Sony Alpha 100 E-mail
As some of you may know in my major 35mm film days I was a Minolta shooter. To this day I'm still shoot a 4x5 view camera or a Minolta 9xi when I shoot film. With my 20mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.8 macro as lenses of choice along with a sweet wireless flash setup with the best flashes Minolta made. The idea for using my old and well loved gear was something I've been looking at since last year when Sony got Konica/Minolta's camera line.

In August I randomly did a test of the camera while one of our other photographers tested the Nikon d200. (note these cameras are rumored to have the same 10.2MP Sony sensor) the tests we did in August left me a little disappointed with the bionz processing as we shot everything on the large Jpeg setting. Our conclusions at that time was; The Sony images showed more noise then the Nikon but was as sharp. I later ran the images through neat image, a Photoshop plug-in, the does a great job removing noise. The images were then as good as the Nikon images. But, why would I choose to get a camera the would require double processing? Simple; gear.

For the past year and a half I have been shooting a Canon 20D and have had mixed feelings about it. At the time I bought the camera I didn't buy an equivalent set of equipment to replace my full set of Minolta gear (that was a big mistake). When I Got the camera I was new to digital and bought only what I would need to do the most basic of jobs; relying on my film cameras for everything else. With in a year I had come to rely more and more on the digital cameras for speed, ease of use, and processing control.

I now commence with my opinions about the Sony Alpha 100 camera. Some major disappointments and little joys.

First, the bad:
It's plastic. I expected this, but I didn't remember or expect felling like I was going to break the CF card door every time I opened and closed it. I've gotten use to it but it's still not great. This camera is also not sealed with O-rings like the canon 20D, so it's more susceptible to environmental issues, like dust and moisture.

Second, the big disappointment - the wireless flash remote doesn't work. It shuts off on every attempt. this item was one of the two reasons I really was looking forward to this camera.

Third, there is no PC sync flash terminal. (a PC sync flash terminal is a port to connect strobes and other lighting equipment to a camera and is not related to a personal computer also called a PC. PC sync is a standard called Prontor-Compur)

Now for some good
I like some of the settings this camera has in it's menus, (cameras really should be more customizable) there are two settings for folders standard or date and an option to start a new folder (a great setting if you shoot several shoots on the same card)

option to change the bracketing 0 - + or -0+
there is a slide show setting (if you wanted to display as a slide show on the LCD or a TV)

This is a big one you can change the dial so it controls the aperture or the shutter.
exposure compensation can be ambient or ambient&flash
the AF illuminator can be turned on and off
there is a shutter lock with a bunch of options
and the eye start AF can be turned off. (something some reviews have claimed can't be done)
and many reset to default settings (whether this is for the whole camera or menu specific i haven't tested, there is one on almost every menu)

the other great thing is the "super steady shot" which is an in camera image stabilizer. this makes up for the camera only having a 1600 ISO, not only makes up for the lower ISO but it makes it easier to shoot at lower ISO in lower light. My experience with in lens image stabilization on the canon has been a disappointment; it's slow and jerky. I'm impresses with the Sony Alpha's in camera stabilization it's a lot faster and more responsive then in lens stabilization.

I still expect and see a grainy/noisy image from the camera at high ISO. Once I have a chance to look at the raw images and run them through neat image I'll post the images and comment on what I think. I will say that most of the higher ISO shots I have taken with the Sony Alpha 100 have appeared more grainy then noisy, where with my canon I would look at a high ISO image and say that's a noisy image. With the Sony I tend to say wow that's a grainy image. I would give the 1600 ISO a film 3200 grain rating, where the Canon's 3200 I would give a 1000 ISO rating but discount the image for being soft. I think the Sony's 1600 ISO is more usable despite being Grainy/noisy then the Canon because it is Sharper.

To add to the list of equipment I have that does not work with the alpha 100; the IR-1 transmitter / receiver does not work (this is an infrared cable release that works up to 50 or more yards)

the standard cable release I have does work.

A little joy I found is the white balance bracketing, I don't think I would use it but then again I might. The cool thing is the full bracket is done in one shot. three images one click of the shutter, I can get a cold, neutral and warm bracket. If I did this on a film camera or on the Canon 20D I would have to take THREE shoots and would lose the moment. This is great for speed and works with Raw. This is a feature any wedding photographer or artist would love.

that concludes the testing of my equipment with the camera. 

I will continue to test the camera's core functions and do comparable lens/ISO tests with my canon when I get It back from the factory as it's auto focus and shutter is being repaired. I will also fine all the cool Easter eggs this beast has in it's functions.

current rating** 4 rolls or a 2 CF cards
currently recommended for artists who could careless about the camera, weekend warriors, value based wedding photographers, and the family enthusiast.

**Rating is based on the number of film rolls I would shoot and/or the number of CF card I would want in my pocket to shoot with basing a 2GB card as a standard.
 
< Prev
[ Back ]