DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Sony Alpha voted camera of the year
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 55, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/13/2006 01:58:16 PM · #1
Just got my latest Popular Photography mag and they have rated the Sony Alpha A100 dslr as their camera of the year. They base it on how much a camera defines, or redefines, photography. Some of the features that gave them the rating was the high megapixel, the image stabilization, and the price. They feel that the alpha has made other manufacturers follow suit with similar features.

Good, bad or indifferent, all us alpha owners should be proud. This is our moment in the limelight, and we should be hollering from the rooftops that our choice for this new camera was a good one. There have been many here who have dissed this camera to no end, calling it a fisher price model, or a toy amongst the REAL dslr's, but my choice has given affirmation to my decision to buy this camera. Thanks Popular Photography.
 11/13/2006 02:47:14 PM · #2
great news !!

just goes to show that we were right and we could look beyond the name on the camera
 11/13/2006 03:14:57 PM · #3
I've considered the Sony as something to look at perhaps down the road when they're done tweaking. What's the status of using 3rd party flash with the Sony DSLR currently? I'd heard/read (maybe?) that the only flash that supported all functionality was the Sony brand flash units. Have you heard otherwise?
11/13/2006 03:20:00 PM · #4
If they ever fix their noise problem, i'd be happy to switch back to KM Sony
 11/13/2006 03:28:30 PM · #5
Originally posted by wavelength:
If they ever fix their noise problem, i'd be happy to switch back to KM Sony


I've always loved my older Minolta (pre Konica) 35mm equipment --was good stuff. KM never got serious attention from me in the digital world, nor did they ever give me many excuse to want to upgrade my 35mm stuff. I have my doubts that Sony will change my mind.

I'm no brand loyalist either... notice I'm pretty wishy-washy on the Canon/Nikon thing :-)
 11/13/2006 11:37:33 PM · #6
Originally posted by ladymonarda:

Good, bad or indifferent, all us alpha owners should be proud. This is our moment in the limelight, and we should be hollering from the rooftops that our choice for this new camera was a good one. There have been many here who have dissed this camera to no end, calling it a fisher price model, or a toy amongst the REAL dslr's, but my choice has given affirmation to my decision to buy this camera. Thanks Popular Photography.


Just goes to show. I was walking around the State Fair of Texas last month with my camera on a monopod. Several people noticed and were interested. One guy in particular, stopped, did an exagerated double take, and said "Nah, there's no headphones, it can't be a Sony!"
 11/13/2006 11:41:17 PM · #7
promising start for a debut dSLR.
I have a feeling Sony already have something else on their design table for their alpha mount line-up.
 11/13/2006 11:51:35 PM · #8
Not deserving of the title.
 11/14/2006 01:19:47 AM · #9
In a little over two weeks, I'll have the new Pentax K10D... yay! ;-P
 11/14/2006 02:22:06 AM · #10
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+
 11/14/2006 02:31:27 AM · #11
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+


using the Sony system is a sign of prestige :p
but seriously, you can always use the old Minolta lens on the new body.
 11/14/2006 02:36:53 AM · #12
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+


using the Sony system is a sign of prestige :p
but seriously, you can always use the old Minolta lens on the new body.


I gotta sign for'em LOL. ;-P
 11/14/2006 02:53:34 AM · #13
Goes to show that Pop Photo has probably never actually *held* an A100.

Seriously.. if that kind of build quality gets that kind of recognition, I weep for the future.
 11/14/2006 03:01:25 AM · #14
well I dont think this is the right place to bash the camera.
I've played with the A100 in the Sony store and it actually felt better built than the 350D (now I've made enemies with Canon fans, oh no!). No squeeks/creaks when gripped really hard. The lens it had on at the time was a zoom lens (didnt pay attention which lens, I'm not a dSLR user) and it moves from wide to tele very fluidly. If you call this camera and the Sony lenses bad, then what do you call a creaky 350D? well, maybe by chance, the 2 350D bodies that I squeezed was a bad one?

p/s: gonna go SQUEEZE some more bodies soon. Canon's corporate office is just 2 floors away from where I work :)

11/14/2006 04:13:54 AM · #15
Originally posted by Artyste:
Goes to show that Pop Photo has probably never actually *held* an A100.

Seriously.. if that kind of build quality gets that kind of recognition, I weep for the future.


At least someone sees what I see.

Anything where I have to look at the main LCD screen to change settings and go through TONS And TONS Of menus is annoying.

Also on body IS is nothing new, as companies have been doing it for a while.
 11/14/2006 04:35:23 AM · #16
I've never even held the Alpha let alone shot with it, so I can't comment on its worthiness for this award.

I would ask though, which camera is more deserving?

Message edited by author 2006-11-14 04:59:51.
 11/14/2006 04:37:11 AM · #17
Originally posted by heathen:
I've never even held the Alpha let alone shot with it, so I can't comment on the its worthiness for this award.

I would ask though, which camera is more deserving?

Tough one to answer, since I've never held and shot with all the cameras ever existed to make a fair comparison...
 11/14/2006 04:40:09 AM · #18
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by heathen:
I've never even held the Alpha let alone shot with it, so I can't comment on the its worthiness for this award.

I would ask though, which camera is more deserving?

Tough one to answer, since I've never held and shot with all the cameras ever existed to make a fair comparison...


It's not a Best Camera Ever award...it's Camera of the Year.

So, which camera released in 2006 deserves this award more?
 11/14/2006 04:49:09 AM · #19
Originally posted by heathen:

It's not a Best Camera Ever award...it's Camera of the Year.

So, which camera released in 2006 deserves this award more?

according to Ken Rockinwell, it's the Nikon D-something...
 11/14/2006 05:31:21 AM · #20
Do you want people to like your camera or your photos?


11/14/2006 05:50:45 AM · #21
I have no experience with this camera at all - but let's pretend we're Pop Photography -

Are we really worried about which camera is the "best"?

Perhaps we're more concerned about selling magazines.

A very smart editor named this camera "the one" to fuel conversations like this, and sell advertising.

Look at their track record of choosing cameras that will unseat Canon and Nikon as the leaders - they exist to sell magazines.


11/14/2006 08:06:07 AM · #22
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+


using the Sony system is a sign of prestige :p
but seriously, you can always use the old Minolta lens on the new body.

Not just the old lenses. Any lens with the 'bayonet' mount will fit the Sony, meaning any lens made by Tamron or Sigma now as well, not just Sony or KM brand lenses.
11/14/2006 08:56:46 AM · #23
Originally posted by Faithless:
... Also on body IS is nothing new, as companies have been doing it for a while.

Does Canon or Nikon have that yet, or do you still have to factor that extra expense into every lens purchased to put on a Canon or Nikon camera body? Certainly putting IS/VR on each individual lens has to create an additional expense?
 11/14/2006 11:11:05 AM · #24
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Faithless:
... Also on body IS is nothing new, as companies have been doing it for a while.

Does Canon or Nikon have that yet, or do you still have to factor that extra expense into every lens purchased to put on a Canon or Nikon camera body? Certainly putting IS/VR on each individual lens has to create an additional expense?

From what I understand, tt also adds another piece of glass in the lens. This negatively affects the light coming in, albeit probably not noticible to the naked eye.

This was the reason I went with the Pentax K100D--for the IS/VR. I don't want to pay for IS/VR every time I buy a lens.
 11/14/2006 11:52:41 AM · #25
Originally posted by lesgainous:
... I don't want to pay for IS/VR every time I buy a
lens.

I don't either, nor do I. :D
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:54:46 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:54:46 AM EDT.