|
We've got threads for Canon, Nikon and even Pentax, but there is a conspicuous lack of discussion about the coolest camera brand for awesome people there is: Sony. I'm hoping to edit more useful information into the OP at a later stage, it's a bit thin now. (but it's a start) If somebody who knows Sony's product catalogue would like to jump in with their suggestions that would be very much appreciated. Awesome things about Sony - In-body image stabilization means any lens you stick on your Alpha DSLR is stabilized. This means you don't have to pay any sort of premium in order to get IS in your lens! - Ergonomics: Obviously, this largely boils down to personal preference. Sony's cameras have fantastic ergonomics, clean menu design, and I generally just find my A700 a dream to use. Other people might prefer the gigantic dial on the back of their 50D and not be able to stand the Sony. Try out how the cameras feel in your hand, but do know that Sony have been widely praised for the ergonomics of their cameras. - Great sensor performance, even at high ISOs. Some early reviews of Sony cameras, particularly the A700 mention poor performance at high ISOs as a severe problem with the camera. With the version 4 firmware, this has been completely resolved, and even ISO1600 is extremely usable. - Minolta lenses. Minolta's legacy lives on through Sony. You can get a 70-210mm f/4 "beercan" for around $200-300USD; there's a whole wealth of old Minolta glass available that's usable with the Alpha cameras. - The Minolta flash mount is a pretty drat good design.  Not so awesome things about Sony - The Minolta flash mount means that you have to buy an adaptor if you want to use non-Sony/Minolta flashes on the top of your camera. - Despite Sony having kept Minolta's mount, meaning you can use lenses from the 80s, not all lenses will work due to some chip or something I don't really know. - Slightly less accessories than if you shoot Nikon or Canon. It's not a significant factor though, you can still get absolutely everything you need if you're a Sony user. - You don't get a red rubber band on your expensive lenses. - At present, the A300 range (300, 350, 380 etc) are the only bodies in Sony's line with Live View. But it's a drat good implementation and behaves far more like the LCD on a point and shoot than Nikon or Canon's implementations of live view do. Here is some information: Bodies Here are some links to specs and model numbers. A100 Sony's prototype model. It's decent and landscape photographers are still quite fond of them because a weaker AA filter gives the pictures it produces a unique sharpness. A100 A2x0 Sony's entry level DSLRs. These do not have live view. Older: A200 New (same generation as the A330/380): A230 A3x0 The 300 series are Sony's middle of the line offerings. They've got a nice implementation of Live View and are decently priced, though they still have the sorta-dim pentamirror viewfinders. New: A330 A380 Old: A300 A350 A700 Sony's "prosumer" offering. It's comparable roughly to the Nikon D200/300 or the Canon 40D/50D. I have this camera and I absolutely love it. A700 A900 Sony's full frame offering. It's something like 25 megapixels and it costs a lot. A900 Lenses Buy A-mount stuff, stick it on your camera, enjoy. You get a decent selection; from old Minolta glass to expensive Carl Zeiss stuff. I don't really know what to write here, so here's a link to Dyxum's awesome lens database. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp Awesome lenses Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 Pretty much essential no matter what system you buy into. It won't be usable on a full frame camera, but it's a drat nice lens. Minolta 70-210mm f/4 "Beercan" A beautifully sharp lens that is the size of a beercan. Astounding value for money. Boo Canon, yay beer. Flashes You can use Minolta's old 3600(D) and 5600(D) flashes on your Sony body and they will be fully functional. You can also use older Minolta flashes, such as the 5400, but they use an older standard and as such won't give you wireless capability, TTL, etc. Here are Sony's current models. HVL-F20AM http://alphatracks.com/archives/144 Take the built in flash on a camera, make it a little bit more powerful and sell it as a separate unit and you have the F20AM. This flash can act as a wireless flash trigger, (but only on the A900) making it a decent option for A900 owners. However, it cannot itself be triggered wirelessly. Save up for an F42AM instead. HVL-F42AM http://www.dyxum.com/flashes/detail.asp?IDFlash=195 Sony's middle of the road flash. It's the successor to the HVL-F36AM, which in turn is the successor to the Minolta 3600HS(D). Roughly equivalent in price point to the Nikon SB600. HVL-F58AM http://www.dyxum.com/flashes/detail.asp?IDFlash=196 Sony's flagship flash. Succeeds the HVL-F56AM, which replaced the Minolta 5600HS(D)It's big, twists and turns on more axes than you thought existed, and (at least in New Zealand) is priced slightly below the Nikon SB900. I hear that it feels pretty flimsy if you mount it on an A700 though, because it's so drat huge. Resources http://www.dyxum.com/ Excellent photography community, with huge databases and reviews of pretty much every camera, lens and flash you can ever think of. http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/index.php – recommended by Stuntcock More information, links, etc will all be added whenever people tell me what to edit in. I just wanted to get this off the ground.  Talk about gear, post Flickrs, ask for help and advice, and generally do what you do in a megathread. Let the A-for-awesome-series circlejerk begin!
Zygar fucked around with this message at Jul 24, 2009 around 03:04 |
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 07:14 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 08:44 |
|
|
To start things off, somebody in #creatives posted a link to some guy-who-shoots-Sony-'s Flickr. I thought it was pretty rad, so here's the link again. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsleep/ Also, in-body Image Stabilization works awesomely, as KefkaFloyd can attest. I'd write a long brag post about the gear I have, but I only have an A700 and the Tamron 17-50 so far, so I'm not really in a position to gloat.  Right now I'm considering picking up an HVL-F42AM as my first upgrade, which should be a lot of fun!
Zygar fucked around with this message at Jul 22, 2009 around 07:21 |
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 07:19 |
|
|
I've got one, uses all Minolta xi+ lenses, however, your flashes may or may not work (old, 'iso,') with the new digital flash format ('iiso,') because the older flashes won't 'get' the new information, and it usually will negate TTL settings, wireless capabilites and such, and should fire at 100% flash all of the time. I use a 5400HS flash, which is massively powerful, with a 180/90 degree bounce capability and omni-bounce cap... with a little practice, can use for any and all occasions, even though it shoots full-power all of the time. It's an 11-year old flash, and works just fine with a little practice. Also : http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/index.php
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 07:21 |
|
|
As far as lenses go, Sony's got one of the best 50mm 1.4's out there, from what I hear. Once I save up a few bucks, I'll be taking one for my own use. Right now I've just got an A350 body with the 18-70 kit lens and a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1, which is an awesome fixed macro lens that can(if you can get the older "For Minolta" version rather than the newer Di model) be had for extremely cheap - mine was listed at $106 in our store's database. For reference, here's Bob Socko's review of the 50mm 1.4: Here
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 16:04 |
|
|
TC the Giant posted:As far as lenses go, Sony's got one of the best 50mm 1.4's out there, from what I hear. Once I save up a few bucks, I'll be taking one for my own use. Right now I've just got an A350 body with the 18-70 kit lens and a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1, which is an awesome fixed macro lens that can(if you can get the older "For Minolta" version rather than the newer Di model) be had for extremely cheap - mine was listed at $106 in our store's database. What? No, not at all. The Sony 50mm 1.4 is the absolute worst of all the other camera manufacturers, and it's a lot more expensive. http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-...-50-f14?start=2 I was researching the A900 as apposed to the original 5d, but my primary lenses are 35,50, 85, and despite Sony having ace 35 and 85mm lenses, the 50mm is so far inferior I stopped looking.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 16:15 |
|
|
What great timing! I just got my A300 in the mail; Sony had one refurbed for less than I was finding used bodies for. I can't say much about it yet because I'm stuck in an office and there is nothing to shoot. I can say it fits my Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 and seems to be working fine with it; auto focus is quick and precise. I haven’t used it so I can’t speak the kit lenses (18-70) abilities but it feels cheap. It’s really light and the part that moves in and out wobbles when not extended. It just feels like a toy compared to the two Minolta lenses I’ve got.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2009 19:05 |
|
|
quote:- Despite Sony having kept Minolta's mount, meaning you can use lenses from the 80s, not all lenses will work due to some chip or something I don't really know. KefkaFloyd can get his rear end in here and clear this up so I can edit it into the OP. (thanks in advance mate.) I don't think it's a huge issue, and Dyxum's lens database can tell you pretty much anything you need to know. This only applies to very, very old Sigma/Tokina lenses. Some were rechippable, others weren't. Dyxum's database lists specific ones. You also can't use Minolta manual focus lenses since the mounts are different. Also, don't forget the new HVL-F20AM flash for a900 users which enables wireless flash control without needing an F58. The F36 and F56 flashes were discontinued recently in favor of the new F42 and F58. They were carryovers of the old Minolta 3600HS(D) and 5600HS(D) (both which work with the Sony bodies btw). quote:I was researching the A900 as apposed to the original 5d, but my primary lenses are 35,50, 85, and despite Sony having ace 35 and 85mm lenses, the 50mm is so far inferior I stopped looking. There is also the Sigma 50mm. The Sony 50mm f/1.4 is a carryover of the old Minolta 50mm f/1.4. Strangely the 50 1.7 seems to perform better, but I've also seen a lot of fantastic photos from the Minolta 50mm. Buying an old MinO or RS 50mm is a better idea than the sony one even though you'll miss out on ADI. You can get them for $150-$200 on ebay. It only performs poorly at f/1.4. DPreview's lens test says: quote:The Sony 50mm F1.4 performs extremely well on APS-C for a conventional (all-spherical) design, outclassing the equivalent lenses from Canon, Nikon and Pentax. It shows unusually high central sharpness even wide open, and as usual benefits from the 'sweet spot' advantages of low distortion and minimal vignetting which are common to using full-frame lenses on APS-C. Compared to the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM, the Sony shows higher central sharpness (although with noticeable halation) but less consistency across the frame at wide apertures. Compared to the parent Minolta 50mm 1.4 RS, the Sony lens shows increased sharpness at all settings, but at the expense of measurably higher chromatic aberration; all other characteristics are virtually identical.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2009 16:28 |
|
|
I am also one of the few Sony shooters here. I started with the A200 and have moved on to the A700. My main consideration for buying into the Sony system was in-camera stabilization. I was originally looking at Pentax and Olympus but the third party lens offerings for those two are pretty slim. But the Minolta hotshoe often makes me want to change to Nikon or Canon. It's so loving difficult to find lighting stuff to work with Sony without using a stack of adapters on the hotshoe! My kit: A700 body HVL-56AM flash VG-70AM vertical grip (never leaves the body) Minolta 50/1.7 Tamron 70-200/2.8 Tamron 17-50/2.8 Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (It's not a fast lens but it is, by far, my favorite)
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2009 05:51 |
|
|
bung posted:I am also one of the few Sony shooters here. I started with the A200 and have moved on to the A700. My main consideration for buying into the Sony system was in-camera stabilization. I was originally looking at Pentax and Olympus but the third party lens offerings for those two are pretty slim. But the Minolta hotshoe often makes me want to change to Nikon or Canon. It's so loving difficult to find lighting stuff to work with Sony without using a stack of adapters on the hotshoe! You shouldn't need a stack, only one FS-1100 or a clone should do the job. And you have a sync port too...
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2009 16:23 |
|
|
This might be a question I have to take over to Dyxum, but what the hell, it can't hurt to ask here first: One of the local camera shops has a Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 collecting dust in a display case. It is either unused or a display model, I'm not sure which. The shop doesn't carry any Sony gear and doesn't seem to advertise much, so the lens is unlikely to sell on its own. They're asking $500 for it, but one of the employees made it very clear that they're willing to lower the price to just get rid of the thing. Between what the employee said and prices on eBay, I think I could get them down to $400, maybe less. I already have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and I'm pretty happy with it. It seems to hold its value reasonably well so I should be able to break even if I were to sell it on eBay and buy the Minolta lens. Comparing the lenses, it seems like the switch would result in: * generally nicer colors * lighter weight * less potential for flare (or at least more "normal" flare) * slightly softer image quality at the wide end of the zoom range * slightly sharper image quality at the long end of the zoom range * (obvious) minor differences in zoom lengths Has anyone actually used this Minolta lens? Is it worth switching to or am I better off with the Sigma? Bob Socko fucked around with this message at Aug 7, 2009 around 01:15 |
| # ? Aug 7, 2009 01:10 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:This might be a question I have to take over to Dyxum, but what the hell, it can't hurt to ask here first: The KM 28-75 is the same as the Tamron 28-75. It's sharp and fairly decent. Similar performance to 17-50 in terms of image but at different focal lengths (and full frame).
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2009 05:11 |
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The KM 28-75 is the same as the Tamron 28-75. It's sharp and fairly decent. Similar performance to 17-50 in terms of image but at different focal lengths (and full frame). I kind of wondered about that - I noticed that both Minolta and Tamron have 28-75mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lenses that look similar, so I thought there might be some shared/copied designs between them. When you say the same, is one literally just a rebadged version of the other with a different grip on the zoom ring, or should the Minolta produce nicer colors? I really like the color my Minolta lenses produce, but I'm not as impressed with my Tamron lens.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2009 05:20 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I kind of wondered about that - I noticed that both Minolta and Tamron have 28-75mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lenses that look similar, so I thought there might be some shared/copied designs between them. When you say the same, is one literally just a rebadged version of the other with a different grip on the zoom ring, or should the Minolta produce nicer colors? I really like the color my Minolta lenses produce, but I'm not as impressed with my Tamron lens. It's the same optical formula. The KM one has different coatings, a different body, grips, and an official KM ROM (useful for focus correction in a850/900). The KM version might produce nicer colors, but overall the optical qualities would be similar to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2009 06:49 |
|
|
So, hey, Sony guys, has anyone else had experience with the continuous shooting on the A350 slowing down after a couple of shots? I know it's gimped to only two frames a second, but it seems after nine or ten shots in full-manual, even on "just to prove a point" settings(1/1000, ISO 3200, f/1.7) it starts to slow down on me. I *know* it's not my card; I've got an 8gb Sandisk ExtremeIII, so it's got to be something about my settings that's making it slow down so quickly, even just shooting JPEGs. Any suggestions?
|
| # ? Aug 8, 2009 19:24 |
|
|
TC the Giant posted:So, hey, Sony guys, has anyone else had experience with the continuous shooting on the A350 slowing down after a couple of shots? I know it's gimped to only two frames a second, but it seems after nine or ten shots in full-manual, even on "just to prove a point" settings(1/1000, ISO 3200, f/1.7) it starts to slow down on me. I *know* it's not my card; I've got an 8gb Sandisk ExtremeIII, so it's got to be something about my settings that's making it slow down so quickly, even just shooting JPEGs. Any suggestions? While your card may support fast data transfer, is it possible that the a350's buffer is filling faster than it can write to the card? I've never heard of that specific problem, but that would be my first guess.
|
| # ? Aug 8, 2009 20:20 |
|
|
TC the Giant posted:So, hey, Sony guys, has anyone else had experience with the continuous shooting on the A350 slowing down after a couple of shots? I know it's gimped to only two frames a second, but it seems after nine or ten shots in full-manual, even on "just to prove a point" settings(1/1000, ISO 3200, f/1.7) it starts to slow down on me. I *know* it's not my card; I've got an 8gb Sandisk ExtremeIII, so it's got to be something about my settings that's making it slow down so quickly, even just shooting JPEGs. Any suggestions? The a350's buffer is no great shakes. It can only hold six (?) RAW frames before filling. JPEGs might be ten or so frames. The a2/3xx level cameras do not have the same kidn of buffer as the A7/8/9x cameras, which have much faster data pipelines.
|
| # ? Aug 9, 2009 00:35 |
|
|
I am able to report that the A700 is durable enough to withstand a car wreck. This is great if you live in a city where red lights are clearly a foreign concept to some people. (unfortunately I was a bit too shaken up after the crash to use it to take shots of my wrecked car...)
|
| # ? Aug 9, 2009 07:23 |
|
|
Hay guys, I pulled the trigger. Compared to the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, this lens is TINY.   I broke it in at a buddy's going away party this evening. At a glance, there is no meaningful difference in image quality between it and the Sigma. I imagine I'd notice a minor difference if I was shooting identical scenes side-by-side using the two lenses, but in terms of practical use, performance feels identical. Unlike the Sigma, colors are less yellow, more natural. So far, I'm very happy.
|
| # ? Aug 9, 2009 08:03 |
|
|
The KM 28-75 should have a focus clutch (being a D-type lens) so the focus ring shouldn't turn during AF operations.
|
| # ? Aug 9, 2009 22:43 |
|
|
How is the build quality of the Alpha 700 and 900? My camera shop doesn't have either available for fiddling around with. I've played around with the 350 for a good while, but I wasn't too impressed with the feel of it.
|
| # ? Aug 9, 2009 23:58 |
|
|
Momonari kun posted:How is the build quality of the Alpha 700 and 900? My camera shop doesn't have either available for fiddling around with. I've played around with the 350 for a good while, but I wasn't too impressed with the feel of it. If my A700 can survive a side impact from an SUV travelling 30mph, I'm pretty sure it can survive anything.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 00:19 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:While your card may support fast data transfer, is it possible that the a350's buffer is filling faster than it can write to the card? I've never heard of that specific problem, but that would be my first guess.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 00:26 |
|
|
Momonari kun posted:How is the build quality of the Alpha 700 and 900? My camera shop doesn't have either available for fiddling around with. I've played around with the 350 for a good while, but I wasn't too impressed with the feel of it. They're built like tanks, a900 more so. The a700 has a polycarbonate back panel with magnesium front/top panels, while the a900 is magnesium panels all around. They both have weathersealing around the controls, dials, card door, etc but they are not waterproof like an Olympus. They are a completely different feel than the entry level type models (5D, a100, a2/3xx series) which have body shells made entirely out of plastic. Even then, my 5D took a pretty good beating... The battery grips add weather sealing to the battery chamber of the body, and they're also made out of magnesium. Mine's survived falls and beatings, Zygar's survived being in a car accident. They're pretty well built.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 02:59 |
|
|
If anyone is looking for info on Sony/Minolta flashes, http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/flashes.php is very helpful. There's other info there too, but the flash compendium really stands out. I don't have any of the new Sony flashes, but I have a Minolta 5600HS(D) and the Minolta Twin/Ring flash and they work fantastic with my a700. It's a shame that Sony replaced the ring flash with a ring light.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 16:05 |
|
|
ronaldreagan posted:If anyone is looking for info on Sony/Minolta flashes, http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/flashes.php is very helpful. There's other info there too, but the flash compendium really stands out. Yeah, but the outlook these days isn't so grim as you can get the new Sigma/Metz ringflashes with Sony/Minolta mount.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 18:36 |
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:They're built like tanks, a900 more so. The a700 has a polycarbonate back panel with magnesium front/top panels, while the a900 is magnesium panels all around. Aaaaaaaaand the A350's made of plastic.  But I did order a vertical grip for mine, plus a spare battery. I'll post some early impressions when the thing gets here.
|
| # ? Aug 10, 2009 20:13 |
|
|
I'm a very happy Alpha system user even though I use no actual Sony glass -- it's mostly Minolta or Sigma. I was a Minolta film shooter years ago who eventually bought a Maxxum 5D. When I heard that Sony bought KM's camera division I was initially a bit scared. After seeing their releases though I've since upgraded and am pretty happy. It is a great system and some Minolta legacy glass is great. It stinks that used lenses go for big money these days. The only thing that stinks for Sony is I don't think they pull a lot of new users into their system, which is why they're sort of "dumbing down" their entry level cameras. For KM shooters such as myself though I'm just thankful they didn't totally poo poo on our system.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2009 00:15 |
|
|
Wow, I would never have expected to see a thread on Sonys. I've had a few: DSC-P30, First Cybershot at the megapixel level. Really drat good for the time. It came with Zeiss glass and had 6x zoom. It took excellent pictures for a P&S POS. My second Sony was a DSC-F828. This was an oddball, but the form factor was straight-up awesome. Being able to swivel the lens barrel independent of the rest of the body was pretty cool. Made shooting music shows a lot easier. Unfortunately, it died this year. It won't boot up. I'd love to pass it to the wife if repair costs weren't prohibitive. I completely tore it down, just short of disassembling the lens. Nothing was obviously out of place, didn't seem like any connector was loose. I put it back together and it still behaves the same. Next I got an NSC-GC1 as a stopgap measure for around a hundred bucks, which was Sony's first foray into the Youspacetube video market. I still have it and it's a nice little video/still camera to have with me just in case. It's small enough to carry around with my other gadgetry and even buss charges over USB. It's nice to take on hikes and to parties when I don't feel like dealing with the bulk of the... Alpha 350. I found a floor model at the Circuit City going out of business "sale" for $450.00. It was missing the eyepiece, but I was able to get one from Sony for like $2.50. I'm trying to make a concerted effort to learn more of the technical aspects of the hobby and making tentative stabs at using RAW. It's a good camera, but not nearly as nice in the hand as the 828. On the other hand, the sensor is bigger than the grain of rice sized POS in the 828, so less purple fringing and a host of other benefits to boot.
|
| # ? Aug 11, 2009 02:33 |
|
|
*crickets chirping* I've been playing with my Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 and I've noticed that my a700 doesn't do that good of a job with automatic white balance - colors are very cool. This surprises me as it does a pretty good job with all of my other lenses with the possible exception of my Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6. Since my Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 is basically a fancier Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, is poor AWB performance common with Tamron lenses? Or perhaps an issue with Sony and Tamron lenses? I don't think it's a question of older lens designs in general as my beercan produces excellent color. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at Aug 22, 2009 around 01:36 |
| # ? Aug 22, 2009 01:32 |
|
|
AWB is a crapshoot any way you slice. The A3x0 series has better AWB performance thanks to the live view's metering, interestingly enough.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2009 04:53 |
|
|
I've got a good amount of money set aside to upgrade from my a200, hoping that Sony doesn't gently caress up with these new cameras waiting in the wings. The a5x0 cameras hopefully will settle well in the prosumer void in their line up, as the a700 is starting to be a bit dated in certain respects.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2009 06:31 |
|
|
Are there any good sources of Sony DSLR news besides Dyxum, DPreview, and (presumably) Stuntcock's photoclubalpha site? I think my next big toy is going to be the a850 assuming it's $2000 or less, but I don't know of any specific sites to lurk on or avoid for updates.
|
| # ? Aug 25, 2009 02:15 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Are there any good sources of Sony DSLR news besides Dyxum, DPreview, and (presumably) Stuntcock's photoclubalpha site? I think my next big toy is going to be the a850 assuming it's $2000 or less, but I don't know of any specific sites to lurk on or avoid for updates. Stuntcock isn't David Kilpatrick.  There is http://www.alphamountworld.com but honestly you won't get any info from there that you wouldn't get on other sites. We'll know more about the a850 in a few days.
|
| # ? Aug 25, 2009 12:34 |
|
|
According to Gizmodo, which is which is tracking back to Sony, the new DSLR specs have been released. But the link back to Sony doesn't have any info available. I wonder if it was released too early and then removed? The specs on the A850 are basically the A900 with a 98% vf and 3 fps and it does have the same 24.6 mp sensor. I rather pay the extra $700 for the A900 for those vf and fps.
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2009 14:58 |
|
|
The a850, 500, and 550 have been announced. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/0...onya550a500.asp http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09082705sonya850.asp DPR also has a hands on preview of the a550. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/0...a550preview.asp quote:The specs on the A850 are basically the A900 with a 98% vf and 3 fps and it does have the same 24.6 mp sensor. I rather pay the extra $700 for the A900 for those vf and fps. Some would save $700 if they don't need it.
|
| # ? Aug 27, 2009 16:17 |
|
|
Welp, guess I'm going full-frame. Edit - just found out my company is going under in 6 to 9 months, guess I'm not going full frame. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at Aug 27, 2009 around 20:54 |
| # ? Aug 27, 2009 16:24 |
|
|
So is the 550 the replacement for the 700 or is the 700 still going to be sold? Edit: Did some searching and found that it definitely isn't the replacement. Momonari kun fucked around with this message at Aug 28, 2009 around 00:42 |
| # ? Aug 28, 2009 00:04 |
|
|
Momonari kun posted:So is the 550 the replacement for the 700 or is the 700 still going to be sold? The 550 is a 5 series camera, like the a100 and KM 5D, it's below the 700 and not meant to replace it. Things are pointing to new 7x0 type of cameras around PMA.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2009 01:24 |
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The 550 is a 5 series camera, like the a100 and KM 5D, it's below the 700 and not meant to replace it. Ufff, the new a850 and the new 24-70 2.8 might make me a Sony user.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2009 08:10 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 08:44 |
|
|
After thinking it over for half a day, I'm going to pull the trigger on the a850 anyway. If nothing else, selling my a700, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and my Sigma 10-20mm will finance 2/3rds of the cost. God, I feel like a kid before Christmas.
|
| # ? Aug 28, 2009 14:24 |
|
