Any Sony Alpha users here?

[masp]

After struggling with way too camera choices, I think I may be getting a Sony Alpha. None of the viewfinder options really seems to work for me, so maybe I'll just have to look like an amateur using my DSLR like a giant point and shoot. The Sony Alpha seems to be only camera system so far that has a Live View system seems capable of fully replacing the viewfinder for action and wildlife shots.

Anyway, can anyone share some pros and cons of Sony's system that might not be emphasized in the reviews? Thanks!

[jjeling]

Well, as far as I know most of the higher end prosumer cameras now have some sort of live view function. Although, I highly recommend getting familiar with your viewfinder if you want to take photography seriously.

On another note, I used to own a Sony Alpha. USED to. I sold it and bought a Pentax K10d.

I forget the model to be honest. However, with enough light, it takes great pictures. Let me rephrase that. It takes great JPEGS. It was actually rated the highest JPEG quality among all the other camera manufacturers. However, the noise was terrible. So terrible, I couldnt stand it and sold the camera.

I will say it handled well. Seemed to have a quality build, built in Shake Reduction and had a solid lens lineup(if you are willing to buy older lenses). Mine was an older model, and did not have a live view function. I know there are a few other Alpha users here so wait and see what they have to say.

[masp]

Hmm, perhaps I'll have to wait til my next upgrade to buy a camera that has a brighter pentaprism viewfinder then. Aside from shooting action though, what are the advantages of using the viewfinder? Sony's AF system seems to perform (almost) as fast in live view as through the viewfinder. It's a little slower, but it saves me a lot of eyestrain. :D Maybe bracing the camera for telephoto shots is the other issue?

I just saw a review on Cameralabs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_550D_Rebel_T2i/verdict.shtml) that provided a good summary of the current trends in the entry level DSLR market. Canon is offering more megapixels and better video, while saving tougher build quality for the higher end models and avoiding the use of articulated screens which "has opened up opportunities for rival manufacturers. Nikon, Olympus and Sony all offer DSLRs with articulated screens, Pentax has gone down the tougher build route, while Sony additionally offers affordable models with quick continuous shooting." Nikon also seems to have somewhat better build quality, though the K7's weather sealing seems to give it an extra edge in that price bracket. Olympus and Pentax also seem to be adding a lot of extra features that normally cost more in an bid to increase their market share.

I'll have to look into some of those older lenses. Are we talking about pre-autofocus lenses or just old and good Konica Minolta lenses? Also, I noticed the flange focal distance on Alpha mounts is actually one of the shortest. Seems like mounting M42 lenses as well as Nikon and Pentax lenses should be feasible...

[Fortytwo]

I've got some friend that shoot Sony. One has a A700 and one has a A900. I've been very impressed by their gear, seems like some fine equipment to be honest. :)

[Bambi]

MASP, buying a camera is like choosing a mate. You can't have it all but figure out what the important bits are and make your choice. :):clown:

I know how crazy this decision can make you but in the end, whatever camera you choose, you will most likely be very happy with. For at least a few years.

[jjeling]

Masp, Bambi is right. Whatever you buy, you will most likely be happy with. They all perform the same functions, its just extraneous bits of detail after that honestly.

As far as older Olympus and Pentax lenses. I know Pentax has a huge range of fully manual lenses and auto lenses. The older manual lenses tend to be quite good and extremely sharp if you are willing to adjust the focus and aperture manually.

Olympus lenses are the same way from what I understand. I have very limited experience with them, but they are quite good.

[masp]

Thanks for the advice. :D Basically I picked the camera for it's quick AF in live view. There is still a small amount of lag compared to the viewfinder (which works at the speed of light), so I think I see your point, jjeling. The viewfinder has it's uses for scene composition right now, but it makes more sense to manually pre-focus or let the AF system do the job.

Lack of depth of field preview and mirror lockup may turn out to be a sore point for shooting landscapes or experimenting with DoF. It's too bad Sony decided to drop these features rather than compete for the enthusiast market. So you get a camera that's good a shooting things that move and not so great at landscapes and long exposure. Everything's a tradeoff until you buy that $5000 camera I guess.

[Kevin.OBrien]

masp, I shoot with the Sony A350 IMHO its an awesome camera. The liveview and the flip LCD screen is the best as far as DSLR goes. Its takes some great shots as well. One thing you REALLY REALLY need to do is if your looking at the A230, A330, A380. Goto your local shop and try them out the grip on those is very uncomfortable. Which is the main reason why I didnt get the A380 and got the A350 because the A350 has what I call as full grip.