Alpha A100 (Official)

[jsbn]

would like a 16-80... damn interesting lens... esp a carl zeiss...

Buy buy buy? :embrass:

 

[smtan24]

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/54767-3942-9-1.html

This the link from Sony about the specfications of their A100:

http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/pdf/specifications.pdf

 

[tsan81]

They are using a penta mirror. Read this from Sony specifications for the A100.

awwww. so same as d5

 

[eel]

I think the one thing that makes the A100 much better than the KM 5D is the command dial on the left. It cuts down on digging into the menu to change focusing and metering mode, flash compensation and moves the dedicated ISO button there as well. Nice touch.

 

[Zenten]

What muscles do you want? :sweat:

Muscles where they count, especially in the AF area.

 

[zcf]

Muscles where they count, especially in the AF area.

That have to wait til hands on test then will know, not sure they hve improve it or not :dunno:
Bro, you keen to switch system to Sony if the AF is good ;p

 

[zcf]

I think the one thing that makes the A100 much better than the KM 5D is the command dial on the left. It cuts down on digging into the menu to change focusing and metering mode, flash compensation and moves the dedicated ISO button there as well. Nice touch.

That's indeed an improvement :heart:, as I seldom touch the WB on KM5D, which is quite a waste on that dial.

 

[TME]

That's indeed an improvement :heart:, as I seldom touch the WB on KM5D, which is quite a waste on that dial.

That's because u shoot RAW... most prefer to shoot JPEG and WB is very important... otherwise cannot save the pic most of the time if the WB is off...

 

[Zenten]

That have to wait til hands on test then will know, not sure they hve improve it or not :dunno:
Bro, you keen to switch system to Sony if the AF is good ;p

I will check whether my pockets are deep enough ......

Like I said the new body will only work well with the new Sony lenses ...... I think you won't see very much improvement with your existing lenses. 2 cents.

 

[zcf]

That's because u shoot RAW... most prefer to shoot JPEG and WB is very important... otherwise cannot save the pic most of the time if the WB is off...

Quite true, before I converted to shoot RAW I also don't know how to handle the WB :embrass:

I will check whether my pockets are deep enough ......

Like I said the new body will only work well with the new Sony lenses ...... I think you won't see very much improvement with your existing lenses. 2 cents.

I still think it will still compatible with old lens, or new lens with old body. :think:
But that will have to wait til got actual body/lens to try on then we will know. But good lens is harder to get more improvement really.

 

[eow]

Quite true, before I converted to shoot RAW I also don't know how to handle the WB :embrass:


I still think it will still compatible with old lens, or new lens with old body. :think:
But that will have to wait til got actual body/lens to try on then we will know. But good lens is harder to get more improvement really.

i tweak with it most of the time...better to get rite the first time .. a real screw up wb even when taken in raw is also unsalvagable..imho

dun think it will be that serious abt the lens compatibility...worst to worst case just switch system .....(panasonic L-1)

 

[zcf]

i tweak with it most of the time...better to get rite the first time .. a real screw up wb even when taken in raw is also unsalvagable..imho

Like last night shoot? How to set WB? But I thought during RAW conversion, you can set the WB you want? Though it does take longer time to find the "Right" WB, though I still got it wrong quite frequently :embrass:

dun think it will be that serious abt the lens compatibility...worst to worst case just switch system .....(panasonic L-1)

You got to live with the noise and not as good bokeh though. Actually I wonder how good is Olumpus DSLR (Panosonic DSLR not out yet) focus in difficult lighting conditions and how fast is their focusing (Panasonic FZ5 was good though, but still can't make it in low light condition) :think:

 

[eow]

Like last night shoot? How to set WB? But I thought during RAW conversion, you can set the WB you want? Though it does take longer time to find the "Right" WB, though I still got it wrong quite frequently :embrass:

You got to live with the noise and not as good bokeh though. Actually I wonder how good is Olumpus DSLR (Panosonic DSLR not out yet) focus in difficult lighting conditions and how fast is their focusing (Panasonic FZ5 was good though, but still can't make it in low light condition) :think:

the most recent e500 at iso 800 is actually far better than it precessdor e-1 and e-300
haven't hand on the e500 personal so can't comment it af capability.

Usually wb screwed up when our flash unable to overcome the ambient lighting....
i increase the flash compensation..so managed to over the indoor ambient lighting

 

[pai]

i tweak with it most of the time...better to get rite the first time .. a real screw up wb even when taken in raw is also unsalvagable..imho

issit? i always thought that white balance adjustment is applied *after* the raw data is captured, so if you're using a raw converter like the dimage one or mrwformat, you can match it to whatever wb setting you set on the camera for jpg? adobe camera raw colours look different because of different settings used when converting the raw file, and the colour profile not quite the same

 

[eow]

issit? i always thought that white balance adjustment is applied *after* the raw data is captured, so if you're using a raw converter like the dimage one or mrwformat, you can match it to whatever wb setting you set on the camera for jpg? adobe camera raw colours look different because of different settings used when converting the raw file, and the colour profile not quite the same

the white balance captured on raw is wysiwygwhen u convert it to jpg directly without any adjustment.
The reason why i shoot in raw ..is just that raw shooter essential's colour temp is easier to use ..not sure abt the colour profile thingy....i a photoshop noob:sweat:

 

[zcf]

more rumours from DPReview
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1035&thread=18733384

only six lenses will appear in July but 21 by Christmas season, many more will appear in 2007 and new bodies - impression given is of a lower entry level model and a higher end model. Every sign that full frame digital is indeed in the long term game plan.

Seem like FF is not a dream, some hands-on info on Alpha 100 on press launch also.

 

[Zenten]

i ...worst to worst case just switch system .....(panasonic L-1)

Easy for you to say ...... loaded with S11.

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

somehow i feel that sony will succeed moreso than KM...check this out! :bigeyes:

hwz link

sony is being serious about the a-mount...let's hope the prices won't get too serious , out of bound for the beginner DSLR users...:sweat:

check out this interview with sony product manager

DCI:
Well, the question concerned the 70 – 200mm and the 300mm f/2.8, which both have higher price tags than Nikon or Canon’s respective offerings…

Mark Weir:
Admitted.

DCI:
So what will consumers get for the extra price?

Mark Weir:
We would say the quality of those lenses, which are easy to see, are largely based on very similar predecessors, and is legendary. It’s not for me to say that our 70 – 200, f/2.8 is better than Canon’s or Nikon’s, but I can tell you, it goes without saying, that they are very much based on their based on their predecessors. And I can tell you that their predecessors are extraordinarily highly valued, by their owners. I was recently following a used, not new, used, 70-200 mm f/2.8 APOGSSM Konica Minolta lens on Ebay and it sold for $2550.

DCI:
That’s more than the list price for it new.

Mark Weir:
Exactly, that’s my point. It’s not for me to say that our lenses are better than Canons or Nikons of comparable cost or type, but I can say that in the eyes of certain consumers, they have value which perhaps transcends their direct correlative models in other people’s lines. I mean I know that our 70-200 is twenty-four hundred dollars and people may say well, wait a minute I can buy that lens IS from Canon for seventeen or eighteen hundred bucks if I go online. And yeah, we are aware of that differential, however I would say that there are enthusiasts that place very, very, very, very high value in those lenses. A 300mm f/2.8 APOGSSM used I think it was a month ago, sold for over six grand.

*faint* :sticktong

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

carl zeiss confirms CZ lens can be used for older maxxum/dynax cameras:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A100537AB9/allBySubject/FramedNews4

Although designed primarily for current and future Sony DSLR cameras, most Carl Zeiss ZA lenses - except the Vario-Sonnar T* DT 3,5-4,5/16-80 ZA - cover the full 35 mm frame and are therefore compatible with existing Alpha-mount cameras in the market. These include the well-known Minolta Dynax and Maxxum SLRs, both digital and analog.

 

[zcf]

somehow i feel that sony will succeed moreso than KM...check this out! :bigeyes:

hwz link

sony is being serious about the a-mount...let's hope the prices won't get too serious , out of bound for the beginner DSLR users...:sweat:

check out this interview with sony product manager

DCI:
Well, the question concerned the 70 – 200mm and the 300mm f/2.8, which both have higher price tags than Nikon or Canon’s respective offerings…

Mark Weir:
Admitted.

DCI:
So what will consumers get for the extra price?

Mark Weir:
We would say the quality of those lenses, which are easy to see, are largely based on very similar predecessors, and is legendary. It’s not for me to say that our 70 – 200, f/2.8 is better than Canon’s or Nikon’s, but I can tell you, it goes without saying, that they are very much based on their based on their predecessors. And I can tell you that their predecessors are extraordinarily highly valued, by their owners. I was recently following a used, not new, used, 70-200 mm f/2.8 APOGSSM Konica Minolta lens on Ebay and it sold for $2550.

DCI:
That’s more than the list price for it new.

Mark Weir:
Exactly, that’s my point. It’s not for me to say that our lenses are better than Canons or Nikons of comparable cost or type, but I can say that in the eyes of certain consumers, they have value which perhaps transcends their direct correlative models in other people’s lines. I mean I know that our 70-200 is twenty-four hundred dollars and people may say well, wait a minute I can buy that lens IS from Canon for seventeen or eighteen hundred bucks if I go online. And yeah, we are aware of that differential, however I would say that there are enthusiasts that place very, very, very, very high value in those lenses. A 300mm f/2.8 APOGSSM used I think it was a month ago, sold for over six grand.

*faint* :sticktong

Sound like the product manager also don't know how to anwser why the lens are most expensive than other brand even with IS/VR :sweat: