Camera recommendation: Sony Alpha 100 DSLR

After using my Sony A100 DSLR to take all of the photos I posted here
in recent days (as well as all sorts of other photos), I was quite
impressed with the value of the camera (you can get it for $700 street
with the 18-70 zoom, and add a 75-300 zoom for a bit more than $200).
In one of the most thorough reviews I've seen online
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/
it performed quite well in head-to-head comparisons with the much more
expensive Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D.

The one area in which I wish it was better was performance at an ISO
higher than 400 (the review notes the Canon is better at that). (Then
again, I began with Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64!) The Sony is
also less ruggedly constructed, although it is great in terms of
ergonomics.

I think it is an absolute bargain as a DSLR (and I paid $1000 for it
when it came out). From what I've seen and read, it is a better deal
than the Nikon and Canon products in its price range. I was
predisposed toward Canon after using an A1 for many years, but I'm
glad I bought the Sony (which, by the way, is a re-do of the highly
regarded Minolta Maxxum).

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:17:09 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

After using my Sony A100 DSLR to take all of the photos I posted here
in recent days (as well as all sorts of other photos), I was quite
impressed with the value of the camera (you can get it for $700 street
with the 18-70 zoom, and add a 75-300 zoom for a bit more than $200).
In one of the most thorough reviews I've seen online
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/
it performed quite well in head-to-head comparisons with the much more
expensive Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D.

The one area in which I wish it was better was performance at an ISO
higher than 400
THIS is a major point for me as well..

(the review notes the Canon is better at that). (Then
again, I began with Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64!) The Sony is
also less ruggedly constructed, although it is great in terms of
ergonomics.



I think it is an absolute bargain as a DSLR (and I paid $1000 for it
when it came out). From what I've seen and read, it is a better deal
than the Nikon and Canon products in its price range. I was
predisposed toward Canon after using an A1 for many years, but I'm
glad I bought the Sony (which, by the way, is a re-do of the highly
regarded Minolta Maxxum).


Thanks for the info and I'm yet undecided except to say that I'm more
in the range of $1000 for the camera now ..
Chuck (in SC)

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne 1907-1979

Chuck (in SC)

After using my Sony A100 DSLR to take all of the photos I posted here
in recent days (as well as all sorts of other photos), I was quite
impressed with the value of the camera (you can get it for $700 street
with the 18-70 zoom, and add a 75-300 zoom for a bit more than $200).
In one of the most thorough reviews I've seen online
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/
it performed quite well in head-to-head comparisons with the much more
expensive Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D.


If the price is a hard limit, the A100 is probably a better choice than the
30D, though I think in that price range the Rebel XTI may be an option. One
major price consideration would be the price of lenses. To get Image
Stabalization for a Nikon or Canon, you add significantly to each lens. The
onboard stabilization with the Sony allows this function with any compatible
Sony/Minolta lens, allowing higher quality lenses at more reasonable prices.

The one area in which I wish it was better was performance at an ISO
higher than 400

The higher image quality and 5 frames per second rate, combined with the
more durable construction may make the 30D a more economical choice in the
long run.

THIS is a major point for me as well..

(the review notes the Canon is better at that). (Then
again, I began with Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64!) The Sony is
also less ruggedly constructed, although it is great in terms of
ergonomics.



I think it is an absolute bargain as a DSLR (and I paid $1000 for it
when it came out). From what I've seen and read, it is a better deal
than the Nikon and Canon products in its price range. I was
predisposed toward Canon after using an A1 for many years, but I'm
glad I bought the Sony (which, by the way, is a re-do of the highly
regarded Minolta Maxxum).


Thanks for the info and I'm yet undecided except to say that I'm more
in the range of $1000 for the camera now ..
Chuck (in SC)

I looked at the Sony when I bought my 30D because of prior experience with
Minolta and Canon. In my opinion, at the price range, the A100 was a great
camera but the 30D was worth the extra expense.
In my mind, the bottom line is to determine what the camera is going to be
used for, including possible growth by the photographer, then find which
camera you are the most comfortable handling. I spoke to a guy today that
liked the Rebel XTI, but bought a refurbished EOS 1D because it fit his
hands better. I guess it all comes down to personal preference, what can
you afford, how does it feel and reading between the lines on reviews that
come from people that prefer one from another.
Rob

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:48:17 -0400, "Scubabix"
wrote:
I spoke to a guy today that
liked the Rebel XTI, but bought a refurbished EOS 1D because it fit his
hands better. I guess it all comes down to personal preference, what can
you afford, how does it feel and reading between the lines on reviews that
come from people that prefer one from another.
Rob


"Feel" is not a point that can be overemphasized. If the grip isn't
right, if the buttons and wheels don't feel right to your fingers,
etc., you'll miss pictures or get them wrong. That's why, if someone
is buying on the net, I suggest they at least go to the local big box
and pick the camera up.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:52:08 -0400, "Chuck (in SC)" wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:17:09 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

After using my Sony A100 DSLR to take all of the photos I posted here
in recent days (as well as all sorts of other photos), I was quite
impressed with the value of the camera (you can get it for $700 street
with the 18-70 zoom, and add a 75-300 zoom for a bit more than $200).
In one of the most thorough reviews I've seen online
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/
it performed quite well in head-to-head comparisons with the much more
expensive Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D.

The one area in which I wish it was better was performance at an ISO
higher than 400
THIS is a major point for me as well..

(the review notes the Canon is better at that). (Then
again, I began with Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64!) The Sony is
also less ruggedly constructed, although it is great in terms of
ergonomics.



I think it is an absolute bargain as a DSLR (and I paid $1000 for it
when it came out). From what I've seen and read, it is a better deal
than the Nikon and Canon products in its price range. I was
predisposed toward Canon after using an A1 for many years, but I'm
glad I bought the Sony (which, by the way, is a re-do of the highly
regarded Minolta Maxxum).


Thanks for the info and I'm yet undecided except to say that I'm more
in the range of $1000 for the camera now ..
Chuck (in SC)


I don't know of a $1000 camera that tops it, or I'd own it. To take a
significant step up, I'd have to go for one of the pro-level Canons
aor Nikons.

Anyway, do check out dpreviews.com for unbiased technical reviews,
then try epinions.com to read what some actual users have said about
any camera you think worthy of consideration.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:20:14 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

Anyway, do check out dpreviews.com for unbiased technical reviews,
then try epinions.com to read what some actual users have said about
any camera you think worthy of consideration.

dpreviews.com has nothing to do with reviews.. it forwards you to
another site..concerning interior design.. but I'll check the other
one.. thanks for the advice..

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne 1907-1979

Chuck (in SC)

Chuck (in SC) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:20:14 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

Anyway, do check out dpreviews.com for unbiased technical reviews,
then try epinions.com to read what some actual users have said about
any camera you think worthy of consideration.

dpreviews.com has nothing to do with reviews.. it forwards you to
another site..concerning interior design.. but I'll check the other
one.. thanks for the advice..

Try it singular, as in dpreview.com.

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne 1907-1979

Chuck (in SC)


--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:58:40 GMT, Lynn in StLou
wrote:

Chuck (in SC) wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:20:14 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

Anyway, do check out dpreviews.com for unbiased technical reviews,
then try epinions.com to read what some actual users have said about
any camera you think worthy of consideration.

dpreviews.com has nothing to do with reviews.. it forwards you to
another site..concerning interior design.. but I'll check the other
one.. thanks for the advice..

Try it singular, as in dpreview.com.
thanks.. that's it..

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne 1907-1979

Chuck (in SC)

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:39:42 -0400, "Chuck (in SC)" wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:20:14 -0500, Just Plane Noise
wrote:

Anyway, do check out dpreviews.com for unbiased technical reviews,
then try epinions.com to read what some actual users have said about
any camera you think worthy of consideration.

dpreviews.com has nothing to do with reviews.. it forwards you to
another site..concerning interior design.. but I'll check the other
one.. thanks for the advice..

Aaaarghhh! Knok the "s" off--it is www.dpreview.com Sorry!