The New 10.2mp Sony DSLR-A100 announced

[BarryM]

Rolllll up Rollllllup


Sony DSLR_A100 (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/sony_dslr_a100/)

[tonymidd]

Lots of gen here
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/alpha100.html
The only site to trust were reviews are concerned.
Looks an interesting and well priced unit but is it enough to worry Canon and Nikon?

Having just read Steve's comments it looks as if the D50/70s and the equivilent Canons may be given a run for their money, that body with the 16-30 Zeiss lenssounds very tasty. one thing i really liked was the understated styling of the lenses, makes those big flashy white things look a bit common. :blum2: beats hasty retreat as all the Canon lot get ready to kill me :dwarf:

[england1965]

Lots of gen here
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/alpha100.html
The only site to trust were reviews are concerned.



I have found www.dpreview.com a good site for reviews too.

Any reason not to trust them? (just curious)

Mark

[tonymidd]

I have found www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) a good site for reviews too.

Any reason not to trust them? (just curious)

Mark

No reason at all, I just find Steve's far more indepth and objective. I like the layout better. Both of these sites are unbiaised which is more than you can say for some of them.

[england1965]

Always good to have a couple of viewpoints. Dp doesn't always do in-depth reviews on all gear - nice to have an alternative

Cheers

Mark

[StuG]

I've been waiting to see what Sony would do, think I'd best start saving :banana:

[tonymidd]

I've been waiting to see what Sony would do, think I'd best start saving :banana: for a D200?:clapping::clapping::clapping:

[StuG]

for a D200?:clapping::clapping::clapping:

hee hee :tease: the thing is the only bit of kit I would need to replace for one of these is my flash

[tonymidd]

hee hee :tease: the thing is the only bit of kit I would need to replace for one of these is my flash
with or without a new mac?:banana::banana::banana:

Seriously I'd wait for the next one which i understand is due in the autumn.

[StuG]

I'll be lucky if I can afford one by christmas :Dm

[tonymidd]

Seen on an other forum and posted by someone who reviews cameras etc for the popular camera press. This was in his review of the press release of this Sony.

'used spot metering that's why some of the high lights are a bit blown'

His credibility, for me, is immediatley blown like his high lights. You'd expect someone writting a review to know how to correctly use a spot meter.
This is worse than the reviwer of the Fuji GW670 III who spent two paragraphs explaining to her readers what roll film was!

Where do they find them?????

[Ian Burley]

Seen on an other forum and posted by someone who reviews cameras etc for the popular camera press. This was in his review of the press release of this Sony.

'used spot metering that's why some of the high lights are a bit blown'

His credibility, for me, is immediatley blown like his high lights. You'd expect someone writting a review to know how to correctly use a spot meter.
This is worse than the reviwer of the Fuji GW670 III who spent two paragraphs explaining to her readers what roll film was!

Where do they find them?????

Well, well, look what *I* found.

Hello Tony. (For the benefit of anyone else reading this thread, I'm the 'someone' Tony is referring to.)

I'd like to put Tony's criticisms into context:

He referred to this post (http://dpnow.com/bb/dslr.pl?frames=n;read=825) on the DPNow forum that forms part of my own Digital Photography Now site.

1) I was not 'reviewing' the camera. We were provided with the opportunity to use a limited number of the new cameras (approximately 1 camera for every three journalists) during a limited period of time, albeit at a nice location. There was a fair amount of rushing because of time constraints.

2) The camera was handed to me with spot metering switched on by the last person who used it. My failing was that I did not to check the settings thoroughly enough, though in my defence I was very unfamiliar with the camera to start with.

I would certainly not have used this mode for this picture knowingly. Later, at the press centre, having noticed the stretched highlights and the exif data showing that spot mode was set, I merely mentioned what I found in defence of the camera. I was actually much more interested in the sharpness of the lens and the sensor under conditions where the anti-shake mechanism would have shown a clear benefit.

3) My comment was made after viewing the image on an un-profiled laptop provided for Internet access at the launch venue. As I subsequently explained yesterday (http://dpnow.com/bb/dslr.pl?frames=n;read=833), now I'm back at the office, viewing on my own profiled monitors I can see that the brightness is really a lot lower. Areas of the hawk's beak are still too light, but it's nowhere near as bad as I originally observed.

4) Tony is the most prolific poster, by some margin, on the DPNow forum that forms part of my own site, Digital Photography Now (www.dpnow.com). To say the least, I'm disappointed that I have found his comments here. I also question whether someone with the status and responsibility of 'moderator' on this forum should really lower the tone with comments like this.

I'm sad that I found it necessary to rebutt your comments publicly, here, Tony. I just wish you could have posted these critcisms in a more diplomatic fashion to me, either personally and privately or publicly in the context of the post you referred to on the DPNow forum.

Best regards,

Ian

Editor/founder
Digital Photography Now
www.dpnow.com

[tonymidd]

[quote=Ian Burley]Well, well, look what *I* found.

Hello Tony. (For the benefit of anyone else reading this thread, I'm the 'someone' Tony is referring to.)

I'd like to put Tony's criticisms into context:

My failing was that I did not to check the settings thoroughly enough, though in my defence I was very unfamiliar with the camera to start with.

I would certainly not have used this mode for this picture knowingly.


Ah, now if you'd have said that Ian I'd have understood but as you posted it it looked as if you used spot deliberately. I did not comment on this on dp-now as I felt it did reflect rather badly on you, without the above explaination that is , and your forum was not the place for that. That's also why I kept it anonymous.

. To say the least, I'm disappointed that I have found his comments here. I also question whether someone with the status and responsibility of 'moderator' on this forum should really lower the tone with comments like this.

I'm sad that I found it necessary to rebutt your comments publicly, here, Tony. I just wish you could have posted these critcisms in a more diplomatic fashion to me, either personally and privately or publicly in the context of the post you referred to on the DPNow forum.

Ian as you well know I speak my mind and as for publically rebutting my comments that's your priviledge. I fail to see how expressing an honestly held opinion based on the avaliable fact lowers the tone of a forum. I deliberately tied to keep personalities out of the comment, you have bought yourself into the public arena. An e-mail to me explaining the above facts and requesting an appology or redress and I'd have willingly redressed the situation and maintained your anonimity.

[BarryM]

Hi Ian, welcome to the forum.

In Tony's defence, he didnt state whom or where he got the information from, or not that i can find. I understand the defence but maybe it should have been posted in a private message to him. A very nice site you have there.

[lostmysnorkel]

XXsharkXX A nice forum Ian, welcome to our small abode.

Please feel free to join in and comment in here too!

[Ian Burley]

First of all, I don't feel at all comfortable about having to publicly rebut Tony's remarks. I have tried my hardest to be as fair and level headed as possible.

But the fact is, another DPNow reader brought this to my attention. My identity was *not* adequately preserved by Tony. Therefore, and regrettably, I had to set the record straight publicly.

Perhaps worst of all, his language was disrespectful to me and he made poorly judged assumptions.

I quote: "His credibility, for me, is immediatley blown like his high lights."

He should apologise.

I welcome candid and constructive criticism on my forum, so that is not the issue at all. The excuse that a comment in the original thread would have reflected badly on me is just that, an excuse. If he had questioned the use of spot metering there, I'd have had the opportunity to clarify things in the right place.

I have no desire to fan any flames on this. Tony knows my thoughts and that is all there is to it.

Thank you all for your kind comments on my site; that said, I (most of all) know that it is well overdue for a lot of improvements! :)

Ian

[tonymidd]

But the fact is, another DPNow reader brought this to my attention. My identity was *not* adequately preserved by Tony. Therefore, and regrettably, I had to set the record straight publicly.

Ian I've no control over who reads a post and how they interpret whats said.

Perhaps worst of all, his language was disrespectful to me and he made poorly judged assumptions.

I quote: "His credibility, for me, is immediatley blown like his high lights."

He should apologise.

Why? I was commenting on the facts to hand and I was carefull not mention any names. If someone makes a connection that's beyond my control. As I said before you could have e-mailed me about this with the explaination; I would, as you well know, have corrected the observations made and your name would never have been mentioned. I said before your post made it seem you had used spot metering deliberately, if you had made it clear the blown highlights were due to the inadvertant use of spot all would have been clear.

I welcome candid and constructive criticism on my forum, so that is not the issue at all. The excuse that a comment in the original thread would have reflected badly on me is just that, an excuse. If he had questioned the use of spot metering there, I'd have had the opportunity to clarify things in the right place.

Pity you did not make it clear in the first place and I genuinely did not want to critisice you on dp-now for what seemed to be a basic misuse of spot metering.

[bartonflyer]

As a Minolta 5D user, which this camera seems to be based on, I'm delighted that Sony are offering me a way forward if & when I decide to move on from the 5D - So far I'm over the moon with my version of the camera, anti-shake is superb and means you get image stabilisation on every lens unlike the competitors. The fact that thye are using the MMinolta AF lens mount mens my investment keeps it's value - so all in all I think it's a great move.
Cheers
Ian