I picked up a Sony alpha 350 (14Mpix) and a few lenses to see what the fuss was about. As people speculated from the pictures, the body does look plasticky and button studded. But I will say the buttons are kind of useful once you get a little acclimated. I hate the "everything on the back LCD" setup but looks like the A900 has a second LCD.
I've only shot with it for a half day, mostly just playing around, but I've posted some pics with various lenses: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/sony350
A couple of quick impressions:
1) The camera can't handle high ISO. Its very nice at 400, 800 definitely requires noise reduction. I'd say similar to my old 20D.
2) The in body IS works really well. I'm caffeine saturated most of the time and use almost all IS lenses, at a quick take the Sony in body system is pretty close to the Canon in lens system as far as effectiveness. I know all the 'through the viewfinder' advantages of in lens IS stuff, just saying it works, its not a gimmick.
3) The Zeiss 16-80 is a sweet little zoom. Its aperture challenged but nice and sharp.
4) The Sony brand lenses I got (50 f1.4, 50 Macro, 100 Macro) are well built, feel very similar to their Canon counterparts, all are nice and sharp. Shooting 100 Macro with IS is a pleasure I can't get with my Canon gear.
5) One of the very fun things I got was the 500 f8 mirror lens. I only bought it because I thought, much as I hate reflex bokeh, the in camera IS might actually make the little 500 usable handheld. And it does. I'd say surprisingly adequate. Here's a quick handheld garbage shot with it
I once wished for my 1000/11 to have IS/AS or something but now I find that MF bugs me most. That 500/8 has AF and on a Sony it also has AS. I'm beginning to be tempted…..
rideexileex wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear all the negatives coming mostly about "looks" and "button placement" - people should be more concerned about image qualities, iso preformance, etc, rather than where a button is located...
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
A full frame in-body anti-vibration system and line of Zeiss branded lenses are not distinctive?
No, I will not term a possible future product as "distinctive" as of today it only exist in the realm of speculations, not in the hands of real users.
I am not saying Sony can't take pictures or never will. Quite the contrary. With financial might, access to technology and established retail&service network they are in an absolutely unique position. Yet, several years after KM know-how and back catalogue acquisition all this did not translate into a position of a market leader. Sony still remain just one of the second ranked DSLR players. In the above context this almost equate a failure.
rideexileex wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear all the negatives coming mostly about "looks" and "button placement" - people should be more concerned about image qualities, iso preformance, etc, rather than where a button is located...
Go to chase a politician, or shoot an athletic meeting all day long with a camera with weird button placement and I will show you how fast that stop of better noise will go to the second hand market. Besides, I didnt use that camera (obviously) but I kind of like the idea of having more functions handy when shooting vertical. A different story is the fact that it looks like big handed people will have severe ergonomic issues. Maybe they are thinking in a body with different size grips (S, M, L and XL ).
I think we'll see a little finessing of its appearance before the final release, but not a lot . . . the A700 is no oil painting, but the ergonomics work very well in practice.
I also think that Sony will be working very hard (ie, making offers we can't refuse) to woo Canon and Nikon users, and they may have the lens range to do it. Very much depends on the new ultrawide zoom and the fast wide they have in the wings, but the 24-70/2.8 (pictured) and a number of other key optics are already the business.
The combination of an aggresively priced 24.6MP SSS camera will give Sony some unique capabilities – like an auto-focus, image stabilised 500/8, and an image stabilised Zeiss AF 135/1.8 (which is almost worth buying the system for alone). Shooting 24.6MP with an image stabilised f1.4 lens will be an absolute world first, and a highly tempting proposition. And if you've not seen what Sony/Minolta's 135mm STF can do, prepare to fall deeply in love . . .
For me, the million dollar question is whether Nikon will be using that sensor in a flagship body. If they do, I would bet on it being a lot more expensive that the Sony, but you get the attractive new Nikon lenses. But if Nikon feels that in-body IS clashes with the interests of its VR lenses, the Sony may be left alone among pro-level cameras with the ability to shoot with stabilisation at wide apertures, and that would be very interesting indeed.
The best information from the rumour mill to date points to A900 not being the name, and an RRP somewhere between $4-5K. But who really knows . . .
What is certain, however, is that Sony knows its facing an uphill struggle to win the loyalty of professional users, and are very likely to sweeten the pitch with competitive pricing.
I would suggest that Sony's DSLR offerings are actually cheap compared to the competition. The accessories are another matter . . .
I think for Sony to become a real player, they are going to have to introduce professional services and promotions to compete with Canon and Nikon. At a minimum they are going to have to make a distinction between them and the other professional cameras makers. At this point in the game, I don't think 'as good' is going to cut it for them. They will have to offer something that Nikon and Canon cannot.
The only painful thing about the STF is it's a T4.5 lens, not exactly fast enough for low light. Otherwise I'm yet to see such sweet images from any contenders, be it Canon 135/2L or Voigtlander 125/2.5
And who says Sony can't compete in prices? For example the PS3, they were actually producing the units at a loss and hope to recoup with blu-ray game sales to compete with Xbox360 sales. Sony have the financial power to do it.
Also in this electronic age, it only needs an established "pro" to be pleased with A900 for the word to spread. Look at the introduction of D3, even loyal Canon shooters were tempted to try it out then some sneakily made the switch or became "neutral" and shoot with both systems, partly thanks to the whole 1D3 fiasco.
PS: as for the comments about the A900 being ugly-looking, I don't know what to say lol. What do you do with your camera except taking pictures?
Edited by Leon Noel on Mar 23, 2008 at 11:26 PM GMT
Mike Ip wrote:
At this point in the game, I don't think 'as good' is going to cut it for them. They will have to offer something that Nikon and Canon cannot.
Having built-in vibration control for a whole range of stunning Zeiss lenses isn't bad, nor is having V-C for a 1.4 lens (Canon's fastest IS lens is 2.8), nor is having more megapixels than Canon's $8,000 camera....
Re: marcwilson's question about shift lenses, I'm not familiar with cross-pollination apart from "almost everything can be made to fit Canon EOS."
Am I correct in assuming that Nikon lenses cannot be adapted to work on a Sony? (I'm guessing the lens-to-sensor difference with the two mounts is too similar?) Thanks.
If the Minolta/Sony 70-20mm f2.8G, 135mm STF, 200mm f2.8 HS G & 35mm f1.4G lenses didn't exist, I'd be a Nikon user by now. The D3 is very tempting, however... Interesting times are afoot.
What's with all the Sony bashing anyways? Are the Canon users all scared and are having to resort to it to maintain their egos? Who cares if a camera body is aesthetically pleasant of not? The 1D series isn't exactly winning design awards either. The image quality and ease of use is what matters. I personally can't stand canon ergonomics, but you'll never see me bash canon about it, as it's just my preference. I just don't buy their products.
senna4ever wrote:
Who cares if a camera body is aesthetically pleasant of not? The 1D series isn't exactly winning design awards either. The image quality and ease of use is what matters. I personally can't stand canon ergonomics, but you'll never see me bash canon about it, as it's just my preference. I just don't buy their products.
Fully agree (and not just because I also wish Senna was 4 ever...).
hubsand wrote:
... and an image stabilised Zeiss AF 135/1.8 (which is almost worth buying the system for alone).
Tried that lens last year, and I was very, very tempted. Had the A700 been launched at that time, I suspect I would have been a Sony "one-body-one-lens" owner by now.
In-lens IS may have its advantages, but if the lens doesn't have it, there's obviously nothing that beats having it in-body. Canikon may have to realise that, sooner rather than later.
Ugly camera body? I believe we are supposed to stand behind the camera, looking through it. As long as it doesn't scare the model away, I'm happy
(On the other hand, it's nice if the model isn't ugly )
I hate digging through menus and having masses of functions assigned to the one button.
Sony own the pro video market.
They have constantly evolved their cameras to be better and better.
It wouldn't surprise me if they do the same in stills and do become a serious player eventually.
It just may take a few years and a few model revisions.
I think there system looks promising. I don't see a dominant player really emerging from it all but 3 brands competing on equal footing. It will take quite some time yet.
Personally I am very keen on this system, particularly because I want to buy one of the new Sony video cameras, being able to mount a Alpha SLR lens is a huge plus.
I am going to wait though because I want to see some longer lenses, particularly the 400 4.5 minolta rebadged as a Sony.
malice4you wrote:
Based on those photos, I really hope that the rear buttons don't do anything important, cause I know if I were using that camera, i'd be pressing half of them anytime I picked the camera up, and the other half of them when running around working.
I think one really needs to work with a camera before passing judgement like this. I had a 5D, and hated the button layout. I have tried a D200, which was a dream in comparison. Others prefer Canon. The E-3 gets criticised regularly for odd button placement/size, but others have nothing but roses for the camera. Let's see how it works in practice.
It looks too cheap and toyish IMO.
To me it looks better and better. It looks very strong, in fact, and I like the angular peak.
There are two major differentiating factors here, either of which may be enough to get a non-trivial number of people on-board. Together they are almost certain to put some movement in the market.
- A full-on pro body in a 5D-sized package. Why couldn't Canon have done the 5D right, with seals and so on? This alone makes the camera really interesting. Very few people *want* to carry around 1.3-1.5kg in a body.
- Zeiss lenses in a native mount. What can I say. L lenses are often not that great (some are really good, just to stave off arguments here), and Nikon's lens range is still missing some serious pieces (fast wide-angle, more VR glass), so there is an opening here.
Someone else mentioned that Nikon would be in Sony's sights next. I am not sure why they would skip Canon, who the last year or two have trailed Nikon. Additionally, the A900 is more of a direct competitor to the 1Ds3.
I agree that the A100/A200/A300/A350/A700 aren't that compelling, with the A350 and A700 being possible exceptions. The A900 is very interesting though, but as they say, the devil is in the details.
No, it's the excellent Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. Already seen a preliminary review in an Aussie photo magazine and they say it's very high performer, sharp wide open, excellent colour and contrast and well controlled distortion and CA.
There are already AF-confirming M42 adaptors for the Sony Minolta mount. This requires a 0.9mm differential in registration – exactly the same as the Contax/Yashica mount. A Sony-CY adaptor looks perfectly viable, as does Sony-Olympus and Sony-Leica versions, which are easier to adapt, with longer flange distances.
). 
?!!!!!