douglas_ferling

I am very happy that the 24-70 is priced around the same as the Nikon version. Time to start saving. Ugh.

they're out:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013004sonyalpha300350.asp

I haven't stood on mine, but they are solid. Granted, I've handled the newer H series cams, and they aren't as bulletproof feeling IMO.

Yeah, I think the ugly MP logo will remain on the consumer cams.

 

It's funny that people are so unused to multiple cameras under $1000 from one company that these cameras are seen as upgrades to each other. I've heard there may be another sub-A700 coming a bit later, but who knows? Sony is definitely changing the DSLR landscape with so many options.

I messed up. They are png's and I thought they were smaller. Sorry, everyone !

and finally.

more.

Enjoy.

Just tell her Hasselblad is a car company :) I don't believe the A200 has the weather seals AKAIK. The focusing speed may well be similar to the A700, but the A700 has more focus points with a super-sensitive center center cross that activates an extra sensor if you're lens is f2.8 or faster. Also, having 5 frames per second versus 3 will be nice for birds and such. Either way, wait a week, because 2-3 more Sony cameras are getting ready to be announced at PMA this weekend.

CMOS technology tends to be a little less noisy at high ISO, but CCD technology on the A200 is better than the A100. Ultimately, both CCD and CMOS are capable of great images, and if you're looking for a nature photography camera, you'll probably want the more durable body, better sealing, better low light ability, faster auto focus, and higher frames per second of the A700.

 

p.s. $120 point and shoots use CCD...and so do $32,000 medium format digital backs!

Richard, I just got done going through some personal pics from the weekend, and I know you're looking at an 85mm, so I thought I'd post a candid pic of my girlfriend using my 85mm. This is the second place I've posted the pic, and she was just out of the shower with no makeup on, so she's gonna kill me :)

 

 

Sony A700 + Zeiss 85mm at ISO 400 and f1.4<div></div>

You would be surprised how much faster the beercan is with the A700. It makes it feel like a new lens, and that's why I'm still holding on to it until I get a sense on what Sony is doing with that range. The Sony 70-200 is just a Minolta rebadge, and the Minolta came out in 2003. Allegedly, Minolta's handmade manufacturing process made the lens very expensive, and Sony hasn't been able to turn that around yet. I'm not convinced they are getting rid of it yet, though.

 

The 50 1.4 is sharper overall than the 1.7, although it is pretty soft at 1.4. I haven't had too many issues with backfocus. A good deal of that comes with user error. The center focus point on the A100 and especially the A700 is large (too large IMO,) so the camera may not be picking the point that one may expect. I use a lot of the outside focus points for things like portraits, and I haven't run into too many problems myself.

Man, than 200G is nice and very tempting for me, and the 85mm you mentioned is quite a deal. Why not, right? :)

 

My 85mm has a very specific look to it that I really like. The colors are just a bit cooler than usual Minolta colors (some probably don't prefer this) and it seems to be a little more contrasty. Plus, it is sharper with seemingly better bokeh than the Minolta variant. Overall, it seems to have a little more of a modern pop to it, and having used *T coated Zeiss' on Hasselblad, I naturally like these lenses on Sony. There have been a lot of unfounded rumors of a possible 70-200 redesign, and, although the current G lens is amazing, I'm hoping they bring a Zeiss version. Then I'll just sell off a lot of stuff and get 3 Zeiss zooms covering 14mm(or 16mm)- 200mm at 2.8...all having the same "look," although I'll keep the 85mm and 50mm for low light stuff.

Right now I've got the: KM 20mm 2.8 / KM 24mm 2.8 / Minolta 50mm 1.4 / CZ 85mm 1.4 So, I've got a glaring gap below 20mm, and that 35 G has been tempting me :)

 

I'm curious to see how the 20 and 24 perform on full-frame. That will determine what my move will be as far as checking out the upcoming Zeiss zooms. The possibility of more Zeiss primes is tempting as well. I can't seem to remove my 85mm from my camera. Suddenly, I need lots more distance between me and my subject now, because the quality of the Zeiss is so good that I want to use it for everything that I shoot! lol

Unfortunately, it looks like the new A200 has a flash that pops up :(

Also, you can trigger the Sony flash wirelessly from the camera without out additional triggers, so don't buy anything more yet.

Interestingly enough, Nikon's new, expensive 14-24mm 2.8 zoom is testing better than the Canon primes in that range. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the new Sony wide angle will be similar. I currently shoot primes up to 85mm, but if Sony has a 14-24, 24-70, and a 70-200 zoom that are all f2.8, then I may just keep my 50mm 1.4 and Zeiss 85mm and switch back to zooms....albeit with massive debt! :)

Buy it. Many people I know have that lens on the A100.

p.s. i use apple and pc, but i don't do serious editing on my glossy mac screen.

Glossy, bright screens are not generally wanted for photoshop work. It may make your pictures look pretty, but it may not give you an accurate representation of what the photos really look like. Google something like "lcd screens photography" to get a grasp of the differences/importance of different LCD screens for image editing.

That's what I mean. I think the Sony flagship will be competition for the 5D "replacement," not the current 5D.

Jimmy, who would buy a $5000-$8000 Sony at this point? Maybe current Sony/Minolta users, but I can't imagine too many pros switching over from Canon/Nikon right now. Sony needs to build the system up more, and implement professional services before they plunge into that market. A Canon 5D level camera, but with best in class specs, would be a good bridge to build first IMO. Michael is right, they haven't said much about the new camera, and at PMA last year they called it "Flagship" rather than "Professional." We shall see!

From what I've seen, the A900 will be more of a Canon 5D competitor, not a professional sports shooter like the D3.

You just need to decide what features are important to you, and then handle the cameras.

 

I started from scratch when I came to DSLRs, and the built-in stabilization and ergonomics are what made me chose Sony, and there is much more from them to come.

I went through this last summer. I acquired a used Valeo 11 back for my Hassleblad V's, and it produced nice files, but it was still over $3K, and shooting tethered was a pain for some things. I've since sold it, and now I shoot 35mm digital, and the Hasselblads are used in limited situations where the quality is required, and time and money aren't a concern. Unfortunately, the Hassy's are being used less and less now :(