Sony Alpha33

[Flick_Mac]

Hi all,

I'm looking at getting a Dslr camera, and was pretty set on an entry level Canon. Today I went into a shop and the sales guy mentioned the new Sony Alpha 33 & 55 models which he thinks are a lot better than the Canons or Nikons. Does anyone have opinions on the Sony system? I hadn't thought about Sony at all until today and now am so confused!

TIA

[huga]

I'm sure there are people that are happy with Sony, but I have two friends that have both jumped to Canon from Sony. Both said the lenses are super expensive compared to Canon and Nikon.

[Flick_Mac]

I'm sure there are people that are happy with Sony, but I have two friends that have both jumped to Canon from Sony. Both said the lenses are super expensive compared to Canon and Nikon.

Thanks Huga, I was thinking that might be the case... too many choices!

[lic_82]

Im a recent Sony to Canon convert. I got rid of my Sony gear because the lenses were much more expensive.

[piper]

I have an old Konika-Minolta dlsr, Sony took over shortly after I got it. I am at the point of upgrading and was seriously considering moving over to Canon as getting lenses was much harder and I was not super keen on the bodies Sony had. After a comment on here by PossumCorner who uses Sony stuff, I started to look closer at the new Sony offerings and lenses available.

Sony lenses are expensive but Sigma and Tamron now do most of their lenses in a Sony mount whereas last time I was looking a lot of their stuff, even when looking at US pages was Canon and Nikon mount only. The A33 is getting some good reviews. I am considering the A55 and had a play with it at the camera store and was quite impressed. As the guy said I could get the body and a bloody good fast zoom lense with a lot left over compared to changing systems (different situation to you as I have the kit lenses, 2 sigma lenses and a sony flash) and the sigma lense he suggested gets much better reviews than the Canon 1 I was looking at. I'm also really liking the sound of the A580 but they are not releasing it in Australia and while buying from OS does not bother me, I would rather get my hands on 1 first.

Go with what you are comfortable with. The A33 and A55 are very compact and have some nifty features. Some people don't like them as they are so compact and also the view finder is electronic not optical, this reduces battery life a lot. I liked the view finder and can see benefits in it for someone upgrading in the way it explains each menu option on the screen/viewfinder for you as you change them. For me the shorter battery life is a big downside (apparently only 300 - 400 shots and I can rattle that off easily, and if you use the burst mode at 7 frames per second you will chew that up very quickly.)

Video on them compared to other DSLRs is apparently very good as they have continual auotfocus, again it depends on if this is important to you. For me it is not, I want my camera to take pictures not video.

I have been keeping an eye on www.dpreview.com and their forums to try and narrow down my choice a little more. Just remember though that there is often very little difference between things and what the reviewer find important, you may not. Short list the cameras you like and then go to a store and handle them all. (I was looking at changing to Canon 60D when PossumCorner mentioned the A55 to me and looked at both in the store. Both have advantages to me, both have disadvantages. And remember when getting a dslr that you are basically getting a system - changing over from 1 brand to another is not cheap. Once you have bought a few lenses etc when it is time to upgrade you will most likely just get a new body and not a whole new kit.

[PossumCorner]

Well another month has passed using the Sony A55 and we are both still delighted with them. The negative comment at dpreview is mostly s/stirring, no different to the stoopid old "Nikon D70 green light of death" or "Canon is doing mass recalls" hysteria, none of it is worth worrying about, midge buzzings.

Lenses: some lovely old Minolta lenses work well with the A33 and A55. Sony have a list of them., You can pick up a brilliant used Minolta lens for a tenth of the price of the same lens in Canikons. I got a 50mm 1..7 prime, a 35-105mm and a good 100-300mm for $300 the lot. Some Sigma-for-Minolta are not compatible, and Sigma are doing a free compatibility upgrade for people, so later I will grab one or two of the top Sigma for Minolta lenses also. Tamron are also moving into Sony mount now, I got a (new) 90mm Macro, and they will be releasing the 75-200 soon which is getting rave reviews.

Huga the super-expensive lenses for Sony aren't Minolta or Sony: they are Carl Zeiss. Maybe that's what your friends meant. And of course they cost a ransom, you get what you pay for.

I enjoy the smart features, especially the choice of viewfinder, the panorama stitching, the high speed fps, high ISO with manageable noise, and the fast focussing.

I love my Nikons, it's not choosing between brands to me, it's adding something especially good to the existing mix and appreciating both. No Nikons for sale at this stage.

[piper]

PossumCorner have you had problems with over heating, and what is battery life really like? They are probably my 2 biggest concerns. I didn't realise you had actually got 1. At this stage I am more likely to go for the A55 than the A580, purely because I can't even hold a 580 to see what I think of it.

[PossumCorner]

Battery does get used quicker than with my Nikons for equal shooting. But it does more for me: I like the viewfinder option when it is on a tripod, if that's battery-hungry along with gimping, so be it, makes life better. On an all-day constant shoot you might only have to put a fresh battery in towards end-of-day. For normal but quite busy use it lasts a few days at least.. I'd never take the Nikon out without a spare battery either. It just seems normal to me, not an issue, if a battery goes below 80% I change it, that's all.

For overheating, I haven't made that happen which I did also have a reservation about. We both have a Sony A55, neither of them have ever overheated. I think it is pretty much b/s. I don't use the video a lot though: but anyone who does I find a bit weird: I mean, why didn't they buy a cheap video camera instead of trying to be a cinematographer with an entry-level still camera? Stoopid. It does take lovely video clips sure, but it's not what I want it for, so the overheating is just a non-issue. But battery, yes good idea to have a spare although I'd be surprised in normal use if you would ever "need" it .

I thought this week about the A900. But will wait and see if the new release (not scheduled yet, just gossip) is "better than both". By the time it's released I might be too old to pick a camera up. Aside from needing to win the lottery first.

[RallyValley]

I shoot with Olympus and love it. Have a good hard look at all the brands For $800 I can get a pro quality 12-60mm lens. The bodies of the Olympus range are the lightest and there at used e30's going for a song since the new e5 came out.

I mostly shoot outdoors and wildlife/sports, this is a field that Olympus really excels. With quite a few top photographers using them. My two cents - just because the majority uses Canon/Nikon does not mean that this is right for you.

[huga]

Huga the super-expensive lenses for Sony aren't Minolta or Sony: they are Carl Zeiss. Maybe that's what your friends meant. And of course they cost a ransom, you get what you pay for.

Nope, these two girls are purely into taking photos for themselves, their comments were about the Sony lenses.

[kja]

How is the real life low light and high ISO performance? I've only read reviews - be good to have info from real world users.

Edited December 29, 2010 by kja

[Flick_Mac]

Thanks everyone - this is just the sort of info I'm after!

Possum - how would you rate the user-friendliness of the A33?

Rally - Im definitely open to any brands, these are the main ones that have been recommended to me so far!

I am definitely going to try them before I buy (or at least play in the shop), but the guy I was talking to seemed to think there were some superior features of the Sony you'd pay a lot more for than in the other brands. He also mentioned you can use the generic (Sigma?) lenses with the Sony now - I definitely asked about lens prices! The main reason I'm seriously considering it is there is only about $50 difference with the sales on at the moment and I want to cash in!

Keep the info/opinions coming guys!

[piper]

The main reason I'm seriously considering it is there is only about $50 difference with the sales on at the moment and I want to cash in!

Keep the info/opinions coming guys!

Don't be afraid to look overseas as well. For example, www.bhphoto.com has the A55 for $749 as body only. The best the walk in stores could tell me for body only was $1099. The A33 they have for $599 or $699 for the single lens kit. I have bought from them before and shipping is reasonable and very quick.

[PossumCorner]

... user-friendliness of the A33? ...

Haven't used the A33 but guess it is similar to A55. They say A55 is worth the bit extra cost because 16mp as against 14 and a couple of other small feature reasons.

If anything about them annoys me, and it's pretty minor, is that it does sometimes have user-friendly messages briefly flashed on-screen (which can be turned off if they p you off).

Like I just upped the ISO to 6400, and it says something like: "High ISO is great for shooting moving objects because you can now use a faster shutter speed". Okay, I knew that so did not want a one-line tutorial. But it is an entry level camera, so why not give the odd handy tip.

Oh one other little thing: in some modes automatic over-rides your settings, like it thinks its IQ is better than yours. Well maybe it is, - trying to think of example. Oh yes, it has a nifty in-camera stitching thing to shoot panoramas. So you take 5 or 6 shots and it sews them into a panorama. I shoot Raw and Manual. When you set the A55 for "Panorama" it shoots in J-peg on Automatic. Quelle shock!!

But it does enable it to keep the exposure consistent, and do a neat stitch-up. If I want to be bloody-minded about exposure and Raw I can use the Nikon, and spend some time with stitching software on the computer but this way is quicker and easier.

Ringwood Lake

Yellingbo overexposed (through car window in the rain).

KJA I haven't done real low light, will think on it. Today at sunset I went up to the forest it was quite dark thats why I set 6400. The butterfly is high up a bushfire scorched gum-tree in the last ray of the sun. I think it was [email protected] - lens 75-300 kit lens at 300mm (I was after wallabies but they were crashing in the bush all out of sight).

It would benefit from some PP and Noise Ninja or such.

This agapanthus in the almost dark, no flash, iso6400, 160th@f8, lens 75-300 kit at 90mm.

Definitely some noise there: this shot Raw, converted to jpeg, no crop, no other PP.

Edited December 29, 2010 by PossumCorner