File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/ hope you can help me out.

I am low on monies. Here are my options:

1. Buy a Sony A100
2. Wait for the new Sony dslr to get cheaper
3. Wait for eternity, save up a ton, scrap my collection of Minolta lenses and buy into another brand after waiting forever for a dslr that will take these lenses.
4. become an hero or whatever witty /b/ thing you might suggest

anybody?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2007:09:06 10:47:57ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width330Image Height314
>> Anonymous
in b4 in b4 Butterfly
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Save up and get the A700 (or A900 when it comes out)
But it depends on your collection of Minolta lenses aswell, what do you have?
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
3. Wait for eternity, save up a ton, scrap my collection of Minolta lenses and buy into another brand after waiting forever for a dslr that will take these lenses.

4 would suit well too if you dont feel like waiting awhile, hopefully youll get re-incarnated as the son of rich guy and for your 1st bday you can get a canon or nikon ;D
>> Anonymous
>>118706

Not a whole lot, and nothing expensive/worthy of /p/
I have the 35-70mm kit lens that came with my 35mm Minolta
a 50mm minolta lens
and a 100-300mm Tameron lens.

I know it's not impressive but I'd really rather not have to buy new ones for another system.
I don't need anything super fancy, so if the Sony isn't considered top-quality I don't mind. But since I stopped using film (got reeaaally expensive) all I've had are Kodak easyshares and, even at 8mp, I'm just not feeling the love.

thanks for your (real) reply. ^^
>> anonymous
i would say buy a sony.

one advantage of sony is you dont have to chase round for lenses, although your range is limited you can just pop into any sony shop and it can be arranged.
>> Anonymous
>>118737
Bear in mind that the FoV of each your lens will be smaller on digital than it was on film (your 50mm will perform like a 75mm lens on film, and 100-300 like a 150-450), so you'll have to adapt your shooting style to this if you retain the lenses.
>> Anonymous
Supposedly the new Alpha 200 will be under $600.
Wait or become an hero.
P.S.
Give me your lens first ;)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>118705
Pretty easy when I'm asleep.

Go into a store and have a play with an A100, if you like its feel then stick with it, otherwise play with a D80 or a 40D (thats the equiv canon no?)

2 very cheap lenses isnt a reason to stay with a system.

Nothing wrong with the sony, the A100 is a good camera and the A700 is right next to the D300, its not going to hurt you by staying with it.
>> Anonymous
1. dont buy a shitty Sony ,buy a canon
2. if you do stick it in your pooper
3. vist www.bottleguy.com
4. ???
5 profit ?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
If you've already got Minolta lenses, you should definitely stick with Sony. I'd wait until the new Sonys come out, though.
>> Anonymous
>>118800

Canon fails. Stick with the Sony
>> Anonymous
NO! Buy Nikon. Sony and Canon fail.
>> Anonymous
Asking /p/ for advice about cameras is like asking the pope for advice about sex.
>> Anonymous
>>118837

I asked the Pope for advice about sex and now I can have regular multiple orgasms and shoot ejaculate ten feet into the air! I almost black out with how powerful my orgasms are now.
>> Anonymous
>>118837
No. Its like asking /g/ if I should get a mac or a pc...
>> Anonymous
>>118698
>Equipment Make Phase One
Side question: Why do people waste Phase One backs on useless product photos that a point and shoot with a hotshoe would suffice for?
>> Anonymous
>>118892

Because Sony is paying them a shit load of money for product photography?
>> Anonymous
>>118895
Which is also a waste. They're a camera company. Get one of their own products and an office monkey, show him a lighting diagram, and you're good.
>> Anonymous
A100 > A200
>> Anonymous
>>118896

Don't be a fool. It will never look as good as medium format. There are good reasons they are the choice of so many product photography professionals. They are using the best tool available and at those prices that is what is to be expected.
>> Anonymous
(OP) Thanks again /p/
I played with an A100 (spent 2 days in NY with it) when my brother got one last year. I really like it and since it's similar to a Minolta it felt very familiar.
So I guess if I'm sticking with Sony I've got to choose between waiting for a better product or more instant gratification. I'll probably wait. Liveview would be really nice to have (I dont think the A700 has it either).

Thank you /p/
>> Anonymous
>>118918
It doesn't need to be high quality. That's the point. It's not like it's even a portrait of someone for a company website or whatever; it's a picture of a camera against a blank background so people know what it looks like. It's a waste of Sony's (and Canon's and Nikon's and...) advertising dollars and of a great camera and back. One of their own DSLRs would give more than enough quality for any print size they'll have to make of it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>118923
>So I guess if I'm sticking with Sony I've got to choose between waiting for a better product or more instant gratification.
That's the case with any purchase. The only difference is that Sony recently announced a new camera in the price category you're looking at, so you just have to wait until they're actually shipping.

>>118926
Pro Tip: Sony sometimes advertises on billboards.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>118698

5. Wait for A350

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems ?f?W?^?? ?C???[?W???OImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:09 08:43:18Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width910Image Height890
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Live view is on the A300, not A350 (or rather there will be both, both of which may have live view).

PS live view sucks, get an A100 after PMA when they should pricedrop (they should have already after the A200 release)
>> Anonymous
>>118992

Live view does not suck. You suck and you do it for pennies.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>118992
Why does Live View 'suck'? The new Sony's actually have useful tiltable screens.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119002
I dont like shooting without using a viewfinder, I can also shoot well when im not using it (ie from the hip) and when i'm doing it a tiltable screen isnt going to be any use to me.
>> Anonymous
>>119003
It's not like they're going to get rid of the optical viewfinder in favor of live view.

I have a live view camera and used that feature only once - but in a situation where I couldn't have shot shit without it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119005
No but what Im saying is get the A100 now instead of waiting for the A300/350 as its not that big a feature.
>> Anonymous
get a canon or nikon n00b. cheaper.. and better
>> Anonymous
>>118935
>>118992
>>119002

(OP) Ooohh shiny. this is the first I've heard of new Sonys. I wonder what the price will be like on the A300 or A350. Probably a shload but LiveView would be handy.
Though...am I off-base in assuming that since the designation is a lower number than the A700 that it should be cheaper? I never quite understood how they number things.
The tilty screen is cute. I can't see it being particularly useful though (for me anyway).
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119032
A700 = almost proffesional sport/outdoor cam.
A300 = Consumer level + live view
A200 = Consumer / Entry
A100 = Consumer / Entry (better than A200 but older)
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
Sony lost when they started putting mega pixel designations on the front of the cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>119008
OP said he wants to keep and use his old hardware ... GTFO Canon and Nikon fanboyz (not that I hate these brands though, it's just out of context)
>> Anonymous
>>119050

Yeah, they only do that for the consumer level dslrs. You won't see them on the higher end models. It makes sense for that target audience since they're trying to attract P&Sers to upgrade (and most prosumer bridge cameras have MP designations printed on them). I reckon it won't be long before other manufacturers do this to their entry level dslrs in the future.
>> Anonymous
>>118930
Pro Tip: Billboards are rather low-res.
>> Anonymous
Live view is a pointless feature. SLRs are not fucking camcorders. Just another pointless, expensive feature to attract idiots
>> Anonymous
>>119172
maybe not this expensive (it's only necessary to lift up the mirror and capture the frames at a 30fps like a camera), but batteries draining that's a given !
>> Anonymous
>>119172

It isn't pointless. You are just too retarded to understand what uses it could have.
>> Anonymous
>>119183
oh yeah gee, the whole taking a photo in a position where your eyes can't look through the viewfinder. Oh how many great shots have been ruined for me in the past because of this lack on my camera! That reminds me, I must install those nifty reversing cameras on my car - darned if I can reverse park my car without those!
>> Anonymous
>>119186

Photomicroscopy? Astrophotography? That's just for starters. You are a clueless moron.
>> Anonymous
>>119187
the market for those enthusiasts or professionals isn't large enough to warrant rolling out this feature. It's just a gimmick. And enough with the name calling, big man.
>> Anonymous
>>119201

You said it was pointless (only for "idiots" and yet there are two situations where it is very useful. Just because some nobody like you doesn't like those features doesn't mean they are useless.

I guess it is okay for you to name-call but no one else may do it! It must be great to have the world revolve around you.
>> Anonymous
>>119210
Okay, whatever. I'm growing bored. If you seriously think the main reason they have live view is to appeal to the tiny minority of photographers who specialize in those fields - professionals who would already use better custom specialized and expensive cameras - then go ahead. End of argument.
>> Anonymous
>>119186
It's good for any work on a tripod. No hunching over to look through the viewfinder, a 100% view, magnified manual focusing, rule of thirds grid on demand... live view can be very useful.
>> Anonymous
>>119218

Now you are 2 tuff 2 care? Uh huh. Keep dodging.

Your argument that it was pointless was shit, just as you are proving that you too are full of shit.

I know a doctor who uses a 40D a lot and loves the liveview feature for his work (produces great images with it) and another that is using his for some very good work in his academic field too (images that will be worth a lot too as they are fantastic). They don't use special or more expensive stuff like you seem to presume. You are completely out of touch with reality. Maybe when you become older, wiser and more experienced you will have a better idea of what you are talking about.

Your attempt at "end of argument" has failed again, just like your original ridiculous claim that it was pointless and only for "idiots".
>> Anonymous
(OP)
For what it's worth I think Liveview would be a nice feature to have. Not a necessity but sometimes, especially on a tripod, I just don't want the camera on my face. And it's good for manually focusing.
It's a matter of personal preference and convenience. No need to get all elitist against people who like this feature or cast it off as gimmiky. I simply like having the option. Just like, with my current P&S, I'd really like having the option of a viewfinder. Still not sure why not many of them have one anymore. -_-

>>119034

Thanks ^^
>> Anonymous
Boy howdy this thread is full of
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
>> Anonymous
>>119235
Oh, sorry grandpa. Can I come over and bask in your infinite wisdom after Wheel of Fortune?
>> noko Anonymous
>>119186
>>119201
>>119218

It isn't pointless. You are just too retarded to understand what uses it could have.
>> Anonymous
>>119548
ITT, Sony employees