Tell me please!

[alexphoto01]

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]

poor noise performance (compared to the Canons)--otherwise I'd have already ordered an alpha.

[privard]

I want unlimited bulb exposure.

[alexphoto01]

what is the limit??

[Jason25]

what is the limit??

I would imagine until the battery dies

[bormal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.