sony alpha?

[mkalcevic]

I'm getting my first dslr and I'm seriously considering the new sony alpha. has anyone had a chance to use this yet? I've read all the reviews that I can find and it all looks good to me. the thing that really attracts me to it is the IS built into the body versus in the lens. Does anyone have a good reason for me not to go with this one?

 

[thebeginning]

if you are already attached to a company's lineup, say Canon or Nikon, then I would stick with one of them. If you think you might take photography more seriously in the future (perhaps semi-professionally), I would also suggest sticking with Canon or Nikon. Sony should be coming out with a 'pro' camera in the future, but it's still wise to stick with a bigger name. If you don't really have any attachments, take a look at the other offerings from different brands and compare them with the alpha. If you still are leaning towards the sony, get it!

as far as the quality goes, it looks to be a fine camera. I've only read a handful of reviews, but from what I've read, the IS and dust prevention system work well. The image quality doesnt seem to be up there with canon and nikon's near offerings (like the canon 350d or the new nikon d80) but it's other features are nice. It really depends on what you'll be using the camera for and what you're going to expect.

 

[mkalcevic]

it seems as though for the money that I'll spend, I'll get more from the sony compared to canon or nikon in the same range. one drawback that I see is that there aren't as many lenses available (sony brand at least) as with the other major companies. but in all truthfulness, by the time I can afford to get more lenses, they should have a pretty good lineup. Also, the cost benifet in the long haul is better with the sony with the IS built into the body rather than the lens. I think I'm going to go with the sony for a starter then maybe down the road, if things get serious enough, pick up a Mark II

 

[Frequent Traveler]

OK my first post here - please be gentle ; -).

Since you don't have an investment in a particular brand the sky (AKA your budget) is the limit. As you've likely already read, you're ultimately buying into a photographic system of lenses, flashes, teleconverters, FUTURE bodies etc. Canon and Nikon are the leaders (for now).

Canon seems to have "cornered the market" on A LOT!!!! Canon AF speed and accuracy are well known. Nikon has a proven dedication to quality products and beautiful end results as well.

While Sony is new in the dSLR game, they acquired konica/Minolta, KM, who has a reputation for beautiful color rendering. Keep in mind that Sony builds the sensors for Nikon and so are not entirely new to imaging and i believe they are the largest CCD producers. Their PROFESSIONAL video equipment is, arguably, among the best available at any price.

Also, with the Alpha and following camera bodies, ALL Minolta Maxxum brand lenses will fit AND have vibration reduction so can be bought A LOT cheaper than the lens-based vibration reduction lenses. Also, Sony is likely bringing to the table an upscaled dSLR to truly compete with the more pro-sumer dSLR's like the 30D and D200. An indepth review of the Alpha was completed on dpreview for further info.

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

Have fun with the RESULTS of your eventual decision!!!!

 

[bigfatbadger]

it seems as though for the money that I'll spend, I'll get more from the sony compared to canon or nikon in the same range. one drawback that I see is that there aren't as many lenses available (sony brand at least) as with the other major companies. but in all truthfulness, by the time I can afford to get more lenses, they should have a pretty good lineup. Also, the cost benifet in the long haul is better with the sony with the IS built into the body rather than the lens. I think I'm going to go with the sony for a starter then maybe down the road, if things get serious enough, pick up a Mark II

I'd be careful about this, although I think the alpha looks like a good camera, you should be careful not to just compare them by features. VR and dust prevention built into the body sound good, but if it's at the loss of picture quality, there's not really much point in having it. The VR built in is positive, but I don't think it gives as much of an advantage as the VR inbuilt into lenses in terms of stops, but I couldbe wrong.