PDA

View Full Version : Tell me please!



alexphoto01
07-09-2006, 05:06 PM
have a question for all of you out there.... whether you want to purchase the alpha or not.....

What do you want (accesorries).... (features)

Complaints (ergonomics).... (noise)... (quality)...


I ask to see if you have the similar ideas as me....

>Please keep it simple.... one comment per line.... i appreciate any help from you guys... you are all very helpful....<

Alex

P.S.-If you have tested the camera tell me your thoughts as well please

privard
07-11-2006, 07:55 AM
poor noise performance (compared to the Canons)--otherwise I'd have already ordered an alpha.

privard
07-11-2006, 07:56 AM
I want unlimited bulb exposure.

alexphoto01
07-11-2006, 05:35 PM
what is the limit??

Jason25
07-11-2006, 10:25 PM
what is the limit??
I would imagine until the battery dies :confused:

bormal
07-24-2006, 07:26 PM
the a100 is similar to my oly e-500, same cheap plastic feel but bigger.

the 18-70mm is nothing great, the nikon 18-70mm is a lens.

but !!!! 10.2 mp with lens for 999.00 its a bargin

pluses at 10 mpix 262 pix on 1gig card, nice

2.5 inch display the best, does it have tv!

focus is fast and continous

steady shot is great, where has this been!

menus very simple

the left dial has focus, wb, iso, dynamic what ever. no fubbling in menus

do i like so far did in door test shots, am very impressed.

in door flash low light are impressive, auto white balance is right on.

pictures come out sharp like the oly e-500 nice color at default settings

compared to d70 ord100 which need post processing for sharpness.

niose, forget about it! noise reduction in camera and even at 1600 in doors with flash very aceptable.

so i saved 800 dollars and didnt get a d200, but spent 300 on sigma 24-135mm 2.8 and tamron 70-300mm macro 1.2 to round out lens line up

teckel
08-02-2006, 10:27 PM
poor noise performance (compared to the Canons)--otherwise I'd have already ordered an alpha.

I just got my A100 today and I've read the reviews. I'm also familiar with Canon and their noise levels. It would be incorrect to make a blanket statement like "poor noise performance". It actually has very little noise and basically the same levels as Canons in the 100-800 range. It's not till 1600 where there's a little noise and yes, more so than on a Canon. But, who shoots at 1600? Back in the film days, the noise at 1600 with the A100 would be world-class. Anyway, the A100 does NOT have more noise than Canons at normal shooting ISOs (100-400). If you shoot only at 1600 or 3200, then yes, get a Canon because they do excel in that area. But, the A100 has better sharpness than the Canon 30D and it's hundreds less.

I'm a long-time Minolta user back to SLR film days. I currently own a few Canon and Nikon cameras so I'm no Minolta fan-boy. I also don't have a collection of Minolta lenses (thanks to the guy who stole them all from me a few years ago). I've been waiting to get back into the SLR market but I haven't been impressed. I absolutely LOVE Minolta's wireless flash and have been using them with film SLRs as well as Minolta's 7i and A1 that I've owned while waiting for a D-SLR. With the DiMage A1 I also fell in love with Minolta's anti-camera shake technology. The Minolta 5D was lacking in resolution, quality and a few others issues so I passed and waited for Minolta to release an update I could finally purchase. When Sony purchased Minolta I just about gave up on ever getting my D-SLR with wireless flash and anti-camera shake in a high-resolution camera because I've never liked Sony cameras. Much to my surprise the A100 was released far sooner than I would have figured and it totally fits all my criteria. The only "flaw" is the high ISO noise which is for most people a non-issue and not as bad as the super zoomed sample images would lead you to believe. Heck, think of the A100 as a Nikon D200 with a $500 discount as they use the same chip and have the same noise levels.

Anyway, yes, Canon does do good low-noise high ISO shots. But I'd gladly trade that (which I never shoot at anyway) for the simple wireless flash capability and the anti-shake built into the camera. To say the A100 has high-noise and therefore shouldn't be considered is to say that all Nikons shouldn't be considered either as the noise on the A100 is no greater than Nikons.

Tim

coldrain
08-03-2006, 03:07 AM
The noise of the A100 is higher than the noise that results from the D200, actually. And the D50 is very low in noise.

teckel
08-03-2006, 08:20 PM
The noise of the A100 is higher than the noise that results from the D200, actually. And the D50 is very low in noise.

Not according to reviews I've seen. I think you're talking about grey-scale samples. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't photograph solid grey boards. Real-world testing shows the A100 as having lower noise at high ISO's than the D200. See the real world examples here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page28.asp

To quote dpreview: "Between the DSLR-A100 and D200 at these high sensitivities the A100 appears to maintain more detail." It's clear that Sony and Nikon use different noise reduction techniques. It may be possible that Nikon's method makes a solid grey shot look better. But, in real-world tests, the difference is much closer with the slight advantage going to the A100.

ISO noise is chip-level, so it would make sense that the A100 and D200 would yield very close results, which they do.

For resolution, the A100 cleanly beats the 30D and even the D200, you can see the results here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page29.asp

It may beat the D200 in resolution because of the image processing that the D200 is doing that "softens" the image slightly. This could also be the reason why high-ISO shots of all grey boards show less noise. It appears the A100 makes the priority sharpness while the D200 trades sharpness for some softness that may in certain lab tests make high-ISO shots seem like they have less noise. As seen, real-world high-ISO shots of the A100 and D200 are not that much different with a slight edge going to the A100.

What does all this mean? Just that the A100 is not "high noise" as some are trying to label it. If the A100 is high noise, the D200 is "higher noise".

Tim

krzkrzkrz
08-03-2006, 09:18 PM
What does all this mean? Just that the A100 is not "high noise" as some are trying to label it. If the A100 is high noise, the D200 is "higher noise".


Im starting to agree with this. A lot of users are trying to comment unreasonably on the high noise issue on the the A100. The high ISO is not a big issue as some perceive it to be.

teckel
08-04-2006, 09:05 PM
Im starting to agree with this. A lot of users are trying to comment unreasonably on the high noise issue on the the A100. The high ISO is not a big issue as some perceive it to be.

And many camera's have higher noise, less detail, and lower resolution than the A100, yet cost much more (like the new Nikon D200) and people don't label them as "high noise".

Lets cut to the chase. Sony supplies Nikon with the CCD used in the D200, which is the same CCD as the Sony A100, ISO noise is chip-level, so looking at high ISO settings and the noise level the A100 and D200 will be fairly close to one another in a RAW file.

This actually sounds more like Canon and Nikon fan-boys not wanting Sony to cut into their turf and show their precious camera up. So, they'll look for ANYTHING, even something slight like this so they can dismiss and label the camera something terrible, when it's not.

When I shoot, I typically only use ISO of AUTO or 100. At AUTO it will never shoot at ISO 1600. I couldn't get my A100 to shoot at ISO 800 either in AUTO (I believe the manual says it may select ISO 800 but it appears the margin for that is last resort). Maybe I'll try taking a picture in a totally dark room to test it. But basically, AUTO is ISO 100-400, which has "Canon-like noise" and those are the ISO settings most people use because they are the sharpest.

I would only use ISO 1600 under very rare situations, even with a Canon. And in those situations I may WANT noise! I remember back in the film days I would sometimes use ISO 3200 film because it was *SO* grainy. It was absolutely wonderful how noisy ISO 3200 film was, you could get some real rough and intense looking images with that much noise. The noise made the picture come alive! The point is, ultra-high ISO is not really designed for normal shooting, it's more designed for special situations, and in those situations you may actually want noise. If I wanted an extra stop, I'd go with a faster lens instead of going with a higher ISO.

Here's an example of that wonderful grainy Kodak T-MAX ISO 3200 film:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=188655226&size=l&context=pool-92476451@N00

Tim

coldrain
08-05-2006, 01:36 AM
The D200 is a lot less noisy than the A100. Just having the same sensor does not tell all. The D200 itself is very noisy at 800 and above anyway, so that is a bad example to take.

And if only noise was like a very grainy photo, but it is not. Noise is nothing like a grain in film, it is more like the interference on TV, not pretty or attractive. Especially the noise of the A200 which is all kinds of colours.

So... if you think you will want to use higher ISOs at times, don't go for the Sony A200. If that is not the case, by all means consider it.

krzkrzkrz
08-06-2006, 10:35 PM
The D200 is a lot less noisy than the A100. Just having the same sensor does not tell all. The D200 itself is very noisy at 800 and above anyway, so that is a bad example to take.

And if only noise was like a very grainy photo, but it is not. Noise is nothing like a grain in film, it is more like the interference on TV, not pretty or attractive. Especially the noise of the A200 which is all kinds of colours.

So... if you think you will want to use higher ISOs at times, don't go for the Sony A200. If that is not the case, by all means consider it.

What DSLR would you recommend that offers high noise quality thats on the same rang (price-wise, and possible features) with the Sony A100?

DonSchap
08-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Look... high ISO settings are usually a direct result of "crappy aperture" on the lens. Trying to get more out of the lens than it was intended to provide... so... yeah.. noise galore!

If you want to improve the noise-to-light ratio... buy f/2.8 glass... and shoot f/2.8-4.0... or entertain the idea that you may need a decent flash or auxillary lighting.

There have only been a few occasions I have even given a thought of using anything higher than ISO-800. So... if I were a betting man... which i am not... I would say that sticking between 100-400 will provide you will 80-90% of your shots. So this argument is rather... dry. (cough)

14219
I will be testing my new SONY A100K later this week... for focus with my various Minolta glass and for side by sides with the Canon EOS 20D... for those obnoxious ISO-1600 shots (as few and far between as they are).

14221

BTW: SONY included a coupon for 15%-off eligible accessories.

johndefreitas
10-09-2006, 09:24 PM
Great Job Tim. Just got my A100 based on your info. Remarkable!
John

johndefreitas
10-09-2006, 09:39 PM
Tim, since you seem to be sharp all around, can you please tell me what you think of the Tamron AF75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD macro (1:3.9)? Are you familiar w/ this lens? I want to use it w/ the Sony A-100. I just got it today from Amazon (one of their side stores) and I feel uncomfortable with the fact that it was advertised new, but the box, manual, and the wrapping seem to be from the 70's. I will be testing it tomorrow, but cautiously and suspiciously, since the item is far from being new. The cost was $90.00. Is it why? Thanks for your input.
John