Sony A100

[YEKCIM]

Here's dpreview's initial preview:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/

Highlights:
10MP
Body-integral IS
2.5" LCD
ISO to 1600
Dust Removal system
Compatible with existing Minolta Maxxum lenses (1.5X crop factor)

~YEKCIM

 

[Anewman]

If price and image quality are on par with the compitition, this camera will be a winner.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

After reading the preview, it seems like Sony got a winner. Especially the 1/125 flash sync instead of the usual 1/60 in (almost) all dSLR! A slew of drool inducing lenses (albeit MORE expensive than Canon... 70-200 f/2.8 for US$2,400 is crazy, Canon's equivalent with IS is only US$1,700)

the only caveat I can find:

Sony's bad habit of using image stabilization IN CONJUNCTION with boosting up ISO (up to ISO 3200!) when Super Steady Shot is turned on. At least give the user the option to turn auto ISO bump on or off. Even a 2 stop (effective) advantage is enough, no need to boost the ISO by another stop.

Now we only have to wait and see the ISO 1600 capability of this camera. Spec wise (minus the auto ISO bump in conjunction to AS) this is my dream walkaround camera !!

 

[YEKCIM]

...this is my dream walkaround camera !!

Let me know when all your Canon gear goes up on eBay!

~YEKCIM

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Let me know when all your Canon gear goes up on eBay!

~YEKCIM

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[manning]

Look at all those lens and accessories!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/page3.asp

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the prices are crazy,though.

70-200 f/2.8 $2,400 at that price I can get a Rebel XT with Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
300 f/2.8 $3,600 at that price I can get a Canon 30D with 300 f/2.8L IS.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Aside from the crazy price of the lenses, here's what imaging-resource website have to say about its ISO 800 and ISO 1600

"Shots from our test camera were pretty noisy at high ISO, and the camera took an agressive move against that noise that is typical of Sony cameras. The resulting images have smooshed detials and a watercolor apperance at ISO 800 and 1,600."

and to think that when it SSS on (anti shake) the ISO may be bumped to ISO 3200 is scary.

Bye bye Sony. Back to Canon I go.

 

[manning]

They do say "The only weak point we found at all was somewhat high noise levels at ISO 1600, but that could easily be a result of lower-grade sensors used for the prototypes."

Will be interesting to see if this changes in the production models.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I hope so. But if they actually use D200 sensor, then the ISO 800 and 1600 performance won't beat Canon 20D/30D. Also, don't forget that the 'water-colour effect" from noise reduction is not because of the sensor but due to its Bionz processor. So I seriously doubt that this is going to change much in the final production.

I'm really hoping that I'm wrong.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

addition: Phil Askey from dpreview admitted the mistake (or is it?) that SSS does not bump the ISO to 3200 but only up to 1600.

 

[Anewman]

addition: Phil Askey from dpreview admitted the mistake (or is it?) that SSS does not bump the ISO to 3200 but only up to 1600.

Did he admitt that the CAMERA does not go to ISO 3200 period or did he mention the "boost" you refer to?

I still feel that it is not the SSS that bumps the ISO, it is lack of light that makes the camera boost the ISO as high as it takes to get a decent(yet blur free) exposure. And since one has activated SSS it kind of puts the camera in a form of SHUTTER ANTI BLURR PRIORITY mode, once the slowest(blur free) shutter speed is reached what else do you expect the camera to do?

If the Camera does not raise the ISO and instead it underexposes the image, many will complain.

If the Camera slows the shutter speed even more to avoid upping ISO and image is blurred, many will complain.

IF one shoots in Manual modes it will not matter, setting proper exposure will be the photographers job and SSS will still give them a couple stops.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

He used to mention about the boost but several hours later the ISO 3200 boost claimed was retracted. I find this very strange.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a subscriber to auto ISO boost. Imagine you already set to P mode, ISO 1600, SSS on. I don't want the camera to automatically boost the ISO to 3200 in conjunction to the SSS. AT least give me a choice whether I want SSS with or without ISO boost.

Currently this discussion is moot because of the mysterious retraction. Also the retraction was not published openly, he only admit his mistake on the forum and it's buried somewhere amongst a whole bunch of posts AFTER I mentioned and copy and paste his writing regarding to the ISO 3200 boost.

Even more strange, my post that quoted him disappeared, he changed the SSS dscription quietly, and only mentioned in passing, once, that he made a mistake and there is no such thing as ISO 3200 boost.

 

[Anewman]

I don't know about you, but I'm not a subscriber to auto ISO boost. Imagine you already set to P mode, ISO 1600, SSS on. I don't want the camera to automatically boost the ISO to 3200 in conjunction to the SSS. AT least give me a choice whether I want SSS with or without ISO boost.

Well again from what I can tell the camera does not have 3200 ISO.

And no I would not be a subscriber to "auto" ISO boost, but it IMO if one shoots auto you are allowing the camera to make needed decisions for you when facing UNDEREXPOSURE.

"Imagine you already set to P mode, ISO 1600, SSS on. I don't want the camera to automatically boost the ISO to 3200 in conjunction to the SSS. AT least give me a choice whether I want SSS with or without ISO boost."

options pretending the camera did offer 3200 ISO.
1. Shoot as is and underexpose. Then persons would claim that SSS causes underexposure.

2. Slow shutter further(assuming Aperture is maxxed out) resulting with blurred images. Claims that SSS does NOT reduce blur will follow.

3. Raise ISO to keep shutter speed inline with a proper exposure and AVOIDING BLUR(by turning SSS on you told camera this was a PRIORITY). Claims that SSS boost ISO will follow, ignoring the fact that there was not ENOUGH LIGHT to get a proper exposure and avoid blur without it.

You do have a Choice of using SSS without any ISO boost or other compensations.
It is called manual. The camera will not make ANY changes to avoid underexposure caused by lack of light.


EDIT additional

He used to mention about the boost but several hours later the ISO 3200 boost claimed was retracted. I find this very strange.


Currently this discussion is moot because of the mysterious retraction. Also the retraction was not published openly, he only admit his mistake on the forum and it's buried somewhere amongst a whole bunch of posts AFTER I mentioned and copy and paste his writing regarding to the ISO 3200 boost.

Even more strange, my post that quoted him disappeared, he changed the SSS dscription quietly, and only mentioned in passing, once, that he made a mistake and there is no such thing as ISO 3200 boost.

You make this sound like some kind of consipiracy, and the way I remember it and the way the preview was cached on my computer(temp IE files) he never mentioned the words "AUTO" or "BOOST" in conjunction with 3200 ISO. The mistake he admitted making was saying the "availability of 3200 ISO" instead of 1600 and that was the only correction he made. Here is the original description from my cache.

Anti-Blur

Sony has renamed Minolta's CCD shift Anti-Shake system as 'Super SteadyShot', but the principal is the same. However we have it on good authority that Sony's engineers have made some significant improvements to the system and now claim shutter speeds 3.5 stops slower can be used with Super SteadyShot enabled. The second part of the Anti-Blur story is the availability of high sensitivities of up to ISO 3200.

 

[manning]

Here is a Popular Photography hands on review of the camera

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/2417/hands-on-sony-alpha-100-dslr.html

 

[Kelly Grannell]

The second part of the Anti-Blur story is the availability of high sensitivities of up to ISO 3200.

The ISO 3200 is not available if you don't use SSS. If the ISO 3200 is only available as "a second part" of SSS, it can only mean that SSS consists of two parts of technologies combined together. First part: KM's AS, Second Part: boosting to ISO 3200.

 

[UKDEB]

I'm considering upgrading my Canon 300D to a 30D. Went to my local dealer today and he advised me to wait until Thursday - apparently Canon is announcing something (possibly a replacement for the 30D or 350D).

Anyway, he was raving about the Sony. He told me a lot about it and sent me away with the publicity material. I've also spent the afternoon reading reviews and the whole Minolta story/history piece, so I'm not looking for opinions based on what others have read. I am interested in hearing from anyone who's bought it, or used it for an extended period. It's way cheaper than the competition, if, IMHO, a bit ugly.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

using it for an extended period - no, especially because the camera have just been released. I only played with it for only 1 week.

For the same of money, however, I would strongly suggest you to get Pentax K100D (also with Anti Shake) and a Sigma 18-125 lens. This will cost you LESS than the Sony (you don't really need the 10 MP anyway, besides, the K100D have FAR better high-ISO performance... almost as good as the RebelXT) PLUS you'll get a farther reaching lens (Sony Alpha comes with 18-70)

Sony Alpha with 18-70 lens in Canada is CAD$1300 pro: 10 MP
Pentax K100D body + Sigma 18-125 lens in Canada is CAD $1100. pro: far better high ISO performance.

 

[Anewman]

I'm considering upgrading my Canon 300D to a 30D. Went to my local dealer today and he advised me to wait until Thursday - apparently Canon is announcing something (possibly a replacement for the 30D or 350D).

According to history Canon replaces each model at about 18months.

The 350D is about 18 months old
The 30D is about 6 months old

I do not remember Canon replacing a model after being on the market for 6 months.

Anyway, he was raving about the Sony. He told me a lot about it and sent me away with the publicity material. I've also spent the afternoon reading reviews and the whole Minolta story/history piece, so I'm not looking for opinions based on what others have read. I am interested in hearing from anyone who's bought it, or used it for an extended period. It's way cheaper than the competition, if, IMHO, a bit ugly.

Well I have not purchased it, but I would like to address Kellys reply about the Pentax having better High ISO noise levels.

The Pentax is 6mp the Sony 10mp, if you downsize a Sony Image to 6mp(fair comparison) the noise levels will be greatly reduced(math sez about 40%).

And always remember Noise is not the ONLY thing to consider when buying a camera, I for one would rather use Minolta glass over Pentax glass.

 

[homerdog]

The Pentax and Sony cost about the same in the UK, so no advantage there. I don't think the high ISO performance of the Sony should cause you too much concern, not many users regularly have the need to shoot at ISO 800 and above and, in any case, there is effective noise reduction software available, such as Noise Ninja and Neatimage.

It's also likely that Sony will prove to be a better buy than Pentax when you take account of future development. Having said that, Canon's 8mp sensor is arguably better than either the 6 mp Pentax or 10mp Sony