synapseman
Senior Member
siron said:
Straightforward answer: It depends. (seriously)
What do you have right now?
What are your needs?
Sony A100 review out!!
- Thread starter nightpiper
- Start date
- Status
Straightforward answer: It depends. (seriously)
What do you have right now?
What are your needs?
actually this is the best answer :thumbsup:synapseman said:
it depends on so many things, what you're using now, do you have a minolta lens collection, what type of stuff do you shoot, even stuff like do you shoot in raw or jpg.
for people who already have a KM 5D or 7D, i feel that there is no need to buy this unless you want a spare body, or you really want the improved autofocus or need the megapixels.
but if you're looking for your first dslr (i think that's your situation, siron?) then i would say, yes, worth buying. the 5D is a really good camera, and the alpha improves on it in almost every way. if you're planning to use a lot of iso 1600 though, then i advise you to find something else.
if you're the kind that likes to machine-gun everything, or will end up wanting to upgrade to the biggest, best, most expensive equipment, then i also suggest you give this a miss. sony is new to dslr, and there isn't a series of high end bodies for you to upgrade to - yet.
one last if. if you can afford to, then wait a little while, and the price should drop.
sorry if i can't give you a simple answer. go try the camera out once it's in the shops. decide for yourself.
Eyesthruthelens
Deregistered
siron said:
Yes.. because overall, it performs better than KM5D except at high ISO.. and you seldom use high ISO at 1600??
Furthermore, you can still use all the great and cheap old KM lenses on this camera..
Which entry level DSLR has all these features..
1. SSS
2. Antidust
3. DRO
4. 10.2MPixel
..
..
nightpiper
Senior Member
siron said:
my take is a 'YES!' why? becos yesterday dollar buying today's technology. u get a 10MP CCD with other cool stuffs. that makes it the first DSLR to offer such a high MP count in the entry level market with anti-shake built in. if u go the Nikon route, u need to pay ~S$2800 for the D200 body & another S$2000+++ for one VR lens. u do the maths.
for the same Nikon bundle budget, u get the A100, with another extra lens & flash & tripod & bag & 4GB CF card & ..... (put ur list here) :bsmilie: very tempting i must say...:devil: so how's the navigation on the menus like? anybody?
Is the A100 ISO performance really worse than the KM5D?? I don't think so lor. Judging ISO performance is not by opening a jpeg at 100% then looking how noisy the picture it.
If you are comparing to KM5D, you have to resize the A100 file to 6meg resolution. After that you should run both files through neat image and see which one retains more details. It is actually the level of detail, not the level of noise one should look out for.
If you are comparing to KM5D, you have to resize the A100 file to 6meg resolution. After that you should run both files through neat image and see which one retains more details. It is actually the level of detail, not the level of noise one should look out for.
well... i took a few iso 1600 shots under low light... the difference is pretty obvious when you view the file, whether on the lcd or when you open the file. don't even have to view it at 100%.wind30 said:
as for downsampling and reducing noise then comparing... well, don't have identical 5d and alpha shots to do a side-by-side. so you'll have to take my subjective word for now ;p
ISO & MP is a big relationship.
If you want higher MP and higher ISO with less noise, I don't think you can get anything at the moment until they have a solution to it.
All I believe is if you don't have a DSLR and want one and have minolta lenses, go for it....
No point of complaining about ISO 1600 where you won't probably use it. Go and shoot a ISO1600 film before you start complaining. It is quite bad... and film technology has been there for more than 1 century...
I am not interested with A-100 not because the ISO alone. I use the camera to make a living, and I just don't want to use something that aren't as well build as 7D. Sure the next thing from Sony is going to be around $2500-$3000 just for body (I am guessing), hence It is still worthwhile contender.
At the end of the day, buy what you need today and start shooting and stop complaining on things you probably won't even thinking of using.
A-100 is so feature packed, I am sure if I am starting to build my gear from ground up, it will be my selection.
I am actually quite impressed with their colour management....it is very neutral... at least for skin tone.
Regards,
Hart
If you want higher MP and higher ISO with less noise, I don't think you can get anything at the moment until they have a solution to it.
All I believe is if you don't have a DSLR and want one and have minolta lenses, go for it....
No point of complaining about ISO 1600 where you won't probably use it. Go and shoot a ISO1600 film before you start complaining. It is quite bad... and film technology has been there for more than 1 century...
I am not interested with A-100 not because the ISO alone. I use the camera to make a living, and I just don't want to use something that aren't as well build as 7D. Sure the next thing from Sony is going to be around $2500-$3000 just for body (I am guessing), hence It is still worthwhile contender.
At the end of the day, buy what you need today and start shooting and stop complaining on things you probably won't even thinking of using.
A-100 is so feature packed, I am sure if I am starting to build my gear from ground up, it will be my selection.
I am actually quite impressed with their colour management....it is very neutral... at least for skin tone.
Regards,
Hart
dr34mc4st3r
Senior Member
i would say a resounding YES. the money i paid for my current setup, would have costs probably a lot more with canon or nikon (dont talk abt VR or IS lens la)tankm said:
Agetan said:
you cannot compare with film lah. The question is whether you use ISO1600? I certainly do for quite a lot of my indoor shots if I don't have my flash mounted. Esp on my travels it is a hassle to mount/unmount the flash + bounce. The results from flash can be very good but hard to setup and need experience. Natural light is easier for newbies and look better for me.
Even if you have a f1.8 lens, I find it hard to focus ACCURATELY at poor light so if I have ISO3200, I can stop down to f2.8 to get more DOF. Or better still ISO6400 and I can stop down to f4.
I disagree... it is easier to make a shot using the flash... using natural light is very tricky cos u have beware of shadowing as well as low shutter speeds, extreme dynamic range as well as loss of highlights and loss of details in the shadows... very hard to get a good balanced picture with natural light.. it's much easier to set the flash on TTL, shoot, compensate the flash and reshoot...
For my experience... if indoor where the lighting is pretty constant, I will shoot with manual mode. Well, if you want flash to fill, all you need to do is to add a little amount of flash.
Atrium in Marina square can be shot at ISO 800 1/50sec at f4 hence It is generally enough to shoot without flash.
Well if you can use flash and can minimise the flash mark or eliminate the flash mark, then by all mean use them. Also, all those setting should ideally be set before the show start (for indoor event) hence no adjustment needed during the show. So one can concentrate doing the shoot.
It is difficult to shoot indoor unless you are well prepare and able to get good location.
Regards,
Hart
Atrium in Marina square can be shot at ISO 800 1/50sec at f4 hence It is generally enough to shoot without flash.
Well if you can use flash and can minimise the flash mark or eliminate the flash mark, then by all mean use them. Also, all those setting should ideally be set before the show start (for indoor event) hence no adjustment needed during the show. So one can concentrate doing the shoot.
It is difficult to shoot indoor unless you are well prepare and able to get good location.
Regards,
Hart
Yes I agree.... indoor shoots are the hardest, cos of the unnatural lighting and obstructions and what not... I was referring mainly to shooting outdoors during the day without flash... generally I find it quite hard not to shoot without flash cos u get lots of shadowing which is quite ugly on a person's face unless u want that mood... which usually I am not so interested in...
satay16
Senior Member
haha. just came back from marina square. timer wolf, shibin and me won some memory game on stage, and got some pretty useless photoframes.:bsmilie:
anyway, some comments: firstly, i dun really find the A100's AF speed much faster. i think i might be abit faster(which might be due to physchological effects), but not so fast that pp will go "wow" when compared to the 7D. secondly, noise at 1600 just too high. thirdly, 7D users might find A100 uncomfortable as some pretty useful buttons are missing. one of them is the AF/MF button, i was trying to do manual focusing and kept pressing the AEL button(thinking it was the AF/MF). fourth, DRO seems to work pretty well, but timberwolf said indoor testing is not so accurate, so will not comment much on that. lastly, i still think it will be better to wait for 7D's replacement, as A100 gives me a feeling that it is a camera for sony to exhibit what new technolgies they have right now, so i believe 7Di(or whatever name) would be one hell of a camera really well designed plus more technologies.
btw, anyone took photos of us on stage?
anyway, some comments: firstly, i dun really find the A100's AF speed much faster. i think i might be abit faster(which might be due to physchological effects), but not so fast that pp will go "wow" when compared to the 7D. secondly, noise at 1600 just too high. thirdly, 7D users might find A100 uncomfortable as some pretty useful buttons are missing. one of them is the AF/MF button, i was trying to do manual focusing and kept pressing the AEL button(thinking it was the AF/MF). fourth, DRO seems to work pretty well, but timberwolf said indoor testing is not so accurate, so will not comment much on that. lastly, i still think it will be better to wait for 7D's replacement, as A100 gives me a feeling that it is a camera for sony to exhibit what new technolgies they have right now, so i believe 7Di(or whatever name) would be one hell of a camera really well designed plus more technologies.
btw, anyone took photos of us on stage?
- Status
Similar threads
