonable, award
winning pictures have been taken with "common" equipment.
It will be what YOU do with the equipment. Look at the pics
shown on this, and other forums. Yes, the best are taken with
some awfully expensive lenses, but a lot of great shots have been
taken with kit lenses.

Once you experiment and get to know the zoom lenses, get a
50mm lens and get to know it well... maybe just use it by itself
for a month or so. That can teach you a lot, and would give you
some idea what you should get next. Check you EXIF files to
see what focal lengths you shoot at most. Then go from there.

And consider a good flash too!

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada
 
The foundation on which the A100 was built - the KM Maxxum 5D.

It's basically a 6 MP version of the A100. It has similar features - same great AS, same lens mount, great high ISO performance, similar firmware features and software. It's a fabulous dSLR, especially if you're just starting out. Don't worry about the megapixel deficiency, even at A4 print size you are still doing 300dpi and will never notice the difference. 6MP is plenty of pixels for most people.

And all the lenses you end up buying for the 5D - well, you can keep them for when you eventually upgrade to the A100.

Best thing about the 5D? It's price. Less than half the price of the A100. Spend the cash you save on a few high quality lenses in stead.

Anyway, that's my suggestion - some will agree and others will not. That's fine by me.

(I'm having huge amounts of fun with my new 5D :-)

Mike
 
To those who said they own a d50 and either would buy or plan to buy the Alpha - - why?
 
Less than half the price?

Man, if I really could get a 5d new for less than 500 dollars, hell yeah, I would have gotten it....But at that price, you're looking at used and refurbs, and most refurbs are just above that mark. The whole new/warranty thing made the A100 worth the purchase price (I've got my A100 warrantied through 2010...)
 
I've got a 5D and I agree it's an excellent camera, but Sony has moved the game on significantly. The anti-shake's better, the focusing is faster and more accurate, the LCD's better, it's got an anti-dust mechanism, etc. And 10Mp is better than 6Mp no matter how much people try to deny it.
 
Man, if I really could get a 5d new for less than 500 dollars, hell
yeah, I would have gotten it....But at that price, you're looking
at used and refurbs, and most refurbs are just above that mark.
Not sure how you arrived at $500. A new A100 with kit lens costs $1450 here in Denmark. The 5D costs just over $750, but people have posted here that it can be had for even less. Granted it's not "under half the price" but it's pretty close.
The whole new/warranty thing made the A100 worth the purchase price
(I've got my A100 warrantied through 2010...)
Personally my investment is in lenses not the camera body. Obviously you should do as much as possible to maintain the camera body and keep it working as long as possible, but so many things are happening in the camera world and in 2010, you might not be so interested in repairing your A100 as in buying a new .. A800 or whatever is the latest and greatest camera by that time.

As a side note I also have to say I'm somewhat sceptical that Sony will be able to repair an A100 in the year 2010.

There's a 2 year mandatory warranty on all goods sold here in Denmark. I figure if my 5D can go for 2 years without breaking, that alone has been worth the price of the camera. I might even buy an A100 then :-)

Mike
 
I've got a 5D and I agree it's an excellent camera, but Sony has
moved the game on significantly. The anti-shake's better, the
focusing is faster and more accurate,
Phil measured AS performance to give you an approximate 2 stops extra, which is the same as he measured the "previous generation" AS to deliver. In any event AS works very well in the 5D. I could say the same for focusing, but I can't back that up with a reference to Phil's review. I can only say that my 5D focuses very fast and very reliably.
the LCD's better, it's got an
anti-dust mechanism, etc.
The LCD on the 5D is its weakest point for sure. I guess they had to differentiate the 5D and the 7D somehow. Still, it gets the job done - at least it's no show stopper for me.

The 5D has an anti-dust mechanism too if I recall. I'll have to go into the manual for that.
And 10Mp is better than 6Mp no matter how
much people try to deny it.
That depends on your definition of better. If you can't SEE the difference, then how is it better? It's just the Emperors New Clothes then.

Mike
 
US A100 price is 1000 with the kit lens. Hard to find a 5D for less than 500, and that's body only.

Well, I'd hope to keep it around as a backup body for a long time. 10 megapixels is going to be a pretty usable number of pixels for a while, I think. And if it gets to the point where it is unfixable, I hope to make do with whatever replacement or voucher/buyback they do. I hear that irreparable 5Ds and 7Ds are being bought back buy Sony for original purchase price, so I think I'm going to be okay.

I hope? :)
 
Yeah I know the maths about the x1.5 crop.

There is something particular about the lenses I listed, they're pretty bright.

The Sigma 18-125 F3.5-5.6 is not so bright, hence why it isn't in my consideration.

The Sigma 24-135 F2.8-4.5 is about 2/3EV more bright at it's maximum aperture, which would be pretty helpful in low-light conditions. It still isn't perfect but it's a lot cheaper than the F2.8 constant lenses.

I didn't know about the lack of wide-angle primes, though. I haven't really looked that far ahead properly yet. I will look into it further at the time.
 
I'd consider it, but I'd also look at the competition. Interestingly enough I had the chance to try out a Canon 350D at the weekend - this was a camera that was out of the price-range when I bought my 5D back in December last year, so I did not handle it then. I was rather pleased that the 5D came out the better camera (although the Canon does focus very quietly), even without considering AS.

Bob
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top