Sony Alpha Digital SLR Samples

[Photo-John]

On Friday I went out and bought the Alpha. I wanted to make sure we had one for testing so it seemed like the best thing to do. I've shot over 200 photos with it since Friday and I think I like it! Exposure metering is great, the big LCD is wonderful, the kit lens is better than I expected, and the Super Steady Shot is awesome. I'll play with this for a few more days, shoot the studio test photos, and then send it on to one of our regular pro reviewers.

It's been a busy weekend with about over 500 miles of driving, so I've had a lot of opportunity to shoot a variety of subjects. For what it's worth, my early evaluation is - thmbs up :thumbsup:

Here's a link to photos I posted in the gallery. So far, everything I've uploaded to the gallery from the Sony has been unedited and full size:

Sony Alpha A100 Digital SLR Sample Photos >>

[payn817]

thanks for the examples, PJ. It's nice to see some from uncontrolled environments. Looking forward to more of your thoughts about the camera.


P.S. After testing, I would be willing to take it as a donation.

[Photo-John]

I took some more today, on a narrow gauge steam train, in Santa Cruz. I'll post some of those later. I also wanted to point out this one I took at 1/8th of a second, at ISO 100, with the Super Steady Shot on. The Alpha's built-in image stabilization made this photo possible. And it came out great - at least technically: http://gallery.photographyreview.com...0&ppuser=75191

For me, that's the photo that sells the camera.

[payn817]

That's a fine example of the abilities of their supersteady shot feature. However, how do you feel it compares to the lens stabilization of Canon and Nikon?

I am seriously thinking about Canon if my interview goes well, just for it's support and the amount of accessories available. Just wondering will I miss my in body IS.

Thanks for all this info and the samples PJ.

[Photo-John]

That's a fine example of the abilities of their supersteady shot feature. However, how do you feel it compares to the lens stabilization of Canon and Nikon?

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to comment on this. I think the built-in image stabilization works really, really well. I haven't used the Konica Minolta, except for a few shots at a tradeshow. But I believe Sony has improved on the KM system. And it did perform better than I expected.

The only Canon IS lens I own is the 28-135. That's a pretty old lens, as far as IS goes. Plus, mine is pretty beat. I think the Sony worked better than my lens. But I just don't know if it's a good comparison.

In the end, I think it's very, very nice to have image stabilization in the body instead of the lens. Of course, there would be benefits to having it in the lens instead of the body. But for the vast majority of photographers, I doubt those benefits will make any difference.

I posted a bunch of photos from the steam train, yesterday, on ViewFinder. Here's a link to that thread: Steam Train and Sony DSLR

[Liz]

I checked out both sets of photos. Looks good.

John, I have one question. I recall reading an article (forgot where) about in-camera IS and lens IS. The article stated that the lens IS is much better; it also stated that you can't compare the two. I can't remember why because the reasons given were too technical for me to comprehend to be honest.

Could you respond to this - is it true - if so, what's the difference?

Thanks
Liz

I took some more today, on a narrow gauge steam train, in Santa Cruz. I'll post some of those later. I also wanted to point out this one I took at 1/8th of a second, at ISO 100, with the Super Steady Shot on. The Alpha's built-in image stabilization made this photo possible. And it came out great - at least technically: http://gallery.photographyreview.com...0&ppuser=75191

For me, that's the photo that sells the camera.

[Photo-John]

I checked out both sets of photos. Looks good.

John, I have one question. I recall reading an article (forgot where) about in-camera IS and lens IS. The article stated that the lens IS is much better; it also stated that you can't compare the two. I can't remember why because the reasons given were too technical for me to comprehend to be honest.

Could you respond to this - is it true - if so, what's the difference?

Thanks
Liz

I'm not sure why you couldn't compare the two. That may be true on some technical level. But you could easily shoot the same photos with both and see how they perform. I won't bother to do that kind of testing. The bottom line is that I can shoot with the Sony at much slower shutter speeds than I could without any anti-shake system. And I can do it with any lens. I think that's pretty cool - especially if you want a nice digital SLR camera but you don't necessarily want to invest in expensive lenses. And even though we say that people should invest in better glass. We all know that there are tons of people out there who buy the most inexpensive lenses they can. They will benefit immensely from the Super Steady Shot anti shake system.

There are two particular reasons I know of that lens image stabilization is better. One is that the motors will be built for a specific lens. Which means they'll be designed to correct for the mass of the lens being used. I can see that the Sony Super Steady Shot probably won't perform as well with the 300 f/2.8 lens as it does with the small, light kit lens. Canon or Nikon can build lenses with motors perfectly tailored for the weight and size of the lens. No doubt, they'll work better.

The other reason lens image stabilization will work better was pointed out to me by deckcadet. Theoretically, since the sensor has to move to compensate for camera shake, it will be impossible to frame a photo accurately when it's being used. Note that I used the word, "theoretically." I'm sure it's actually true. I can't see how it wouldn't be. But as far as in practice - I don't have any sense of my framing not being accurate. It's pretty seamless, in my experience.

Does that answer your questions? I keep coming back to the market for which this camera was intended. It's meant to be an entry-level competitor for the D50 and Rebel XT. It offers a really compelling and effective feature that those cameras don't, for a little bit more money. I don't think which system works better will really matter to most people considering the Sony Alpha. And as far as this photographer is concerned, it's nice to always have it there and not have to worry about carrying or changing to an image stabilized lens. It means getting photos that I wouldn't otherwise have been able to get.

[Liz]

John,

Your explanation covered everything I had read - and more. You explained with clarity and answered my questions.

I can see that the Sony Super Steady Shot probably won't perform as well with the 300 f/2.8 lens as it does with the small, light kit lens. Canon or Nikon can build lenses with motors perfectly tailored for the weight and size of the lens.

This was one main focus of the article. If I recall correctly, the article stated this was the main "problem" with in-camera IS, that "it wouldn't perform well at the longer end where IS is needed the most."

Theoretically, since the sensor has to move to compensate for camera shake, it will be impossible to frame a photo accurately when it's being used.

The sensor issue was also included in the article - just as you stated it.

The bottom line is that I can shoot with the Sony at much slower shutter speeds than I could without any anti-shake system. And I can do it with any lens. I think that's pretty cool - especially if you want a nice digital SLR camera but you don't necessarily want to invest in expensive lenses.

You hit the nail on the head here. It makes a lot of sense, and this is what is going to sell this camera and more to come. It will be interesting to see if Canon and Nikon decide to compete in this arena. It's interesting - because they will probably be competing with their own products. But I think the in-camera IS will be a huge draw for many people, especially those who can't or prefer not to spend the money for IS lenses.

I keep coming back to the market for which this camera was intended. It's meant to be an entry-level competitor for the D50 and Rebel XT. It offers a really compelling and effective feature that those cameras don't, for a little bit more money. I don't think which system works better will really matter to most people considering the Sony Alpha. And as far as this photographer is concerned, it's nice to always have it there and not have to worry about carrying or changing to an image stabilized lens. It means getting photos that I wouldn't otherwise have been able to get.

That sums it up perfectly.

Thanks John.........great explanation. You might want to keep a copy of it in case you want to include it in a review as it's very well written.

Liz

[payn817]

That makes sense. Speaking from personal experience, framing is not an issue with the stabilization in camera. It likely depends on how much the photographer moves though.

In body IS is less effective on longer lenses, at least in the KM line. When you get to around 300 (450 35 equiv.) it doesn't help all that much. The photos I've posted of Jason Aldean were shot at 200mm (most of them) and ISO 400 at 1/60. The photos of Miss Warner Robins were at 200mm ISO 800 and I think 1/125, both were handheld.

[Photo-John]

The photos of Miss Warner Robins were at 200mm ISO 800 and I think 1/125, both were handheld.

Can you post a link for those photos?

I think I am going to do some research on what Sony might have done to improve on KM's anti shake system. It would be good to know. It would also be nice to do some testing at longer focal lengths. But right now I only have the 18-70mm kit lens.

[payn817]

Sure, here's the link:

Miss Warner Robins


I got a 100-300 I'll sell

Seriously though, our local paper editor seemed impressed by the photos considering they are available low light, and handheld.

[Photo-John]

Couldn't sleep last night so I got up at about 4:10 AM and went out with the bike and the Sony. I've actually wanted to get some sunrise shots and this worked out perfect. I am more and more impressed with this camera. It's awesome for low light shooting. I love the Super Steady Shot and ISO 800 is very useable, in my opinion. On top of that, the camera is good for riding because it's very light and versatile. And the Super Steady Shot image stabilization should make it even better if you spend a lot of time in the trees, where you need a little help with the shutter speed.

Image 1 info: 5:07 AM; 0.5 second @ f/4.0 and ISO 800. And you bet the Super Steady Shot was on. Check that shutter speed again - half a second, handheld!

Image 2 info: 5:26 AM; 1/5th second @ f/5.6 and ISO 400. Super Steady Shot on. As it got lighter, I took advantage of the Super Steady Shot by keeping the shutter speeds slow and decreasing the ISO for less noise.

Image 3 info: 5:36 AM; 1/5th second @ f/8 and ISO 400. Super Steady Shot on. One fifth of a second appears to be no problem with the Sony Alpha and kit lens.

Image 4 info: 5:43 AM; 1/13th second @ f.8 and ISO 200. Super Steady Shot on.

All of these images have been adjusted using Photoshop masked adjustment layers. But the point is - I'm getting sharp, usable images at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. Plus, I adjust all my images. What the camera delivers is only the beginning.

[Photo-John]

I uploaded the original file for the first image to the gallery so you can see what it looks like at 100%. I realize that you can't see the noise or how sharp it really is in the processed version I posted here. It's worth looking at the original. I am amazed that it's possible to get a sharp photo at 1/2 second. It's a first for me. That's for sure.

Full Res Sony Apha Sample >>

[payn817]

Wow. I was thinking about skiping out on this one and possibly getting a second generation model. However, the more you post, the more I want it as my main body with the 5D as a backup. I know this one isn't a "pro" body, or fast enough for sports, but with what I do, it should be fine. Does it happen to have a port for studio lights?

BTW, I made a mistake with the Miss Warner Robins photos. They were shot at ISO 1600, and around 1/1000. I seriously thought they were at 800 and alot slower. Sorry about that.

[Liz]

Wow! That photo of your Dad is really sharp at full resolution.......camera looks better all the time. Too bad you can't use Canon lenses on it.

Liz