Sony Alpha A100 - "CAMERA OF THE YEAR, 2006" by PopPhoto

.

 

PopPhoto magazine just (December 2006) awarded the Sony Alpha A100 as Camera of

The Year 2006 for the camera that best refines or redefines photography -

~$850US-street, built-in stabilization for all lenses, 10mp, Dynamic Range

Optimizer/Plus, wireless flash control. It's already reportedly the 3rd best

selling DSLR LINE (yes, LINE) at the moment (note that Canon and Nikon have

MULTIPLE camera bodies to support their #1 and #2 sales positions ahead of

Sony's ONE camera body, with multiple Olympus and Pentax/Samsung, and solo Fuji

and Sigma and Panasonic and Leica trailing behind - ALL good cameras that do as

they promise, by the way). So, the Sony seems to be well established as "the

Minolta that could have been", especially with 100 or so Minolta engineers now

on Sony AMC Alpha Mount Camera staff. I challenge anyone to best the features

and benefits, the sheer facility of the upper left control knob of the Sony

Alpha A100 - even smarter than it's equivalent origin on my Minolta DiMage

5/7/A-series EVF/ZLR.

 

Reviews of the three "entry level" 10mp DSLRs seem to say: Nikon D80 has low

noise in high ISO but less detail throughout than Sony Alpha A100 which has

more detail throughout but more noise in high ISO, and the Canon Rebel XTi

somewhere in between. Pentax and Olympus 10mp models not fully reported on yet.

 

I'm curious to see how this pans out, NOT as a win/loose battle, but as a

win/win open competitive marketplace where we have more choices and better

prices because of serious attention to our beloved world of SLR cameras. I do

not expect a flame war of "my camera is great, your sux", rather, let's

celebrate that we each have personal preferences that have a greater chance to

be catered to now that Minolta is alive and well again, at least the Minolta

Alpha SLR group, in the Sony Alpha A100.

 

Your thoughts?

 

-- Click Peter Blaise, Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer<div></div>

First: Any DSLR on the market right now will be able to produce stunning images given good lenses. I don't believe that there is a single "dud" out there.

 

That said, Sony did a wonderful thing by rescuing Minolta and publicly declaring that they were out for blood. Whatever happens, I think that there is going to be a great amount of competition in consumer DSLRs in the next few years, which means dropping prices for the bodies and increasing availability of lenses. Until Sony released the A100 the only brands I ever heard about were Canon and Nikon. Sure, people knew Olympus existed and people knew that Pentax and Minolta existed, but the average man on the street only wanted Canon or Nikon. Nikon and Canon had it to themselves without having to worry about another player and I think they were both content to divide the market between the two of them.

 

Now that Sony is willing to mount a charge on Canon/Nikon we're seeing a rejuvination of competition in the DSLR market, with features coming down to consumer and other entry-level cameras.

 

Overall, this is a great time to be a photographer.

Seeing as how the anti-shake feature is a carry-over from K/M days, and the camera doesn't break any new ground in any other area, I'd say this 'award' is an attempt by Pop Photo to make sure Sony stay around as an advertiser. And I'ver never seen Pop Photo pan any camera in their reviews. I remember years ago when they reviewed a camera that was in the shape of Mickey Mouse's head. They only said good things about it, being careful not to point out its weak points, like a plastic lens.

Plastic lenses have their place. I remember a few years back PopPhoto also did a review on one of the Kodak disposable cameras with a plastic lens and the lens performed in the "good" category comparable to many slr lenses. I've used them myself and they do a good job.

 

I'm not sure that I've run across a camera that was worth "panning" but I've seen them point out many weak points over the years. Not too long ago they did a comparison of five DSLRs, and the 5D was only rated number four overall. I think it was number one in ergonomics or handling but the image quality wasn't as good as some others. PopPhoto gave the A100 the highest image-rating for price, which in my estimation would certainly make it a leading contender for that award.

 

Ed

I'm sure Sony will be happy to have a headline in any magazine of the form "XYZ Of The

Year, 2006" where the XYZ is a positive, not a negative. Hasn't been their best year, has it.

 

On the camera in question, I have to say I'm not sure what they have really done to deserve

such plaudits; the general impression I get is that in Europe, Sony's DSLR range is doing at

least as badly as Four Thirds cameras are. It is a competent but uninspiring product, and

the marketing here in the UK has been nearly non-existent; it's almost like a soft launch. I

think the real push is going to be on the next camera, and we'll see more of a Sony

product then; that is, one aimed at Samsung and Matsushita, not Canon and Nikon.

Sony has had a lot of bad press lately because of the laptop battery failures all relating to them. They have also had some delivery problems with the video game release happening, in full production anyhow, for Christmas.

 

And that's what i see this as....some product that they can wave the banner about for Christmas sales. don't get me wrong, even though I switched to Canon for digital becuase I couldn't wait for Minolta to get their act together, I have plenty of Maxxum lenses just waiting for a digital body to put them on. I haven't decided personally on the 100 yet.....kinda yearning for a Canon 20D equiv (what I own now).

 

But, I do see this Pop Photo press as being a good thing. When non-photographers....meaning not us....pony up from the P&S's PopPhoto and the like are generally the mags they refer to for advice. So, as usually, Sony's marketting practices are spot on. I personally hope they get a big profit from them, so the camera I want from them actually has a chance to come forth. Besides, I'm waiting for that Zeiss 18 to whatever zoom to come out next April before I do anything with Sony DSLRs. When that comes out, I'll be making a decision. I have enough Maxxum glass already, all I need is the wider angle lense to make up for the crop factor sensor.

 

so, yeah, I'm eagerly waiting to get to use one of my favorit lenses again.......the Maxxum 100mm f/2.....gorgeous piece of glass.

<<I'm waiting for that Zeiss 18 to whatever zoom to come out next April>>

 

It's a 16-80 F/3.5-4.5 and it is scheduled for release in March. The initial MTF charts are impressive but they obviously cannot be considered accurate until someone tests some production versions of the lens.

I'm happy with all the current breed of cameras, they are getting better and better. The Sony A100 felt nice but prehaps a bit small for my giant hands, that was the only thing I could think of. High Speed noise is not an issue for me, if anything I'd love to have ISO50 for my storm photography. Hopefully the next Sony will be weather sealed and a bit bigger with a vertical grip and then I'm sure all will be pleased. The current range of 10mp cameras are all rather similar in picture result the main difference I'm finding is with the software when it comes to editing RAW files. I just hope that DSLRs get better and better + cheaper and cheaper.

 

Tim H

My Camera of the Year for 2006 was the KM 7D, but I'm a bit behind the times. I wear

glasses, and I like manual controls, so nothing about the A100 looks like an improvement

for me. Resolution, you say? That's not so important, because my second Camera of the

Year was a used Pentax 645. At $500 for a body and two great lenses, you can't buy more

resolution for your dollar than that. Now my third Camera of the Year is a Nikon D50,

because I work for a company that chose it as our standard, and the higher flash sync

capabilities (all the way to 1/2000th second at maximum power with a non-dedicated

flash), give it a leg up in balanced fill-flash scenes.

 

I just hope my Camera of the Year in 2007 is one I already own!

thanks Aaron....I keep on forgetting the particulars of that lens for some reason. Just to elaborate on my reason for wanting that lens....I own a couple Minolta Maxxum zooms in the wide to telephoto range.The first seemed to get pretty good user reviews and with film cams I always bought a 35-70 zoom, so i bought the Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Luckily I bought it used....not impressed with it at all. The other one I bought, again on user reviews, was the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. Now this is much better, but still no prize. Now, I am comparing these against some extremely fine Maxxum glass, 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and the 100mm f/2...which all three just amaze me everytime I use them. So, I figured maybe that's all zooms can do.......until I bought a Canon digital......and bought Canon's 17-40L f/4....excellent zoom.

 

So, what I'm kinda hoping for in that Zeiss is major step up...or even close...to Canon's L glass one I own.

 

I might add here, that I also own Canon's 100mm f/2.......and Minolta's 100mm f/2 is better. So that Zeiss zoom paired with the maxxum 100mm would be a nice kit for a digital Sony.......assuming the zoom pans out.

 

as always, just my opinion of looking at my pics from various lenses.......no scientific analysis done.

The sub-title of the popphoto award "camera which refines or redefines photography" is a dangerous one for the judges to rest on. I suspect that much of the award rests on the supposition that the A100 represents the first shot by a big new player to spur the industry forward generally.

 

If Sony back up the A100 well, Canon responds with a 40D and/or cheaper 5D then they were right. If Sony falters and Nikon and Canon are able to slip back into a comfortable duopoly then the popphoto award will look pretty silly.

I just bought "Practical Photography" magazine today, version which comes from the UK. And it reviewed the Nikon D80, Pentax K100D, Sony A100, and Panasonic DLSR. Making references to even the Canon 400D. They stated that the image quality coming from the Sony A100 was far ahead of that of its main competitors, which I just listed. Yes they bagged a few aspects of the build of the A100, but image quality (which is the end produce that cameras are used for, gets plenty of rave reviews.)

The text of PopPhoto's camera-of-the-year pages says that the D80 edged out the A100 in image excellence, but also said that not only does the D80 cost $1000 ($250 more than I paid for my A100), but the A100 also has in-body stabilization whereas the D80 does not.

 

Now you know and I know that the parity of image excellence is neither here nor there in the real world, especially when a Holga can win an annual news photographers' award. These two cameras are in the same league, but the A100 offers anti-shake. They also state that the A100 has DRO and dedusting and to date, no other maker has brought these features together in one body. So, if that is not refinement, what is?

 

And as far as PopPhoto appearing "silly" because of what *might* happen at some future date, I'm not sure how that conclusion can be drawn. They have to base their conclusion on what is currently in existence. Anything else is politics.

 

Ed

I have been very pleased with the A100. The handling is great and the images top notch. I

bought it shortly after it came out because nothing on the market could touch it for value. I

would not hessitate to purchase it again now even with some of the new SLR's that have come

out since. It is a great camera.

I agree with the comments that the very fine distinctions being made of 100% crops of carefully arranged test photos are meaningless and add very little to our understanding of whether a camera is good or bad. In fact I believe that in the DSLR market at the moment there arent really any bad cameras, just very good to excellent, suitable and not suitable.

 

I am surprised that the very same articles that talk about DSLRs being seen soley as part of a system then proceed to devise tests designed to show the performance of just one sub-component of that system - ie the sensor (and a tiny part of the image processing engine).

 

Instead of establishing a test chart and a regime of standard settings, standard lenses, default processing options testers should instead pick a real world targets and then test the entire system and compare the best results each camera could produce. That is dont treat DRO, image stabilisation, in-camera parameter control as add-ons but rather as core components of the camera. Whats the point of comparing ISO1600 shots if one camera forces you to use ISO1600 while the other gives you choices, for example. I chose the A100 because I felt that, as a system, it was going to get me the best images I could muster over the time I'm likely to own it (and I also felt an irrational affection for the minolta connection).

 

So if people have interpreted my earlier comments on the potential to the popphoto judges to look silly over this choice as a criticism of the camera itself that was not my intention.

 

However, perhaps I am reading a little too much into the phrase "refine and redefine photography". To me this means a whole lot more than "produce a better camera". To me this means change the market, change the way we take photos, change the behaviour of your competitors. The A100 is a really really good camera - I love mine - but only time will tell if it refines photography or just tweaks one segment of the DSLR market.

I do agree with some other comments on here about the lense used. On these test camera's, especially the Sony and even the old KM Camera's, test were usually done with the stock standard lense, where as I did notice on occasions, the Canon's and sometimes Nikon's had a better quality lense, rather than a stock one on there's. This made me realise at one time when KM 7D did a test with say 28-70 2.8 lens and the results were great, I knew the camera was capable of better than tested results from other reviewers using only the standard lense.

 

But it does appear the A100 is doing great results with the standard stock lense.

I lost all remaining respect for Practical Photography couple of years ago when they compared DSLRs and complained heavily that 7D does not have a focus point near a portrait subject's eye while the Olympus E-series, for example, with only three horizontally located focus points got better marks in this respect. German testers seem to be quite methodical. Other magazines are just entertainment.

The Japanese language camera biz press is quite well respected. Certainly more so than

anything in English.

.

 

Great insights, folks, thank!

 

I guess I'm familiar enough with the magazine writers and reviewers and editors to understand that they're just as human and whimsical as we are, and I INTERPRET what they write. Yes, their goal is to sell advertising, but also, yes, they love photography (as well as their egos!), and so all I read for, and sometimes I have to read between the lines, is to learn what is someone else's experience (that's all I read photo.net for, also, by the way). I will decide for my self, and conclusory writing is useless to me. I prefer people write their experience and let me draw whatever conclusions are appropriate for me. That said, I figure this:

 

==

 

- The "CAMERA OF THE YEAR" helps further legitimize Sony as a viable DSLR camera system to buy into, in case anyone didn't know about it or was on the fence. When I say "anyone" I see the camera buying market as 3 segments, NOT linearly related:

 

-- pros,

 

-- enthusiasts, and

 

-- everyone else.

 

If they were linear, then everyone would "wanna be" like the pros, which Canon and Nikon push in their advertising. But pros seem to accept big, heavy, clunker cameras with fewer features and benefits in favor of ruggedness and simplicity, forgoing even in-body flash! Enthusiasts like to control everything and hence Minolta and Pentax and Contax (how many pros used Contax 35mm?) and even Leica are aiming at niche enthusiast desires. Then there's everyone else who just wants an affordable camera that "takes good pictures". Sony is VERY aware of making people like and trust the Sony name in the "everyone else" arena. Sony is already respected in the "enthusiast" arena by inheriting Minolta enthusiasts. Pros, well ... Anyway, PopPhoto put the the Sony (and Nikon and Canon and Pentax) on their (world's best selling) monthly magazine cover, but with 12 issues a year, I'd expect that each camera maker to time their releases to each make it to PopPhoto's covers! It's not like the Sony appeard on more than one conver, yet Nikon and Canon have enough cameras to have more than one "Canon" or "Nikon" cover. Sony NEEDS anoterh camera to compete for covers/year! Now, an inside 2-page spread on "CAMERA OF THE YEAR" will be missed by many, but perhaps Sony will grab it for their marketing (I think current Sony Alpha marketing is too subtle, but then, they're already selling every Alpha thing they can make, so why frustrate buyers and sellers with no stock?). So, again, I see the award, as mentioned, as good news for Minolta enthusiasts, Sony, and, due to competitive pressure to keep features and benefits high and prices low, good news for every photographer.

 

==

 

- Details: remember how Sony met PopPhoto's challenge:

 

-- ~$850US-street,

 

-- built-in stabilization for all lenses,

 

-- 10mp,

 

-- Dynamic Range Optimizer/Plus,

 

-- wireless flash control.

 

Those are a quote from PopPhoto's own accolades of the Sony Alpha A100. Pooh-pooh those if you want, but they are still definitive and unbeat throughout 2006. The Konica Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7D only introduced in-camera stabilization to SLRs, while Minolta already had it in digicams before that, and also had wireless remote flash before that. The COMBINATION is what's being recognized by PopPhoto as refining or redefining "photography".

 

==

 

I concur that "photography" is a misnomer on PopPhoto's part, and should be "the camera that best refines or redefines (in an evolutionary way, apparently) *camera gear value*" since "photography" itself has probably been more effected in the past year, though also in an evolutionary way, by ...

 

-- the camera-equipped cell phone,

 

-- Apple Aperture, Adobe Lightroom, and other fast RAW lightbox-style total-image processing software,

 

-- desktop personal photo printers, copiers and scanners,

 

-- maybe http://www.flickr.com/ and http://www.istockphoto.com/ and and other Internet image sites,

 

-- maybe even simple ol' email attachments (images from Abu Grab coming home in real time, for instance), and so on.

 

What do YOU all think "best refines or redefines photography" over the last year?

 

==

 

-- Click! Peter Blaise, Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer