Photographers! Digital Rebel XTi VS Sony A100

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And nearly all of Canon's point and shoots. In fact, nearly every point and shoot on the market today. And Sony has only been _the_ leading name in professional video recording equipment for the past few decades.

sadly, they can't get their PR department right You also forgot the bravias.. they are pretty damn nice. And I hate sony

It is nice to see the new entries to the entry DSLR market.. I'm really curious as how nikon and canon will respond to the in camera IS stuff.. and if they'll just push "lens superiority" and not try to compete.


Also, why isn't the pentax among your choices?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
The K10D review shows pretty much all the applicable comparison shots between the Nikon D80, Sony A100, Pentax K10D and Canon 30D (which can be translated to the XTi).

IMO, the Canon definitely comes out on top in terms of IQ, especialy at high ISOs. I'm not really in the market for a camera right now, so I haven't heard about underexposure issues since I haven't been really researching.

This is only if you want and prefer in camera processing and JPG sharpness...many gripe that Canons appear too processed for their taste.

This is true enough. If I were starting with a whole new system the K10D would be very luring to me. I'm happy with Canon though. IMO, it's just hard to go wrong with any option. "Clear" winners are few and far between.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Sony Argument

Counterargument

I'd have to agree with ZV. Back about four years ago when I was looking at cameras ANYONE who was even remotely into photography told me not to go with Sony because they don't have the photographic history that Canon or Nikon or Olympus does. Four years later, I'd have to say that Sony and Pentax are the two companies best poised to give Canon and Nikon a run for their money. Olympus has just... gone somewhere else. Sony has a very strong electronics background and with the help of an optics company like Zeiss, will go very far. And just because Sony's TVs or VCRs or DVD players don't last too long does not mean that their cameras will exhibit the same thing. They're entirely different divisions within the main company and very different markets. It is very likely that Sony Photographic is much more focused, professional, and quality-oriented than the rest of Sony. Canon's cameras are top notch, but when's the last time you've heard their inkjet printers being really praised? Nowadays it's all HP or Epson, and HP just happens to make very subpar cameras. They're totally different divisions that can't necessarily be relied upon to extrapolate performance estimates of each other.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
sadly, they can't get their PR department right You also forgot the bravias.. they are pretty damn nice. And I hate sony

It is nice to see the new entries to the entry DSLR market.. I'm really curious as how nikon and canon will respond to the in camera IS stuff.. and if they'll just push "lens superiority" and not try to compete.


Also, why isn't the pentax among your choices?

Yeah, Sony's made some bone-headed moves (especially with their gaming division), but overall I don't see the company going away and I don't think they bought Minolta just to have a single DSLR and a handfull of lenses. And I know that even Sony can't think that they will sell many $1,400 Zeiss lenses to the average A100 buyer, so they have to have more in the pipeline. The Sony/Zeiss lenses are commissioned by Sony from Zeiss, so there's no financial risk to Zeiss AG. Zeiss builds the lenses, Sony buys them from Zeiss, and then Sony re-sells to retailers. I just don't see Sony taking that on just to have the brand cachet.

Pentax is also a great option. As I said, there's not a single "bad" DSLR on the market today. Get the one that feels best in your hand.

ZV

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: randomlinh
sadly, they can't get their PR department right You also forgot the bravias.. they are pretty damn nice. And I hate sony

It is nice to see the new entries to the entry DSLR market.. I'm really curious as how nikon and canon will respond to the in camera IS stuff.. and if they'll just push "lens superiority" and not try to compete.


Also, why isn't the pentax among your choices?

Yeah, Sony's made some bone-headed moves (especially with their gaming division), but overall I don't see the company going away and I don't think they bought Minolta just to have a single DSLR and a handfull of lenses. And I know that even Sony can't think that they will sell many $1,400 Zeiss lenses to the average A100 buyer, so they have to have more in the pipeline. The Sony/Zeiss lenses are commissioned by Sony from Zeiss, so there's no financial risk to Zeiss AG. Zeiss builds the lenses, Sony buys them from Zeiss, and then Sony re-sells to retailers. I just don't see Sony taking that on just to have the brand cachet.

Pentax is also a great option. As I said, there's not a single "bad" DSLR on the market today. Get the one that feels best in your hand.

ZV

I dunno, they think the $600 price tag for the PS3 is a bargain (ok, it is if you want the blu-ray)

I'm half considering the switch to the pentax... or a D80.. the viewfinder is just amazing. I don't have much vested in canon, so I can switch.. I'm just lazy.. and really can't justify spending money right now

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
This is true enough. If I were starting with a whole new system the K10D would be very luring to me. I'm happy with Canon though. IMO, it's just hard to go wrong with any option. "Clear" winners are few and far between.

Yeah I agree, really they are all good choices, it is just about determining what is most important to you as everything has its tradeoffs. I went Pentax as I didn't have any hardware investment, the cost was lower (in the K100D, even lower now with sales and rebates) and it had in camera anti shake....if I was more into speed shooting then I would have gone Nikon, Canon seemed ok to me but I hated the feel and the weight of the older XT as the XTI wasn't out yet, though I don't believe they improved that much with the new model...camera was just too small and plastic for me, but for action shooting it is reported to be one of if not the best out there.

If I were going to do it again it would either be a D70, only because they killed the D50 and replaced it with the weak IMHO D40, the Olympus E550 or whatever model that is with the dual lens kit and dust cleaner that actually works, or the Pentax K10D...the Sony Alpha is really nice with its Minolta design and backwards compatability for lenses...

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: bozack
the Sony Alpha is really nice with its Minolta design and backwards compatability for lenses...

What do you mean by backwards compatability?

 

[mrrman]

I have the XTi and very happy so far...it came with the standard lens but picked up a 75-300 and 28-135 off Ebay/craigslist. I love this camera so far and Ive only had it for 2 months

 

[mrrman]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami
im not in the market for a DSLR. But I was playing with these two at CC. I'll agree that the Sony felt better in my hand than the XTi. Isnt there a significant price difference between the two?

Not much of a difference in price.

XTi body - $681.95
A100 body - $699.95

I price matched the entire(complete package) XTi camera for $689 to Staples and they took it and even got a 10% difference plus applied a $30 off $150 coupon

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: bozack
the Sony Alpha is really nice with its Minolta design and backwards compatability for lenses...

What do you mean by backwards compatability?

I would assume he means the alpha share's the minolta lens mount (dunno what it's called)

 

[JMWarren]

Just FYI

In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that you can't see incamera IS working which is a huge draw back IMHO.

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
In the end, it boils down to this: Canon and Nikon are trustworthy names in cameras. Sony - who knows? they might have bought Minolta, but they are Sony after all.

Yeah, Who knows what Sony can do. They only build the sensors and electronics for the Nikon cameras. And the Pentax cameras. And nearly all of Canon's point and shoots. In fact, nearly every point and shoot on the market today. And Sony has only been _the_ leading name in professional video recording equipment for the past few decades.

You're right, I shouldn't have dealt with such a shady company. :roll:

Your father's camera is a single sample, with no data for how it was cared for, and the video camera is also an isolated incident, again with no data on how it was cared for, and to top it off the technology for the video camera is only vaguely related to the technology used in a still camera.

As I've said, the build on my A100 is far better than any XT or XTi that I've handled. The 30D is better, but for the price it ought to be. The A100 is not in the same class as the 30D and it doesn't pretend to be.

ZV

Sony may make good CCD's but the fact remains that when their cameras (with the same sensors) are compared to the competition they come up short!

Sony knows nothing about what makes a camera a camera, like lenses (their Zeiss offerings aren't even close to a real Zeiss, shoot a Contax or 'Blad and you'll know.

Thats the reason they bought Minolta's imaging division, to start with decent lensing, firmware, flash system etc.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
(their Zeiss offerings aren't even close to a real Zeiss, shoot a Contax or 'Blad and you'll know.)

I've shot Contax for the last 15 years.

Comparing the "Zeiss" lenses on Sony's point and shoot cameras to the Zeiss lenses available for the A100 is ridiculous. Every bit as ridiculous as using Sony's P&S cameras as a basis for forming an opinion about the A100.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Thats the reason they bought Minolta's imaging division, to start with decent lensing, firmware, flash system etc.

And the fact that they bought the technology and know-how somehow makes the A100 a bad camera? Come on now, that's not even remotely close to logical.

ZV

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JMWarren
(their Zeiss offerings aren't even close to a real Zeiss, shoot a Contax or 'Blad and you'll know.)

I've shot Contax for the last 15 years.

Comparing the "Zeiss" lenses on Sony's point and shoot cameras to the Zeiss lenses available for the A100 is ridiculous. Every bit as ridiculous as using Sony's P&S cameras as a basis for forming an opinion about the A100.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Thats the reason they bought Minolta's imaging division, to start with decent lensing, firmware, flash system etc.

And the fact that they bought the technology and know-how somehow makes the A100 a bad camera? Come on now, that's not even remotely close to logical.

ZV

The A100 is simply a rehash of the Minolta 5D body with a newer sensor and minimal improvements to the firmware. It's performance is somewhat less than that of the Nikon D80 and Pentax 10mp that use the same sensor, particularlly in color and high ISO.

As for the Zeiss SLR lenses I've not shot with them, the point and shoots are just run of the mill lenses though. In terms of the new "Sony" lenses most are rebranded Minolta or Tamron (11-18, 18-70, 18-200).

I have shot with the new F Mount Zeiss lenses which are beautiful on both digital (Nikon and Canon) and film. I've also shot the Contax and Blad systems as well as used some Zeiss glass on Canon's 1Ds Mark II. On the Mark II they blow the Canon glass outta the water but you loose all electronic connection. The Nikon mount offerings are maybe better (it's hard to tell on an APS-C sensor) than the Nikon offerings but again you lose all the electornics. I'd hazard to guess that if Nikon ever made a FF camera the Zeiss lenses would outperform the Nikon offerings.

The rebranded Minolta are built element for element the same but employ cheaper plastics, some have dropped the magnesium body infavour of plastic etc.

The "Sony" lenses are inferior to the Minolta's they replace.

Forgive me, but having examined (and Sold) Sony's system I just can't recommend it compared to the competition.

Finally, Having sold them I can notify you that Sony is the only manufacture to have shipped us not 1 but 3 DOA DSLR's this year! No other manufacture (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung) has had a single DOA as far back as I can remember.

I'm not saying the A100 is a terrible camera, because its not (there really isn't a bad DSL on the market, although I wouldn't choose one by Olympus due to sensor size), but I just don't see Sony lasting in the DSLR game. Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing. I can see Minolta users (and now Sony) once again being orphaned.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing.

From what I've heard the F707/F717 was a big success for them in the P&S market.

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing.

From what I've heard the F707/F717 was a big success for them in the P&S market.

Oh, Don't get me wrong. They've had successful products, infact in the early days of digital if you didn't sell Sony you were a nobody. That said their products were usual a average product that looked flashy and was well marketed. Just look at the 828....

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
The A100 is simply a rehash of the Minolta 5D body with a newer sensor and minimal improvements to the firmware. It's performance is somewhat less than that of the Nikon D80 and Pentax 10mp that use the same sensor, particularlly in color and high ISO.

I've seen no appreciable difference in the noise from RAW files from the Pentax, Nikon and Sony. The Sony's JPG processing does lag behind, but who the hell is shooting JPG?

Originally posted by: JMWarren
As for the Zeiss SLR lenses I've not shot with them, the point and shoots are just run of the mill lenses though. In terms of the new "Sony" lenses most are rebranded Minolta or Tamron (11-18, 18-70, 18-200).

The Minolta lenses were also built by (and in the case of the 11-18, 18-70, and 18-200 co-designed with) Tamron. In fact, the famous Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 was also shared with Tamron.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I have shot with the new F Mount Zeiss lenses which are beautiful on both digital (Nikon and Canon) and film. I've also shot the Contax and Blad systems as well as used some Zeiss glass on Canon's 1Ds Mark II. On the Mark II they blow the Canon glass outta the water but you loose all electronic connection. The Nikon mount offerings are maybe better (it's hard to tell on an APS-C sensor) than the Nikon offerings but again you lose all the electornics. I'd hazard to guess that if Nikon ever made a FF camera the Zeiss lenses would outperform the Nikon offerings.

And the Zeiss lenses for the A100 will be every bit as good. Everyone who has used one agrees.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
The rebranded Minolta are built element for element the same but employ cheaper plastics, some have dropped the magnesium body in favour of plastic etc.

The "Sony" lenses are inferior to the Minolta's they replace.

Funny, because the optical testing shows them to be identical in performance.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Forgive me, but having examined (and Sold) Sony's system I just can't recommend it compared to the competition.

Finally, Having sold them I can notify you that Sony is the only manufacture to have shipped us not 1 but 3 DOA DSLR's this year! No other manufacture (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung) has had a single DOA as far back as I can remember.

Odd then that in the hundreds of A100 users on dpreview and dyxum I haven't heard of anyone ever getting a DOA camera or of having a failure. Very odd. Even stranger that 91TTZ on these forums has had three Rebel XTi bodies that have all had severe exposure issues.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I'm not saying the A100 is a terrible camera, because its not (there really isn't a bad DSL on the market, although I wouldn't choose one by Olympus due to sensor size), but I just don't see Sony lasting in the DSLR game. Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing. I can see Minolta users (and now Sony) once again being orphaned.

The A100 out-resolves any other 10MP DSLR at ISO 100 and 200 and is equal to anything else at higher ISO in RAW files. I will admit that JPG processing is sub-standard, but who uses JPG? Sony's too arrogant to abandon the the market. I would be much more worried about Olympus right now (4/3rds is just not catching on at all) and Pentax (given how Hoya has treated Pentax since the acquisition) than Sony.

This follows the same pattern I've seen. Criticism of the A100 from people who don't own one and haven't used one thoroughly. I haven't seen a user this much down on the A100. I'm not about to claim that the A100 is perfect, it isn't. And I'm not claiming that Sony is managing this perfectly, they haven't. But to sound the death-knell less than a year into things is just a trifle premature and smacks of brand-whoring.

ZV

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing.

From what I've heard the F707/F717 was a big success for them in the P&S market.

Oh, Don't get me wrong. They've had successful products, infact in the early days of digital if you didn't sell Sony you were a nobody. The place I used to work at would joke to customers that wanted a Sony that "yes we have Sony's but I can sell you a better camera". Sony has had a few above average products but that said the majority of their products products were a average camera that looked flashy and was well marketed. Just look at the 828....

 

[JMWarren]

Zenmervolt

Those Minolta/Tamron lenses are without a dout step behind Nikon and Canon glass. Ever compare a Sony 18-200 to a Nikon 18-200, forget about VR, if you removed it the price would be the same, the Nikon is way better optically. Even the "Famous Minolta 28-75 2.8" merely comes close to the Nikon 28-70 AFS or Canon 24-70L, and thats assuming you get a good sample.

My experience with the A100 didn't show any more resolution than the other it's other 10mp siblings with the same sensor, only heavy handed sharpening that gave the illusion of more resolution.

As for the rebadged lenses, they should be identical in performance, they are the same optical formula. They are NOT the same in build quality. If you examine them side by side its pretty clear that the Sony's aren't as good as the original.

I dunno what to tell you about our 3 DOA cameras, one wouldn't power on, one wouldn't auto focus and the last one would lock the mirror up and require a power down to reset it.

I didn't even metion Sony repairs...It may be different in the US, but up here in Canada, Sony is by far the most expensive manufacturer for repairs (25-75% more). They do turn them around nice and fast though.

I do agree with you on OM, 4/3rds is too small a sensor, it's a shame though, they make some very good lenses.

I don't want to further derail ThePresence's thread any further so I'll conclude by saying you can't really go wrong with a DSLR at this point....

 

[soydios]

/insert Nikon plug for D80
but hey, I'm a Nikon fanboy

My hierarchy:
Nikon/Canon > Sony/Pentax > others

When you buy a DSLR, you're buying into the family of lenses and accessories, of which Nikon has the largest, followed closely by Canon. Both Nikon and Canon make awesome lenses and accessories to boot.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
I don't want to further derail ThePresence's thread any further so I'll conclude by saying you can't really go wrong with a DSLR at this point....

That's fine, I'm actually learning stuff.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Just FYI

In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that you can't see incamera IS working which is a huge draw back IMHO.

FUD. While in-lens stabilization is alleged to be better by Canon and Nikon, I've not read any definitive test which proves the superiority, and even if there is one, it's hardly a massive gap. Plus, every single lens you use with Sony and Pentax is stabilized, not just the uber-expensive IS/VR lenses that C/N force you to buy. Can that difference be overstated? NO.

Besides, the next Sony and Pentax DSLR bodies will have better in-body IS, and the next ones even better still, etc. That $2000 IS lens will always have the same level of technology. What do you keep longer, a lens or a body?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: JMWarren

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JMWarren
(their Zeiss offerings aren't even close to a real Zeiss, shoot a Contax or 'Blad and you'll know.)

I've shot Contax for the last 15 years.

Comparing the "Zeiss" lenses on Sony's point and shoot cameras to the Zeiss lenses available for the A100 is ridiculous. Every bit as ridiculous as using Sony's P&S cameras as a basis for forming an opinion about the A100.

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Thats the reason they bought Minolta's imaging division, to start with decent lensing, firmware, flash system etc.

And the fact that they bought the technology and know-how somehow makes the A100 a bad camera? Come on now, that's not even remotely close to logical.

ZV

The A100 is simply a rehash of the Minolta 5D body with a newer sensor and minimal improvements to the firmware. It's performance is somewhat less than that of the Nikon D80 and Pentax 10mp that use the same sensor, particularlly in color and high ISO.

As for the Zeiss SLR lenses I've not shot with them, the point and shoots are just run of the mill lenses though. In terms of the new "Sony" lenses most are rebranded Minolta or Tamron (11-18, 18-70, 18-200).

I have shot with the new F Mount Zeiss lenses which are beautiful on both digital (Nikon and Canon) and film. I've also shot the Contax and Blad systems as well as used some Zeiss glass on Canon's 1Ds Mark II. On the Mark II they blow the Canon glass outta the water but you loose all electronic connection. The Nikon mount offerings are maybe better (it's hard to tell on an APS-C sensor) than the Nikon offerings but again you lose all the electornics. I'd hazard to guess that if Nikon ever made a FF camera the Zeiss lenses would outperform the Nikon offerings.

The rebranded Minolta are built element for element the same but employ cheaper plastics, some have dropped the magnesium body infavour of plastic etc.

The "Sony" lenses are inferior to the Minolta's they replace.

Forgive me, but having examined (and Sold) Sony's system I just can't recommend it compared to the competition.

Finally, Having sold them I can notify you that Sony is the only manufacture to have shipped us not 1 but 3 DOA DSLR's this year! No other manufacture (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung) has had a single DOA as far back as I can remember.

I'm not saying the A100 is a terrible camera, because its not (there really isn't a bad DSL on the market, although I wouldn't choose one by Olympus due to sensor size), but I just don't see Sony lasting in the DSLR game. Their first offering is slightly poorer performing than the competition and they've never really nailed the P&S's in any manner except styling and marketing. I can see Minolta users (and now Sony) once again being orphaned.

Wow, do you get your camera knowledge from Canon directly or what?

The new Sony Zeiss lenses are amazing -- check some sample shots at dpreview in the Sony forum if you have any doubts.

The A100 is not simply a rebadged 5D -- it has an upgraded focusing system, a superior stabilization mechanism, a new image processor, a better LCD, a larger sensor with a better extinction resolution than the Canon 5D (check the reviews if you doubt me), an anti-dust feature, 40 segment honeycomb metering (up from 14), and eye start autofocus.

The Sony lenses are the exact same designs as the Minoltas and are built in the same factories with the same people for the most part. Most of the Minolta engineers stayed on with Sony and are designing and building as they were for KM. Case in point: The Sony HVL-F56AM is nearly an exact copy of the KM 5600HS(D), but everyone reports that it has superior exposure to the KM version. Again, improvement on an already decent design.

As someone mentions above about your P&S comment, the Sony F717 was an awesome P&S design and one of the best prosumer cameras for some time. Oh, and that had a CZ lens on it which lived up to the name -- excellent optics.

 

[AndrewR]

All right, last post -- for the OP this time!

Things to consider between the two:

1) As mentioned ad nauseum, in-body vs. in-lens stabilization. Once you get used to stabilization, you will want to use it all the time except with a tripod. I do mostly handholding so it's fantastic for me -- if I accidentally leave it off, the difference is instantly noticeable.

2) WIRELESS FLASH! I haven't seen this mentioned, but it's huge. The Sony, like the two KM Maxxum cameras, can operate the Sony external flash units (the F36AM and F56AM) wirelessly with Through The Lens exposure without any other equipment on compatible lenses (the digital ones). I can't remember, but I think Canon requires you to purchase two external flashes to have wireless capability. You can do some terrific things with wireless flash, for portraits or macros.

3) Minolta lenses going back to 1986 can be used with the Sony and are plentiful on a certain auction site. They are rising in price, but you can still find plenty for little cash, relatively speaking. Canon has a huge number of lenses out there as well, and the used market is very active. The great thing about lenses is that they rarely depreciate in value.

4) Sony is coming out with more camera bodies. The rumors are that two more are coming this year, possibly at or on the heels of the PMA conference next month. I've read that Sony is likely to introduce a D40 competitor (A1000?), but there's conflicting reports on the other camera -- either a Maxxum 7D replacement (30D-D200 competitor) or possibly the rumored Maxxum 9D reworked by Sony (a professional body). My guess is on the 7D replacement, but we'll see. I'd love to see a new Sony with 1/12,000 shutter speed like the Maxxum 9.

5) Canon rules the roost for high ISO shots (1600-3200). Sony does have a noise issue, but it amounts to a tradeoff between extinction resolution and in-camera processing which eliminates noise but softens the image. I've seen high noise Sony images which were processed with Noise Ninja, and they looked great. I think noise is overblown by Canon users, but if you plan on shooting in low light much (concerts?), it's something to consider.

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Just FYI

In camera Image Stabilization is not as good as in lens stabilization. The longer the focal length the greater the image moves off center and thus the more correction is needed. The CCD antishake can only compensate for so much while a purpose built IS/VR unit is matched to the focal length of the lens. If you plan to use longer lenses be prepared that the IS effect on the A100 isn't going to be as effective as the VR or IS would be.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that you can't see incamera IS working which is a huge draw back IMHO.

FUD. While in-lens stabilization is alleged to be better by Canon and Nikon, I've not read any definitive test which proves the superiority, and even if there is one, it's hardly a massive gap. Plus, every single lens you use with Sony and Pentax is stabilized, not just the uber-expensive IS/VR lenses that C/N force you to buy. Can that difference be overstated? NO.

Besides, the next Sony and Pentax DSLR bodies will have better in-body IS, and the next ones even better still, etc. That $2000 IS lens will always have the same level of technology. What do you keep longer, a lens or a body?

FUD? It's the laws of physics!

In my informal tests (both cameras set on a shaker table) the A100 and Pentax AntiShake started to loose effectiveness compared to VR/IS between 200mm-300mm. For the average consumer this isn't an issue but a pro who's shooting longer glass will find it limiting.

As for the future, once a camera can capture ISO 12800 with little noise IS will play a lesser roll. I wouldn't be surprised though to see Nikon and Canon implementing both on CCD and in Lense stabilization.

With regard to the improved auto focus its performance is still below that of Nikon and Canon in both accuracy and speed.

The new 40 segment meter is an improvment, but Nikon's Color Matrix Meter is still the best on the market.

I find it funny that you mentioned the new image processor. Zemmervolt has already admitted that the A100 has a sub par JPG engine. That doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW though.

As for a larger sensor than the 5D I'm not sure where you read that but the 5D has a sensor size of 35.8 x 23.9 mm while the A100 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm. As for more resolution that is not only a function of the sensor, but the image processor as well. If you sharpen the 5D images you'll find that the 5D has better extinction resolution. You can't compare the two camera's at default settings as the Sony applies far more sharpening, too much in my opinion. None of this really matters though if you shoot RAW.

As for the Zeiss lenses, everything I've seen seems to indicate that their no better than their counterparts from Nikon or Canon but certainly a nice option.

I'm really not down on Sony Cameras, I wanted to love the A100 (and the R1) when it was first announced (Sony pays great commissions and has larger profit margins than the other guys), but after shooting with it I just wasn't that impressed.

I'm hopeful that they can really wow me with their next model, but knowing their history it seems kind of doubtful. Hopefully the Minolta guys will be a help.