How good is the Sony Alpha DSLR A100?

Question

What does DSLR mean? I am getting myself a digital camera and really looking for something that will take more than good pictures. I want a camera that when I am 75 years old will still be able to take good pictures.
I have two Minolta lenses a 35 - 70 and a 75 - 300mm, will the quality be affected by the fact that I am not using a Sony lens. I know that Sony got all the technology from Minolta when they bought it from Minolta, that is why the lenses fit, but I am curious to know if it will make a difference.
Thanx for the help, much appreciate.

Answer 1

I had a Sony point and shoot camera for a couple of years after which it was burned out after only about ten thousand images. Sony is into electronics, not cameras. What I liked about the camera was that it was well built, robust and it performed relatively well. What I hated about the camera was that just about anything I wanted to do I had to open a menu to activate it and do it. While Sony may build good electronics, they do not understand how photographers work and use cameras and as a result they do not design them to place critical controls on buttons where they can be easily and quickly accessed. Now that may not be an issue for you if you're only going to use it in automatic mode, but it becomes a really big issue when it comes to trying to use the camera's controls.

The other issue with Sony is that they like to be proprietary. They use a memory stick which only Sony uses so expect to pay more for memory cards when compared to compact flash and secure digital, the current most common cards. I also knew a guy who had a Sony SLR. He wanted to borrow my flash and discovered that Sony had designed the hot shoe for the flash in a non standard manner so that only Sony flashes could be attached to the camera.

Personally I don't like supporting companies that don't follow standards which enable you to obtain whatever accessories you need from more than one supplier. Ultimately that means you'll always end up paying more for an accessory with those manufacturers and you won't necessarily get a better product, usually it's only an average product at a high price.

I very much appreciate your desire to keep your old lenses but personally that's not necessarily a good reason to go Sony. I shot Canon for thirty years and when I went digital I scrapped all the lenses and went Nikon. Yes that cost me a fortune but the images I'm getting these days are awesome.

To answer your question though, yes you will get pictures with the old lenses and yes many of them won't look too bad. However lenses designed for film are different than those designed for the sensors that have replaced the film. In addition there's been a lot of changes in lens technology too. While old lenses work, for optimal results you really need to prefer lenses that are designed specifically for the digital cameras.

So my first suggestion is to stick with a manufacturer that is in the camera business and always has been. Their cameras are designed in a way that work for photographers and while their lenses and batteries may be proprietary, at least you can get competing products at better prices for just about everything else. The four brands that come to mind are Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus.

Pentax and Olympus however have reliability problems and their range of accessories are not that extensive. As to Minolta, they didn't survive so that should tell you something about the quality and the innovative design of their cameras. Sony bought them out because it was a convenient way to get into the DSLR business but that doesn't mean they've improved since.

So you're left with Nikon and Canon.

I have two Nikon SLRs and I've been really happy with them from the day it came out of the box. They have all the critical functions in buttons. In the course of a few thousand pictures I might open a menu once, the rest of the time I control everything from external buttons and dials which enables me to capture all kinds of pictures I'd lose if I had to first go to a menu. It also means I rarely ever have to take my eye from the viewfinder.

The other major difference is that you have far more options for solving photographic issues with Nikon and Canon. Their array of lenses is astonishing as are their collection of other gadgets too. If you don't like their prices, you can get Nikon and Canon compatible lenses from makers like Tamron and Sigma. It's very hard to find a lens for the Sony that is not made by Sony, there just isn't enough of a market to encourage someone like Tamron or Sigma to make lenses for that brand.

The Nikons and Canons fit into the hand a lot better and provide incredible functionality though the Nikon tends to feel better for most people and for me. The Nikon has one of the easiest menus to use as well which is unusual for a camera maker. Canon has a variety strengths too.

The other thing too is that owning an SLR is like a marriage, the moment you buy any lenses or other things you're married to that brand for life. So take a longer term view too. The digital SLRs are going to continue to evolve and you can bet on it that Nikon and Canon will evolve a lot more than Sony. If you need more sophistication in your SLR you can now buy a professional camera from Nikon or Canon though of course it won't be cheap. You can count on Nikon and Canon to have them but there's no way you can count on Sony to catch up. Keep in mind that Nikon and Canon set photographic standards, Sony simply tries to copy whatever it can to try to stay reasonably competitive. I'd also point out that Nikon and Canon have been in the camera business longer than Sony has existed and longer than Minolta as well.

Another issue is that photography is Nikon's and Canon's bread and butter. They've survived a long time making and selling sophisticated cameras. Electronics is Sony's bread and butter, not cameras. If you look back over Sony history, they've often come out with a new idea, like Beta for instance, and when it didn't sell very well, they scrapped it leaving everyone stuck with a technology they could no longer get any support or parts for. You can also count on it that if the Sony SLR doesn't take off and meet sales targets, it's not above Sony to just scrap the whole line and get out of the DSLR business entirely.

Personally I feel more comfortable buying into a camera brand where I can see one or two additional, more sophisticated, models above mine so that as my own sophistication grows I have access to camera bodies that can meet my emerging needs. At present Sony has only one SLR. If it frustrates you or has important limitations, where can you go for a more functional model? In time they'll likely have two or three models, if they decide to stay in the DSLR business, but they'll never have the range of models and options that Nikon and Canon offer.

Yes I noted that you want to keep the camera for life and perhaps you will. But if you have the photography bug you'll find that you're going to demand ever more sophistication as time goes on and sooner or later you'll have a need for a higher model.

If you were buying a point and shoot camera I'd not really care what brand you choose. Those are throw away cameras lasting usually just a few years before they burn out or something else goes wrong. But with an SLR it makes a lot more sense to buy into a company that specializes in cameras and has a long history of meeting the needs of professionals instead of buying into an electronics company that happens to build cameras on the side for amateurs.

I hope this helps a little.

Answer 2

Sony's DSLR sucks. Just as Minolta's DSLR did and they're not out of business for having a great camera you know. Just a lil secret, sony recalled all their alpha's from ritz camera stores because they're not selling, and then returned them just to kill the inventory and make room for a new sony engeneered camera. I would wait before getting a sony camera, I work at a camera store and yes there're are people who love the camera, but I see alot of people who are very unhappy too. In a store you get to see more than you would on the street asfar as what people like. Nikon and Canon are the two top DSLR manufacturers, both come up with their own technologies and eventho they are a bit pricey, they are worth it. This is just my opinion, I'm no expert but i get too see a bit of the other side of the coin. I wouldn't buy a new camera based on older lenses either, it's best to build you're new system with newer lenses, be it sony or what ever brand you end up buying. and like the last user stater, if you want longetivity, stick with mechanical film cameras the camera business is changing so fast that 10year from now you wont be able to keep up with and old camera. take batteries for example, they chage every year, cards too, and sometimes you cant find them even after a couple of years. I sell cameras alot to people who had camera's they bought for $500 3 years ago and they cant find replacement batteries and sometimes when cameras break they got all these cards that wont fit the new cameras and they got to re-invest on new stuff. expect maybe 5 years before you consider upgrading again, and with canon and nikon, all you upgrade is the body cuz the lenses and flashes work with all the new cameras with the exception of the D40/x wich new new af-s lenses to work with auto focus.

Answer 3

DSLR is Digital Single Lens Reflex.

I doubt any electronic device like a camera will last more than 5 to 7 years. There is simply too much to go wrong. They are also somewhat more delicate than cameras used to be.

If you want long-term durability go back to an all-mechanical SLR like the Minolta SRT-202 or Canon FTb or Pentax K1000. I have a 52 year old Minolta Autocord that still functions as it did when new. I bought it used and as far as I know its never been serviced. My SRT-202 is a mere 34 years old and I did finally have it serviced in Feb. of this year.

Answer 4

I'm shooting with Sony Alpha for a year and I should buy it again. Sony' image stabilizer allows me to take some good pictures with not expensive lenses such as 75-300mm. You can see some photos at my blog: http://fototramp.blogspot.com/

Answer 5

Dear tolquit,

It’s really a very good camera that you have chosen. It’s got everything:
Image processor, 10 MP, 2.5 LCD, lithium ion battery, image stabilization etc, but all latest DC’s have touch screen, and I think that’s the only thing missing.

Regards,
Vish