Ray Garrison
Well-known member
I've seen some posts complaining about the high cost of Sony lenses for this camera. Perhaps. But for someone just starting out, who is going to buy the camera with the kit lens and use it that way for a long period of time, then decide how to move forward, the A100 system can't be beat, pricewise. I got the A100 with the kit lens, memory card and a filter pack from B&H for less than the body would have cost for a Nikon D80, and far less than a Canon with an IS lens equivalent to what I got with the Sony.
Are the Sony lenses expensive / overpriced? I don't know, I haven't the experience to know what I'm getting compared to what I'm paying. The point is, that doesn't matter to me - I'm not going to be buying any new lenses for a year or two. I need to learn how to use the camera, how to take pictures, how to "see" a shot and capture it before I start looking to add more options to those I already have. And to get where I am right now, the Sony system has all the alternatives beat by many, many hundreds of dollars.
I have experienced a problem with under-exposed flash shots, and have been following the forum threads talking about this (my brain hurts!). But in most cases, most of the time, my flash pictures are correctly exposed, and I wouldn't want to spend twice what I spent on my system to buy some other brand to fix a problem that only occurs, maybe, 10% of the time.
The pictures I've taken with this camera are beautiful. I could not be happier with the results I'm getting when the results are good. Not trying to be facetious - 90% of the time I'm happy as a clam, and 10% of the time i'm going "Damn flash exposure circuitry, what the h3ll were you thinking?"
If they (Sony) fixed the flash exposure problem, I'd be 100% extactic.
Ray Garrison
Problems:
Flash exposures are accurate 90% of the time, and grossly underexposed (*MANY* stops) other times. I have no idea why and can't seem to beat the camera into submission when it's in a situation that results in the under exposure.
Are the Sony lenses expensive / overpriced? I don't know, I haven't the experience to know what I'm getting compared to what I'm paying. The point is, that doesn't matter to me - I'm not going to be buying any new lenses for a year or two. I need to learn how to use the camera, how to take pictures, how to "see" a shot and capture it before I start looking to add more options to those I already have. And to get where I am right now, the Sony system has all the alternatives beat by many, many hundreds of dollars.
I have experienced a problem with under-exposed flash shots, and have been following the forum threads talking about this (my brain hurts!). But in most cases, most of the time, my flash pictures are correctly exposed, and I wouldn't want to spend twice what I spent on my system to buy some other brand to fix a problem that only occurs, maybe, 10% of the time.
The pictures I've taken with this camera are beautiful. I could not be happier with the results I'm getting when the results are good. Not trying to be facetious - 90% of the time I'm happy as a clam, and 10% of the time i'm going "Damn flash exposure circuitry, what the h3ll were you thinking?"
If they (Sony) fixed the flash exposure problem, I'd be 100% extactic.
Ray Garrison
Problems:
Flash exposures are accurate 90% of the time, and grossly underexposed (*MANY* stops) other times. I have no idea why and can't seem to beat the camera into submission when it's in a situation that results in the under exposure.