A Photographer's Sony Alpha Diary

What's coming from Sony's Alpha line in 2009?

2009-04-13T19:21:00.001-07:00

http://tonyflores.smugmug.com

So, it's been many months since Sony dropped the A900. It seems like much longer than that since we actually saw the mock-up... 18 months ago? I forget. It's been a while since the A300/350 twins arrived. And the A700 is super overdue for an upgrade. How overdue?

Canon's 40d landed right around the time Sony's A700 did. Canon launched the 40d successor the 50d nearly 6 months ago. At PMA 2009, Sony announced new glass and had ZILCH info on new dSLRs. There are a few reasons for this in my mind.

1. The A900 is new-ish. It's also expensive at nearly 3k body only. The mere announcement of the A700 replacement would steal sales away from a profit margin darling like the A900. Why? Newer bodies always get something that's just a tad better than an older body, even if the older body is higher up on the chain. It happens to Canon, Nikon, and it will happen with Sony.

2. The economy. It's not a good time right now. Sure you can count on selling A200 bodies all day and night. They've been selling well for Sony, you can find that body at any walmart. The A300/350 sisters are doing OK too. But the mid-level Sony means $1000 on the low end up to $1,500 or more depending on what or where Sony plans to position this body. It might be easy to move a body in this price range to CaNikon owners, that buyer pool is olympic. Sony's pool at the moment is more like a puddle.

3. Sony is trying to get something right. My guess is the video issue. You see, when Sony launched the A700, all I read from every rag and online review site was how the A700 had no live view. Some writers even snickered when Sony said "we won't do live view until we can get it right."

Then Sony released the A300/A350 and not only improved live-view, they ended up having the BEST live view. Of course pro review sites mention this in an understated way having been served by Sony.

This year's 'live-view' is video. Nikon rushed to be the first, Canon was right behind. They seem to like being first. While the video is stunning, it's not perfect. Two issues remain. First is the lack of auto-focus, the second is the strange artifacts that can be seen if the dSLR is moved or panned too fast. There are other little nit-picks as well, but I'll leave it at that. Is Sony going to resolve these issues or at least make them non issues? From a marketing standpoint, Sony MUST include video on their next dSLR. If they don't, the people that review dSLRs will mention the lack of video ad nauseam.

4. The new sensor: Sony could do the obvious thing and use the sensor they supplied Nikon for the D90. Or, they finally use a sensor design they announced many months ago, and apply it to their next dSLR. Sony showed off their new back-illuminated sensor that is a mini breakthrough if you ask me. It's a way to get more light to the sensor. Without any other improvement, the chip is already making a nice leap ahead in terms of image noise, dynamic range, and color gamut at a given light level at high ISO.

Right now it's been so quiet, it feels like the eye of the storm. Right now I feel like Sony's loaded a new dSLR in the slingshot, they've pulled back hard.... and they are holding. Someone is sweating bullets, dying to release this rock... so I'm going to wax poetic about the new model. This is all speculation, desire, theory and misc rambling.

1. I don't want a APS-C sensor with MORE megapixels. I'd much rather stay at 12MP. And if you can believe it, I'd have no problem with Sony going back down to 10MP if they delivered a sensor that simply stunned (for the price) but that will only happen in my dreams.

Like any other company, Sony is so worried that Joe-Six-Pack will knock such a design because brand/model 'X' has more megapixels so it must be better. I don't want a Canon 50d situation. Canon kept the pixel size from getting much smaller by using a gapless pixel design. But the noise and sensor rating (by Dxo) shows that even so, it wasn't enough to negate the added noise going from 10MP to 15MP.

I have a funny feeling Sony will improve the sensor and erase that gain by cramming more pixels on a APS-C sensor that nobody is really dying for.

2. I don't want full frame. Yeah I said it. I know it won't happen at this price point, but you never know. That doesn't mean that I don't like FF, however at this price point, I don't want it. I want APS-C for the time being because I don't want to lose the reach that I have with a crop sensor.

I want FF from a newer Sony body, like a true pro body with integrated VG with the A700 being my companion body. Ultimately, I'd like the A700 follow-up to sport my Minolta 80-200 2.8 HS for reach, and a true pro Alpha to hold a walk-around zoom. I'm thinking the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss or the brand new Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM. Try saying that twice.

What else? Will Sony finally add the micro adjustments for Bf/FF issues? I'm sure they are tired of taking in bodies over this complaint. Canon and Nikon aren't innocent here either, however CaNikon have added this adustment ability to some models so kudos there.

Will the new body have a top mounted LCD just because? I don't need it, but I keep hearing about it from CaNikon fans, like Alphas are broken for not having it.

Will Sony implement video here (as mentioned earlier) and do it better? Will they add things that have been asked for like doing something with the dual card slots? Right now my A700 has two card slots and Sony has under utilized them. Switching between them could be better. Even better than that, Sony should allow me to write RAWs to one card and jpegs to another. Or for safety, write all odd pics to one card, evens to another. Or implement something else I haven't thought of.

What about the LCD? Does it go from 3.0 to 3.5 or stay the same? Does it get better by going OLED or maybe something more mundane like a wider viewing angle? Will it flip out in some fashion or stay fixed? Does Sony finally add better sealing or save that for a more expensive body?

Something I REALLY want is for the A700 VG to remain compatible with whatever new body Sony is planning. They already have three different grips (A200, A700 and A900) No need for more.

Geo tagging? Some photographers REALLY want this. I couldn't care less. Ditto for live view as well. I'm interested in video, but I don't want my photographs, viewfinder or ease of use to take a hit in any way shape or form just to have the video.

In closing I'd like to think that Sony would improve the power button on the new model. What? The power button on my A700 broke into two pieces. And before that, it wasn't clicking the way it did when it was new. It felt like it was moving through mud instead of that crisp feeling it once had. I sent it to Sony, and lost the use of the body for nearly two weeks.

I wasn't happy about that, but I was happy with the repair, and I was happy that Sony gave me a brand new LCD screen even though I didn't ask for it.

But then, a few months later.. the power button broke again. With only a few weeks left of parts and labor coverage, I sent it back to Sony. This time Sony dropped the ball. They claimed the camera showed signs of abuse or being dropped. They wanted nearly $500 to fix this. Worse yet they never contacted me. They simply refused service and mailed it back.

When I asked why, they said they called me but I never answered voice mail. Why they never e-mailed me the service person could never answer. When I asked for tracking for the return trip, they e-mailed it to me. Fuck holes. What can I say? Nearly $500 to fix a broken power button? I'm thinking $50-100 bucks just for the labor and maybe a minimum service charge.

Note to Sony, fuck you for asking for nearly $500 for a 5 cent power button. Fuck you for making it and the actual switch from such cheap and weak material. And FUCK everyone in the service center for not contacting me. When you don't get through on the phone, you use the e-mail you have on file. The e-mail you guys used to send me tracking info. Yes the info you had on file all along, this isn't rocket science.

God forbid if I purchased the Alpha A900 and the power button broke on me, would it cost a thousand dollars to fix? Would it break twice on me as well? I'm still pissed at Sony service. As for the the camera being abused, it was total bull. The area around the power button to this day is flawless, not a mark or scratch of any kind.

Downside to Sony's Alpha [Legacy Glass]

2008-07-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

The biggest drawback for Sony's Alpha thus far has been the availability of glass. First let’s cover the Minolta glass situation. While Sony (and Sony fans) love to tout the ‘millions’ of legacy Minolta lenses available to Alpha users, the picture isn’t as rosy as it might sound. While I don’t dispute the number of Minolta lenses available, I dispute the quality of what’s out there. So here’s what the glass situation appears to be from where I’m sitting.

Over the many years that Minolta was in business, the vast majority of glass made by them and third party vendors is glass made for Joe six pack, not rich guy with a photography hobby. And professionals? Professionals are a hyper minority, that’s a fact regardless of the brand. So the vast majority of glass is cheap, and slow. There are tons and tons of lenses that are average and poor. Worse yet, a lot of it is getting old, with lots of hours on ‘em. So anything that delivers a sharp picture with pleasing bokeh, anything that’s fast or with a far reach will cost you. How much? I suspect that many of the most sought after pieces of glass are either the same price or more expensive than when first new. And I’m counting glass that could be ten to fifteen years old or beyond.

Three that come to mind right off the top: Minolta’s 50mm f1.7 and f1.4, their 85mm f1.4 (all flavors/versions) and the 100mm f2. Let’s start with the 50mm 1.7. While in and of itself it isn’t terribly expensive, it is for its age. At this writing [7/2008] it fetches around $110 depending on the day. Does anyone believe it cost more than that back in 1988? Most copies are from that time frame. The story is very similar for the f1.4 version. Next up, the much sought after 85mm f1.4. The ‘G’ version, probably the most wanted, and easily goes for over a thousand dollars. That lens was made for very many years, but an older copy won’t get you any deals. I doubt that this lens cost much more than that back when it was new.

The 100mm f2 delivers some of the sharpest, most pleasing pics I’ve ever seen. I’m even comparing this lens to new, very expensive glass. I don’t even know what this lens would cost because it’s so very rarely ever seen for sale. Only a fool (or someone in desperate need of cash) would let this one go. While it can be of limited use being a 100mm prime, it’s a great indoor sports/music low light medium-ish tele. On a full frame cam maybe not so much, but on a 1.5x crop APC-S sensor it’s a 150mm equivalent piece of glass. And at F2, it’s damn fast. In that range, only the uber expensive Zeiss 135mm f1.8 beats it. I could go on but that gives you some idea of where things stand when it comes to Minolta legacy glass.

One exception that comes to mind is the Minolta 28-135 f4/4.5. While nothing exciting on paper, it’s regarded by many as a G lens without the G price. A hefty seven to eight hundred dollars when new (introduced in 1985) it was a slow seller. One reason might be that it was never badged a G lens or as an upper level piece of glass. Another reason could be its minimum focus distance of a whopping 5 feet and its slow max aperture of f4. It’s a fantastic looking piece of glass, with its big 72mm filter diameter and all metal (all heavy) body.

The color, contrast and sharpness are pleasing. A clean copy will run in the 300-400 range. Not much of a drop considering it’s well over 20 years old. It’s a funky lens, it’s slow to focus, seems to hunt a bit beyond 100mm and it’s soft to boot after that point. I own it, and picked up for about 150 because of a nick in the glass that’s probably a touch over 1/8th of an inch long. It’s one of the best lenses I’ve owned for the price I paid. But overall, it’s nothing to get excited about. Next part let’s talk about new glass, where you at?

The downside to owning an Alpha [New Glass]

2008-07-14T17:31:00.000-07:00

New Glass, what’s up?

Well things aren’t so bad, but they aren’t great either. With Sony’s Alpha actually taking off, and now firmly in third spot to Nikon and Canon’s 1-2 spot (as tiny as Sony’s share is) third parties like Tamron and Sigma have finally started to step up offering a decent line-up for Alpha owners. Sony of course is all too happy to offer you a lens, but at a premium price. Worse yet, their entry level glass is going for that premium price. Anything that resembles a pro level lens will cost the proverbial arm and leg.

Examples: Their 24-105mm lens while a pleasing range, receiving nothing more than average praise from real owners fetches almost 5 bills. It’s nothing special in its sharpness, and it’s actually quite slow. Their new “G” 70-300mm is G in name only. To these eyes, it looks like a good all around Minolta zoom given an update with a G slapped on it. It will run you 8 bills, and the early samples look very much like what an old Minolta running one third the cost could deliver. Anything Sony offers that's under $350 seems to perform poorly to these eyes.

Even worse is the Zeiss line. The first zoom launched was the 16-80mm f3.5/4. At debut Sony wanted about 8 hundred, in the present it’s about $699. Quality control was too loose on this one, so much so, that in forums, this lens and quality control came up quite a bit. A good copy yielded great contrast, sharpness and colors that popped. At times, the color and contrast were like those of a lens with a circular polarizer attached to it. So what was the problem? Two, one minor, one major. The minor issue was image shift when zooming in and out. I consider this minor because it was an annoyance that never affected picture quality to my knowledge.

The major issue was image softness or should I say out of focus pictures. I’m a former owner of this lens for this very reason. Mated to my first dSLR an alpha A100, I attributed many of my soft and out of focus pics to user error. But after the months passed, and I came to grips with my A100 I started to doubt the lens. I started to poke around, and many others were complaining.

So what was the problem? This lens caused my 100 to back focus a lot, like all of the time. Worse yet was its mis focus problem. This lens also had the knack of making sure that nothing was in focus. When I purchased my A700, things weren’t any better and I knew it was the glass. The only way I can describe this problem is like this: imagine a lens that has a razor thin DOF even at f5 to f7.1. Strange yes, but that’s the closest description I can give. When it nailed a shot, it was better than my 50mm prime. Better yet the colors and contrast made it pop. Too bad though

Next up we have (at this writing) three more fine Carl Zeiss lenses that will cost you big time. The limited range (but speedy) Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 will set you back $1,750. I don’t recall Zeiss ever claiming the lens is sealed against water or dust intrusion. I imagine this lens collecting dust, not because it’s bad, but it’s just too steep price wise. Also available, two Zeiss primes, the 85mm f1.4 about $1,300 and the 135mm f1.8 about $1,800. Where is the budget 85mm f1.4? Sony’s true pro glass starts at two thousand dollars (70-200mm f2.8) and only goes way up from there. Where is the thrifty fifty? I don’t see one. The only 50mm Sony offers is an f1.4 that runs $349. Not terribly expensive, but there should be a simple $125 dollar option for the beginner, for the Alpha A100/A200 user that happens to be a more casual shooter.

When it comes to glass things are getting better, but Sony has a long way to go to catch up to Nikon and Canon in this regard. They’ve only been in the dSLR business about 2.5 years, only a tiny fraction of the time that Nikon and Canon has had. So for now they’ve got an excuse. They need to kick up their game. They are about to drop their flagship camera body, and I imagine in the near future they will bring a true, pro body, with a built in VG by 2010 if not sometime in 2009, that's the camera body I'm really thinking about. The flagship for 2008, uh, not so much. Yeah it's full frame, yeah it's got 24 megapixels, blah, blah, that's for another post.

Alpha A700 Hard LCD Protection [ACMAXX]

2008-03-04T20:46:00.000-08:00

Click on pics for larger versions. I will update to report long term use of the ACMAXX cover.

http://tonyflores.smugmug.com

OK so here's the story, the extra short version. I cracked the glass LCD cover of my Alpha A700. For those that don't know, no I didn't crack the actual screen. The glass cover is an add-on to protect my LCD from the scratches the screen will suffer no matter how careful one might be.

So when this happened, it of course damaged the LCD's protective (polycarbonate?) screen. I have supplied pics. I think it goes without saying that I was furious. I was furious at myself, I was furious with every company that makes dSLRs and I was furious with Carl's Jr. Why? Because they stopped selling their sweet baked potato.

What does that have to do with my camera? Nothing, it's just that in times of great stress, the pebbles in my shoe become boulders. Back to the glass cover that I loved so much. I love glass because the clarity can't be touched. Better yet, it's damn near impossible during most regular use to scratch the surface. Yes glass can be fragile, but it's incredibly hard. How hard? Hard enough that I had to use a diamond wheel (attached to a dremel) to cut the glass that made up my screen cover.

So now what? Until someone makes the ultimate LCD protector (glass on the outside, polycarbonate backing) I can only make due with what's available to me. So while I'm intrigued by InvisibleSHIELD, I need something hard to actually protect the LCD from a hard knock.

The web site ACMAXX.net never makes it 100% clear just how this polycarbonate device attaches to the Alpha. That is until you dig around to the help section for applying and remvoing the cover. I was disappointed to find that the ACMAXX cover works like a lot of other covers out there. It's got a very thin border (chrome not black) with a sticky back. OK right there I'm not happy. That means once you've applied your cover, you'd better make sure it's lined up the way you want. You also better make sure not one spec of dust is on the back side.

So the cover has to thin pieces of film protecting it. On the side that will face the world, a static cling type piece of plastic with a tab (thank you) for easy grabbing keeps scratches and smudges at bay. On the sticky side a similar piece keeps the sticky side, well, sticky and away from everything until you are ready to apply the cover.

Sounds easy enough right? Wrong. What went wrong? OK, so I clean my LCD screen with a microfiber cloth. Next I remove the plastic covering the sticky back. I try to align the cover with my LCD. First problem, I left the static cling plastic covering the other side in place. It was interfering with my ability to align the cover. I remove it.

Now I can see things better. I line it up and gently let the cover rest on the LCD. Umm... not happy, I see I've lined it up a bit too much to the left and I'm a little too close for comfort to the buttons on that side. Very carefully I pull the cover back off. It comes off without much of a fuss. Pro Tip: It's natural to line the right side up so that you can see just a sliver of the camera's frame. Cheat a hair or two over to the right over the right side rim, and it will be just right. The top and bottom alignment seems to be easy to nail.

OK so it's on, lined up about as square as one can expect. I check in good light. Not happy. What happened? OK, here's the sad news folks. When you remove the plastic covering on the sticky side, that plastic leaves a strange almost milky residue on the LCD side. Yes the part you never want to touch, you now have to touch so that you can remove this. When the camera's LCD is on, you can't really see it. When it's off, it looks like you've got dove liquid dish detergent between the cover and the camera LCD. I'm exaggerating a bit but you get the idea.

Now I'm pissed. I remove the cover once again and with a micro fiber cloth, I begin to buff. The 'stuff' isn't easy to remove. I finally remove most of it. Everything is fine right? Wrong. The sticky side, the side I didn't want to touch is now covered in micro fibers. So now I'm trying to remove this knowing that I'm going to either scratch, smudge, leave dust and or fibers on what should be the 'clean' side.

So doing all this, I give up on getting it perfect. I just want to get it on the Alpha. So I get it on, and of course I can see a couple of specs of dust in between the cover and the LCD. Yes it drives me crazy. I can be a picky nerd most of the time. This is why I hate Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. Why won't they make a camera that's made to accept a cover of some sort? It should be done properly so that half-ass shit like this isn't being made, sold, and ultimately used to shave off precious time from my life span.

So after all this, and claims from ACMAXX about anti-scratch coatings, I now have micro swirl type scratches on the outside of the cover and possibly on the sticky side. OK, so those are a lot of cons, what are the pros? Believe it or not, there are some.

Pros: The material is very clear, so clear in fact that it rivals glass. It's hard so it will take an actual knock (unlike glass and those clingy sheets). The border and sticky border on the back is so thin that it doesn't cover the Sony logo and it doesn't make your LCD look smaller. If anything the opposite might be true. I also have to admit that it looks damn good once it's attached.

So what did this 25 cent piece of plastic cost me? 20 bucks. In the end, does it work? Yes. Would I recommend it to a fellow Alpha user? Probably not.

How do I protect my LCD?

2008-03-01T19:36:00.000-08:00

I hate every maker of digital SLRs. Why? They suck that's why. I don't understand why they can't make it so that some kind of LCD protection can be added easily to the body. Why is it so hard to just add four small screw holes at the four corners of the LCD on the body?

No, that would be too easy. Companies that make devices to protect the LCD of a camera have with limited success gotten around this issue. The glass covers (once my favorite) put a thin black border around the glass, and a sticky back along that border to stick to the LCD. I don't care for that too much, it makes the screen look smaller and these aftermarket pieces of glass cover the Sony logo with their own.

There are plastic covers which scratch too easily. And most aren't exactly crystal clear. Worse yet are the thin film type that stick to the screen without a traditional adhesive. It has a type of adhesive that makes it more like those static, clingy window thingamabobs.

I hate these the most. They make the images on your LCD anything but sharp. I plan on trying out different types over the next couple of months and reviewing them here. For anyone that owns a Sony Alpha A700, Nikon D300 or Nikon's flagship D3 you know how amazing your LCD is.

It's the highest resolution LCD out there at this writing. But it's not the resolution that's ground breaking, it's the resolution given the screen size. The pixels are packed in so tight that there are 270 pixels per inch, that's nearly triple the pixel density of most LCD PC or HDTV monitors.

That's why I obsess over how good the image is through a protector, and why I want to protect the dang thing. So I had a glass cover, and by some freak accident, I cracked it, and the terrible accident left two tiny scratches on what was once a pristine LCD. So no glass again. I've got an LCD protector that's hard polycarbonate with a scratch resistant coating on the way, I'll review that when it arrives.

Also, there's a thin film protector that uses a spray to adhere to your LCD by invisibleSHIELD. I'll be trying that sometime in the next few weeks.

Why I chose a Sony dSLR

2008-03-01T18:30:00.000-08:00

Finally tired of the low quality pictures from digital point and shoots, I began looking to digital SLRs. This all started nearly three years ago, but I finally decided to drop the cash for one about a year ago. When I first started to do my research, I felt a little dizzy from all the info out there.

Of course my first obvious options were Canon and Nikon. I started to download full size pictures wherever I could find them. It seemed obvious that either one could deliver great pics, it was going to boil down to other things. For whatever reason, I ditched the idea of a Canon pretty fast. I never cared for the style of Canons, the feel or layout. I played with a Canon rebel Xti and just didn't care for it.

After some time I decided that I would go for a Nikon. Early on I thought a D200 would be a good choice. The pics from this cam were brilliant when mated to a proper piece of glass. The body seemed like a pro one, and the reviews were generally strong. My only issue at the time with CaNikon was the fact that neither provided image stabilization in body. CaNikon only offered such a thing on special I.S. lenses.

Then I stumbled onto Sony. At the time only the Alpha A100 existed. How fast things happen huh? Now Sony's got the A100, A200, A300/A350 and the A700, with the flagship not far behind. What I liked about the Sony was that the body had image stabilization built in. That meant every lens would benifit. In low crappy light, that meant I could have a very fast (light sensitive) prime lens that was stable, something that still cannot be done on any Canon or Nikon regardless of price.

I'm also familiar with Sony. I've owned several Sony products over the years and there was something a little more comforting about owning a Sony. So after extensive research I found a couple of other things to like about the Alpha. First the camera could shoot a string of jpegs without pause until the card fills. I still don't see that with any other maker. I liked that the LCD 'flips' when you turn the camera to portrait or landscape.

I also liked the fact that Zeiss would have glass coming for the alpha that was autofocus. So after reading many positive reviews for the alpha I decided to take a chance and get one as my first dSLR. I turned to ebay and began to watch. I stumbled across an auction for an alpha that also included the Zeiss 16-80mm lens.

I ended up buying it. In the first few days, I noticed how the pictures were so sharp and full of detail. They were nothing like the blurred, crushed, and lifeless pics from just about every little digital point and shoot. In the first few weeks I shot in auto and did not shoot RAW. Next I started to shoot RAW and I started to dabble in A priority mode. Next I started to shoot at night and in low light. This is when I knew that I would not be keeping the A100.

I liked the camera overall, but one thing that killed it for me was the high ISO performance. In spite of my many, many hours of reading everything I could about this camera, the noise in photos taken at ISO 400 and above was always glossed over and I don't know why. Now I must admit that that a noisy pic from this dSLR is nothing like the noise in a point and shoot.

Example: I have a fuji V10 that is a solid little cam, but shoot at ISO 400 and above and it's not so much noise as it is 'watercolor'. Basically, noise reduction is so aggressive, that a watercolor effect or point by numbers look is the end result. All detail is crushed and it looks like garbage. A pic shot at ISO 800 on the alpha still has lots of detail, just too much noise.

So, while I liked the camera overall, I decided to flip it on ebay about a few months later. Having only one piece of glass I wasn't wed to Sony. I knew the Zeiss would move on ebay in a New York minute if I decided to sell it. Not long after the A700 was announced, I did sell it and it went fast. I kept the glass not sure of what I was going to do. Then the Nikon was announced and I thought I might jump to Nikon. I might have grabbed a D300 only problem was... the D300 was announced in August and it was nearly December when they started to ship in any real numbers.

The Sony Alpha A700 however started to ship in late August to some that pre-ordered. And by the middle of Sept they were shipping. After reading the early reviews and Sony touting the noise reduction being done on chip, I knew I'd stick with Sony for the time being...

Thumbs down on Sony's flagship

2008-02-24T14:05:00.000-08:00

Many, many months ago when the first pictures of the A700 were circulating (then called the 'high amateur model' by Sony) pics of the 'flagship' started to pop up as well. While I rather liked the more muscular looking A700, the flagship was a little bit of a let down. First, I imagined that it would be a big body model, with an integrated grip. Ok, it's all about the price point stupid. So, it looks more like Sony's version of Canon's 5D. It's full frame, and it has a slightly bigger body than most semi-pro models. Like a 'pro' model, there is no built in flash, and the body should be totally weather sealed.

So as far as looks go, I wasn't very happy. Well looks aren't everything. My Glock pistols (especially the full size one) are about the ugliest things (in a minimalist way) that's out there, but they (glocks) are like the honda accord of the pistol world. I don't ever question their reliability, they come through every time. So maybe I could live with an ugly 'flagship' if it performs right?

Then just a few weeks ago, Sony announced (like they did before the A700/Nikon D300) a new full frame chip. This new chip would sport just over 24 megapixels. Oh shit. Now some dumb shit buying a point and shoot camera at Wal-Mart thinks more megapixels mean a better picture. Well dSLR buyers know better, in fact the very opposite might be true. But megapixels sell cameras. And in some races the only things that change are price points. So why am I anti-megapixel right now?

When the pixel count rises for any given camera group (point and shoot, APS-C and full frame) each pixel becomes smaller as the image sensor remains the same size. What this means is that the old 3 megapixel camera you owned a few years ago, has an image sensor that's the same size (in most cases) of the 7 to 12 megapixel cheap point and shoot cameras on the market now. Something has to give. What? everything. Contrast can go out the window and noise rises as pixels become smaller and more tightly packed. Worse yet, smaller pixels gather less light making high ISO settings even worse.

I'm not fond of 24 megapixels, but I must admit a couple of things. First, when comparing the area of the sensor from a piece of crap point and shoot to an APS-C sensor (like the one found on the A700) the area of the sensor on the A700 is about 10 times greater than that of a point and shoot sensor.

And jumping to full frame, the area is more than double that of the sensor size of the A700. Example: APS-C on the Sony Alpha A700 is 23.5mm or nearly one inch by 15.6mm. The area in mm is 366.6. A full frame sensor is about 24x36mm that works out to 864 square mm. So the pixel size could be slightly larger than the A700 sensor, but by a very tiny amount.

What do I want? I want a light gathering monster, not a large pixel count. The sensor on the Nikon D3 is full frame with a MP count of only 12 MP. Bottom line, the pixel size is huge. That's what I wanted Sony. I wonder if Sony people ever listen to the common folk that buy their gear? Now, my purchase of the 'flagship' isn't in the bag. I'd be happier to know that Sony would launch a full frame camera with a megapixel count in the 12 to 14 range for the rest of us.

Those that shoot landscapes, and that are blowing their prints up to the 20x40 inch and beyond want 24 MP, but what about the rest of us? On a good note, Sony looks like they are bumping the LCD up in size yet again. Now it looks like a massive 3.5 inch screen for the 'flagship' model. I wouldn't be surprised if it were special, like an OLED or some wide color gamut model.

But pixel size aside, I still don't fancy 24 MP. Why? Data size. The RAW files I shoot with my A700 run about 18MB each. That's huge. A simple wedding will net hundreds of pics to go through, that's 6 to 10 gigabytes. Large image files are slow to work with, slow to transfer from camera to PC, and hog hard drive space.

What will the file sizes be from a FF 24 MP sensor be? Try north of 40 MB per photo. That means a 2 gigabyte card might only hold 60 or so photos. I could eat all of these words an end up posting a 'flagship' blog. But 14 to 16 MP in a FF Sony would be sweet.

And finally, I'm not sold on the moniker of A900 for the flagship. Everyone has been calling it that for so long (everyone except Sony) that they could change the name just to zig when you all thought they would zag. Nobody saw the A300/350 twins about to hit, and many were calling the A700 the 'A500' before it landed. My theory for months has been that the 'flagship' will be called something like the Alpha 'ONE'. However, if Sony does have a big body in the works, the 'ONE' tag could go to that one, and another name would be given to the current top dog.

Sony changes things

2008-02-24T12:58:00.000-08:00

Attitudes have changed. It was less than a year ago that nasty comments would fly from Canon and Nikon users concerning Sony and their dSLR debut, the Alpha A100. It's been a CaNikon world for so many years, that many were angered by the mere mention of Sony. Others flaunted arrogance, and felt that Sony wasn't worth a mention.

Things have changed fast. The Nikon D300 while an amazing camera is still bested by the Sony when it comes to dynamic range and color accuracy (DIWA labs/DXO). They use the same sensor, but it's handled differently of course. DIWA labs also confirmed that the A700 sports greater dynamic range than the mighty Nikon D3 at all ISOs. It means nothing, and it means everything.

I remember a few short months ago, all the major camera publications in print and online went out of their way to not mention Sony in reviews. And just as the A700 was announced, and already in the hands of professional reviewers, they still tried to ignore the little Sony. And now that's all changed, as Sony is mentioned regularly when comparisons are made.

I just read a review of the new Pentax 14 megapixel K20D by popular photography. It edged out Canon's 40D but not Sony's A700. And now in reviews covering new models from Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung, they are compared to Nikon, Canon and Sony. Before comparisons were always made to the big two exclusively.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if Sony is the number two dSLR maker in 2010 or 2011. Remember that even if Sony doesn't sway the pros covering pro sports and the red carpets; those shooters are a hyper minority in the big picture sense. Every camera maker sells more dSLRs that cost $700-$900 vs the $5,000 models. Sony is already making a killing in the point and shoot business, and they have more money than everyone else put together.

And now Sony deals two blows to the rest of the competition with the new A300 and the A350, the first a 10.1 megapixel model, the latter a 14.2 MP model. Both feature tilting LCDs and live view that fixes the issues that plauge Nikon, Canon, Panasonic etc. The problem with live view in a dSLR (until now) is that autofocus took a massive performance hit in live view mode. Sony added an extra image sensor and a tilting mirror to get around this. Now the new models can focus fast and furious in live view mode, the only dSLRs on the market at any price that can do so.

So what does this mean? It means that the new kid on the block just pulled a fast one on the big kids on the block. Sony just arrived in 2006 and they served up Nikon and Canon big time. Some complained when Sony's second offering, the semi-pro A700 offered no live view. Some scoffed when Sony claimed that they wouldn't offer live view until they could get it right. Well, they were working on it, and they sloved most of the issues with it.

No it's not everything, no it's not a killer blow, but it's a shot across the bow of every dSLR maker that offers live view, including the almost-got-it-right Olympus models. An even bigger blow, Sony knows that the mainstream market for any product is what pays the bills and wins contests.

For every A700 Sony sells, they've sold 10 or more A100 (now A200) and similar numbers can be expected of the new A300/A350 twins. Why? They are both in the $700 to $800 range. So in the dSLR market they are affordable, and absolutely trounce new offerings like Nikon's new D60 that will hit the street at about $749. Is the Nikon bad? Of course not, but mainstream buyers look at features, pixel counts, and will want to see their image live on the LCD like their little cheap point and shoot camera does.

It might sound strange, but you can get away with no live view much more easily with a pro or semi-pro dSLR than you can with an entry level model. Same problems with the new Canon XSi when compared to the new Sony models. Canon now faces budget dSLR buyers that have three entry level Sony choices with some serious pros to go along with the cons. So not everything has changed.

When it comes to internet blogs, and forums, there will always be fights, swipes, negative comments, and propaganda flung about. The Sony camp will point out the superiority of their system over Canon, and the Pentax users will take shots at Nikon owners and it will never end. But the fight has changed just a bit. Now those that loathe Sony will comment on why they will never own an alpha, not why the Alpha is doomed as a camera and lens family.

Bottom line things are getting very interesting and Sony has yet to launch the flagship model. It's coming this year, but that could be December 2008 for all we know. And I'm not very happy with the flagship that Sony has showed thus far. Why? I'll cover than in another post. My next three posts will be.... 1. Why I don't like the early showing of Sony's new flagship dSLR and my theory on why it won't be called the A900 2. Why I chose Alpha over Canon and Nikon 3. The cons of owning an Alpha. Huh?

First post from an Alpha A700 owner

2008-02-23T21:50:00.000-08:00

So back in November I wrote and posted a review for my Sony Alpha A700 dSLR.

I posted the review at epinions.com, in case you haven't heard of that site, here's the short version. Epinions is a place where real everyday people can post reviews on the products they own. The site has just about everything from music, to toasters, from things for the baby to flat panel TVs. Not a bad site, it has changed a few times, and changed hands a couple of times. At the moment ebay owns it, and has done absolutely nothing with it.

Anyway, here's the Link to my original review. At that point I had owned the camera for about three weeks. If anything it was an early review. Ah the A700... something as fun to use, potentially complex, and as flexible as this camera is, I was bound to make little discoveries as I continued to own and use this fine piece of equipment.

Since my original review of Nov 2007, I've changed my style and attitude somewhat. And when I've noticed things that I like or dislike about the A700 it never made sense to keep changing my original review. Writing a kind of running diary or blog seems to make more sense.

So what will I be yackin' about? Well the Alpha A700, What I like, don't like, what makes sense and what doesn't. Also tips that have worked for me and my thoughts on Sony, their history, and what I believe is in store for the digital SLR market now that they are a player in the game.