Refurbished Sony a100...go for it or not?

[Star Alliance]

Hey y'all,
I think I'm finally ready to take the jump to the DSLR side. I've looked at the a100 for a while, and was bummed when they quit producing it, but realized that it meant a price reduction (if I could get one, that is).
So, today, I found this:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&kw=dslr%2Da100&lp=8198552921665087374&productId=8198552921665087374&XID=A:1319015:10383604&ref=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra100.asp

Which is good, because it's from sony, so I'm confident in it, it's a great price,
and it looks good.
I'm going for the a100 because I have some old Minolta A-mounts that would work with it, saving me a few hundred bucks.
What do y'all think?
Go/no go?
Thanks,
Mitch

[z740]

Might want to have a look at this first. Just to be sure it does what you want.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/

To be honest though, in my personal opinion, I would go with a Canon DSLR. I was unsure about doin this myself when I ventured away from the familiar P&S but I will never look back. The 400D or even a 350D are EXCELLENT cameras. They do everything the top-of-the-line DSLRs do but are mush easier to use and are much cheaper. If you get a Canon DSLR you will not regret it. the Canon lens line-up is phenomenal especially the "L" glass.

As for going ahead with the Sony. If you are really set on it, then go ahead. It seems like a good enough camera. The Sony lens line-up isn't all that great, though. You would have to get other brands and they aren't as reliable as the Sony ones. Sony-Sony or Nikon-Nikon is what most photographers swear by. The electrical contacts were made for each other. so Sigma-Sony isn't as good as Sony-Sony. (Lens-Camera).

Hope this helps a tad.

-Chris

[Vishal Jolapara]

Mitch, you gotta listen to Chris man he's kinda become an expert at this

If i were u i'd take the plunge into the Canon pool, and now since u've decided to go dSLR this is one hobby where once u start pouring money into, it aint gonna stop. U'll think you are content for a while but you can never stop upgrading. Nothing bad, its just an amazing thing this dSLR.

Neil please dont jump-in to say NIKON !!

Cheers

[Powercube]

Neil please dont jump-in to say NIKON !!

You guys have got to tell me why you're so afraid of the Nikon monster. Is it the "L" glass? Well, my real flourite is better than your synthetic flourite!

[Vishal Jolapara]

You guys have got to tell me why you're so afraid of the Nikon monster. Is it the "L" glass? Well, my real flourite is better than your synthetic flourite!

Flourite

[z740]

Flourite

Quoted from Wikipeida

The lens elements are made of transparent materials. Glass is the most widely used material due to its good optical properties and resistance to scratching. Sometimes lenses are made of materials such as quartz or fluorite. Various plastics, such as acrylic (the material of Plexiglass) can also be used. Occasionally, even germanium and meteoritic glass have been used. Plastics allow the manufacture of strongly aspherical lens elements which are difficult or impossible to manufacture in glass, and which simplify or improve lens manufacture and performance. Plastics are not used for the outermost elements of all but the cheapest lenses as they scratch easily. Moulded plastic lenses have been used for the cheapest disposable cameras for many years, and have acquired a bad reputation: manufacturers of quality optics tend to use euphemisms such as "optical resin". However many modern, high performance (and high priced) lenses from popular manufacturers include molded or hybrid aspherical elements, so it is not true that all lenses with plastic elements are of low photographic quality.

-Chris

[Powercube]

Flourite

Flourite has far lower colour dispersion than regular optical glass, but it is also brittle and expensive. In the name of being environmentally friendly, Canon uses synthetic flourite (don't ask me how it's made, I have no idea) vs. Nikon's real flourite. Now if I could find a thorium lens, I'd be a very happy man (note it's not carcenogenic in a crystal form)

[Jet-fighters.Net]

Seeing that he already has some Minolta lenses the choice of a Sony DSLR is not a bad choice. While i may prefer Nikon and others Canon, both of our systems require special lenses to get vibration reduction. While with the Sony you get this feature with every lens made for that mount as it is built into sensor and not the lens.

[Powercube]

Seeing that he already has some Minolta lenses the choice of a Sony DSLR is not a bad choice. While i may prefer Nikon and others Canon, both of our systems require special lenses to get vibration reduction. While with the Sony you get this feature with every lens made for that mount as it is built into sensor and not the lens.

I agree, that's a very cool feature. Just, to my understanding- the viewfinder image is not stabilized, which can mean at the long end of a telephoto lens- the image is bobbing like a cork, but perfectly stable on the sensor. On a purely spurious note, I have to admire Sony for the electromagnetic system they used for sensor stabilization, it's amazing how it works and doesn't sap battery life.

[Star Alliance]

So that's:
1 For
1 Neutral
6 Canon v. Nikon

Seeing that he already has some Minolta lenses the choice of a Sony DSLR is not a bad choice. While i may prefer Nikon and others Canon, both of our systems require special lenses to get vibration reduction. While with the Sony you get this feature with every lens made for that mount as it is built into sensor and not the lens.

Ok, now that I have the support of a professional amateur, I'm that much closer to it.
Unless anyone has a SERIOUS objection, I think this is the one.

[Greg Wilson]

Do some resarch on lenses available for the Sony.......I know here in Australia there is not a great range. Would be an idea to also research any quality issues of the older Minolta lenses....or better still try them on the body.

[Star Alliance]

Do some resarch on lenses available for the Sony.......I know here in Australia there is not a great range. Would be an idea to also research any quality issues of the older Minolta lenses....or better still try them on the body.

The 72-210 beercan is pretty good, or so I've been told. I still need to get into a Ritz or something and try the body together with my lens(es).

[Greg Wilson]

Yeh...the beercan speaks for itself...........
I'm just a bit worried that you can find lenses in the 300+ range for Sony.
Of course I am not aware of your lens needs or photography you are going to do...but certainly their primes and macro lenses for example seem expensive.
When I bough my first Pentax DSLR I found my older cheaper lenses were incredibly soft.
Another option is to consider selling the beercan.....I believe prices are very good.
I am sure you will research it thoroughly

Just an update......looks like I was talking crap again.......most Sigma and Tamron lenses are available in the Sony mount....

[col1962]

What about the new Alpha 350? I just got one with the Sony 18-200mm DT lens.

Only used it once so far but the results look promising, my latest 5 shots were taken with it and there's some more in the queue.


One of the features the A350 has is built in 1.4x and 2x zoom which Sony claim results in no loss of quality, haven't tried it yet but if the claims are correct then you could save a fortune on lenses, though the feature only works through the Live View, not the viewfinder and is only available to JPG not RAW.

[Tanner_J]

Sony makes great cameras...