DPreview.com: Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Review

[GTaudiophile]

In July 2005 Konica Minolta and Sony made an announcement that they were to jointly develop digital SLR cameras. This agreement hinted at shared technology between the two companies such as auto focus, metering and Anti-Shake coming from Konica Minolta and sensors, electronics and batteries from Sony. Some six months later Konica Minolta dropped a bomb on the camera market by announcing that they were withdrawing from the camera business and had transferred certain camera assets including the Maxxum/Dynax lens mount and related SLR technologies to Sony.

Almost a year on since that first announcement we have the new Sony Alpha DSLR-A100, a compact, ten megapixel (CCD) digital SLR with a (Konica) Minolta lens mount, Anti-Shake (now Super SteadyShot) and a definite cross-breed appearance. It's fair to say that while this camera may share some components with previous Konica Minolta digital SLR's Sony's involvement has brought external styling, build quality and finish up to a higher standard. The lens mount is to be called the 'Alpha mount' and Sony has announced no less than 19 lenses which will carry the Sony Alpha branding (although many are based on existing Minolta lenses).

Full Review

 

[Koing]

Not bad at all.

Koing

 

[dug777]

Looks nice, but i think i'm going to jump on a D50 or a D70s still...

 

[Pikachu]

Ooh, Zeiss... :thumbsup:

 

[daniel1113]

The only downside to the A100 is that it is made by Sony.

 

[Pikachu]

So are Nikon's sensors, but I guess they suck too... :roll:

 

[ultimatebob]

Wow, that's a good initial line up of lenses. I'd want to read some reviews to see if they're any good first, though.

 

[tfinch2]

Wow those Zeiss lenses are overpriced.

16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 for $700?
70-200mm f/2.8 for $2400?

baaahahahaha

 

[Pikachu]

How much do you get 'em for?

 

[ElFenix]

70-200 f/2.8L for $1,140

 

[Pikachu]

That ain't Zeiss

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
70-200 f/2.8L for $1,140

Yep, and this one has VR for Nikon:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...=274780&is=GREY&addedTroughType=search

And this is the one I use, same range and class, but for Olympus

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

EDIT:

And are these lenses even made by Zeiss? Or did Sony buy the rights to use the name Zeiss on their higher quality glass?

IIRC, Zeiss is making real Zeiss lenses for the Nikon F-mount, and Leica is making real Leica lenses for the 4/3's mount.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Pikachu
That ain't Zeiss

no sh!t. but for $2400 sony is asking for the zeiss i could get a 30D and the L lens.

or i could get the E500, the lens tfinch linked to, and have $800 left over for a 3rd lens.

 

[Pikachu]

With that body you'll have the option of using the very best, or lower end lens. You'll have the choice. And, this is the first out of the chute. If you stock up on quality lenses, you can snag a better body later. With SLRs, the lens is #1 priority.

Oh, and those prices are MSRP, no?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Pikachu
With that body you'll have the option of using the very best, or lower end lens. You'll have the choice. And, this is the first out of the chute. If you stock up on quality lenses, you can snag a better body later. With SLRs, the lens is #1 priority.

While true, that statement also makes the assumption that quality bodies are readily available.

Are you really going to trust Sony to make a pro-level body to match the quality of that glass?

 

[Pikachu]

Time will tell. I ain't buying any body now, but this just expanded my options, didn't it?

 

[spike spiegal]

Looking at the actual sample images from the Alpha (vs masterbating over stupid german lenses) it looks like the Alpha edges out both the D200 and D30. Two cameras I've always insisted were WAY over-priced.

Although you coulnd't force me to invest another nickle is the obsolete APS sensor format, the Sony does give you something to consider.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Pikachu
That ain't Zeiss

no sh!t. but for $2400 sony is asking for the zeiss i could get a 30D and the L lens.

or i could get the E500, the lens tfinch linked to, and have $800 left over for a 3rd lens.

The law of diminishing returns on high end glass.

I have a friend who is very critical about is glass. L lense is great but it is still not as sharp as his Lecia stuff. Some guys are very picky!

Koing

 

[spike spiegal]

That's right - according to Leica users the Japanese are genetically incapable of designing good glass but they don't have blonde hair.

My Mamiya RB67 uses Japanese glass, and it kicks the crap out of anything shot with a 35mm Leica.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
That's right - according to Leica users the Japanese are genetically incapable of designing good glass but they don't have blonde hair.

My Mamiya RB67 uses Japanese glass, and it kicks the crap out of anything shot with a 35mm Leica.

You're comparing MF to 35mm?

 

[Brentx]

I would much rather have a Canon Rebel XT with an Ultrasonic lens, and it still would be a ton cheaper than the Sony with the Zeiss. I am a big anti-Sony person though, except when it comes to their displays.

Just stick with someone who has been in the SLR camera business for years, Canon or Nikon (preferably Canon )

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Pikachu
That ain't Zeiss

no sh!t. but for $2400 sony is asking for the zeiss i could get a 30D and the L lens.

or i could get the E500, the lens tfinch linked to, and have $800 left over for a 3rd lens.

The law of diminishing returns on high end glass.

I have a friend who is very critical about is glass. L lense is great but it is still not as sharp as his Lecia stuff. Some guys are very picky!

Koing

still the MSRP on the non "zeiss" glass seems insanely high.