Your review photos are pretty dull. Don't you know about the sunrise/sunset rule when it comes to landscapes? :)
Dull uninteresting light = dull photos.
Sony came to the digital SLR party late, with its first model, the Alpha 100 - launched in 2006. Its successor, the Alpha 200 (A200), is also aimed at the entry-level market. First announced in January, Sony recently sent one over for a more in-depth look. That isn’t to say that the A200 is a basic camera – no sireee – but it …
Anything at all to say about lens availability? Because the Canon lens range is very expansive, and expensive too! Would be interesting to see where they compare here because the lens is likely to multiply your investment 2x, 3x or more!
Its kind of a necessity to go out and at least get a cheap 300mm lens, because I for one was disappointed when I bought my EOS 400D (any SLR owner would be) because it didn't zoom anywhere near the levels of my digital compact camera - pay more, get less zoom!? :-(
Apart from the ISO 3200 mode and IS out of the box, it looks very very similar to the Canon EOS 400D. Replete with both the 10MP sensor, image sensor shaker, and the full sized settings summary screen.
I'm not suggesting any Canon technology crossover, but it seems likely Sony at least based its design on the features of the EOS 400 and knocked some beef off the price too.
I would like to think the EOS 400 has been a good success, so a shrewd move by Sony - the masters of gadgetry.
The Sony camera will support all the old Minolta AF lenses, going back something like 15-20 years. Indeed I recently tired the original 50mm standard on my last generation Minolta and was quite happy.
The advanage over Nikon and Cannon is that the image stabilizer is in the camera so lense can be much cheaper and still be image stabalized.
Also it has my favour lense which is a 500mm AF Mirror lense. Not you can't control the aperture; but by god do you get a lot of zoom for the weight. No-one else sell an AF Mirror lense that I know of. :-)
The alpha 200 is basically the same as the alpha 100 which was well ahead of the entry level cannon at the time. The main changes are the display and the ISO can go a bit higher.
There are plenty of lenses around for the Sony especially it you check on eBay, admittedly the lenses for the canon are generally slightly cheaper. But the base lens that you get with it is upto 70mm the canon is only 55mm. so you don't need to buy a new lens as soon as you get this camera. What was failed to mention is that the Sony has anti shake built into the body so you can use it with any lens, whereas the canons are built into the lens. so cheaper lenses don't have antishake.
Mines the one with 'I Love Sony' on the back
I believe the Sony Alphas are compatible with all the Konica-Minolta A-mount lenses, as Sony took over their camera business a couple of years ago. These Alpha DSLRs are the descendants of the Maxxum line, effectively.
This makes the Sony worth looking at for us, we have an old 35mm Minolta Maxxum 5000, complete with 50mm f/1.7 and 100-200mm f/4.5 lenses, which *should* work.
There's a lens database at http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp which might help.
Well and something other than completly fugly light would help too. Seriously...
Btw, the D range optimisation will bring out detail in shadows - think shooting through trees into the sun, more things in shadow will bring on the jiggery pokery :) As an A100 owner I dont use it often but it works - an in camera HDR trick sort of.
Its well known that kit len's are far from optimal when it comes to sharpness & clarity, go the whole hog & and pay Sigma a visit once you get used the the settings on the camera, you wont go far wrong with one of these for a start :)
And for half decent flicks from the Alpha range & probably the odd kitten, look here...
Mine is the one with embroidered Sony logo and the built in card reader.
You never mentioned whether this was a full frame or cropped sensor SLR (One would assume cropped), or whether the lens mount is compatible with existing Minolta or Sony lenses, the quality of the supplied lens the general availability of other lenses etc etc. Your battery test was hardly comprehensive either.
I think the register might need to brush up on the quality of it's SLR reviews. This is almost as bad as that Canon 400D review the other day. You can't review SLRs like they're mobile phone cameras or digital snappers.
This is rather disappointing from the register as your other reviews are generally very good and I've used them before to guide my purchase.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019