Sony Alpha 100 DSLR previewed

The first DSLR from Sony is sure getting plenty of hype, but we think we'll reserve judgement until we spy a solid review of a production unit. Until then we'll have to make do with this hands-on preview of the 10 megapixel Sony Alpha A100, and try not to get caught up in that fancy Greek lettering. Luckily, things are looking plenty good in pre-production, with features galore, and a potential to rival the image quality of cameras nearly twice as expensive. Specially notable is an eye sensor to automagically activate auto-focus, Sony's special sauce image stabilisation that mixes the best of Sony and Konica Minolta tech, the 2.5-inch 230,000 pixel LCD, and of course the large 10 megapixel CCD. The camera build is pretty solid, shooting speed is fairly fast, and other little niceties like Konica Minolta and Minolta lens compatibility make this camera very attractive. PopPhoto is predicting a roughly $800 street price, and while the similarly specced $1700 Nikon D200 might have it beat in a few (important) areas, Sony's new kid on the block might have a chance to do battle with Canon's EOS 30D or at least pose a serious threat to its own price range.

[Mike @ Jun 7th 2006 3:14PM]

DPReview had a preview which is substantialy more detailed up a couple of days ago. DC Resourse also had a preview up a couple of days ago.

[Jaxim @ Jun 7th 2006 3:22PM]

I like the fact that they designed the camera using the de facto flash media for dSLRs (CompactFlash) instead of their version, (memory stick).

But I'm going to hold off on buying a dSLR when the camera manufacturers make a "decent" dSLR with a live-preview, multi-angled LCD.

Olympus has a live preview but the reviews for that model aren't that great. Sony sort of has one, but it has a fixed lens.

[Greg Baz @ Jun 7th 2006 3:30PM]

Specially notable is an eye sensor to automagically activate auto-focus
this is nothing new. My Minolta 3xi did this in 1992. They just reserected the feature.

[Balls @ Jun 7th 2006 3:36PM]

Why is live preview so important? Live histograms would be handy, but multi-angle LCD/live preview seems only useful for low-angle shots.

"Sony's new kid on the block might have a chance to do battle with Canon's EOS 30D or at least pose a serious threat to its own price range."

Thats wishful thinking, till it has a lens lineup that rivals the EOS or Nikors.

[Michael @ Jun 7th 2006 3:52PM]

This camera is compatible with existing Minolta lenses, so I don't see lack of lenses as being a problem.

[edeab220 @ Jun 7th 2006 3:55PM]

How come we're comparing this to the D200 or the 30D? Is it that much more superior that it really shouldn't be compared to the D70s or the 20D?

[Nathan Soliz @ Jun 7th 2006 3:55PM]

Dpreview.com has a some what nice review on the new Camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06060501sonydslra100.asp

[Jaxim @ Jun 7th 2006 3:58PM]

>Why is live preview so important? Live histograms would be handy, but multi-angle LCD/live preview seems only useful for low-angle shots.

Exactly, I'd probably only use it for low or high shots: macros, children shots, over crowd shots, etc. Believe it or not, there are people who are vying for such a feature, and it would be nice to have the option to use either the LCD or viewfinder.

If such a thing is not what you're looking for in a dSLR, then take comfort that there many other camera models out there that don't have such a feature, but don't dismiss the camera just because it has that feature since economics will prove if such a camera should exist. If there is enough demand for the feature, then camera manufacturers will move to meet that demand.

[edeab220 @ Jun 7th 2006 3:59PM]

oops, i meant comparing it to the D70s and the 350D, not the 20D lol.

[Elliot @ Jun 7th 2006 4:04PM]

The only thing that makes this comparable to a 30D or D200 is the megapixel count, and anyone that's taking that seriously is obviously not a serious photographer. While Best Buy reps would love to tell you "you need at least 8 megapixels to print an 8x10 of that picture of your dog," on an SLR optics and performance are much more important than how many pixels the sensor picks up. The gimmicky features that Sony is touting on this one (automatic autofocus switch, static de-duster) are hardly worth choosing an SLR body for. The purchase of a body is buying into a branded system, and I'm much more comfortable sticking to Canon or Nikon than getting into the dying, second rate Minolta universe.

[iomatic @ Jun 7th 2006 4:06PM]

Really, live preview? If you need that, get a point and shoot; that's why these are called Single Lens Reflex cameras. Nice innovation, but unless you can save battery life as much as not using live preview, no thanks. There's something about framing in the viewfinder, you know, with an SLR?

It would not be a competitor to a 30D; this is a pro-sumer (i.e., used by consumers and pros), as was the 20D. There's no way the old Minolta glass compares to Nikkor or L-series lenses. Sorry. Wrong race; thanks for trying. And as others mention, the D200…? uh, more likely the D70s or the D50, you surely mean to compare?

[xder345 @ Jun 7th 2006 4:13PM]

With a sub-$1000 price-point and a plastic body, it's more likely to be fighting with the 350D than the 30D...

[Jaxim @ Jun 7th 2006 4:26PM]

>Really, live preview? If you need that, get a point and shoot; that's why these are called Single Lens Reflex cameras.


I'll pass on the point and shoots. I want a quality camera that I can frame a shot using either the LCD or the view finder, depending on my needs. (The live preview can be turned on only when you wish to use such a feature, thus saving battery life.) Stop being an old fuddy-duddy. Your kind of SLRs will be around for a long time, but there are some of us that wish to have a hyprid - the best of both worlds.

[PEZ @ Jun 7th 2006 4:27PM]

This is going to be way friggin exciting. I hope this is just not some rebranded KM.

[dzieci @ Jun 7th 2006 4:36PM]

I don't think so it is real better then D200. Yes lanes but it is only one poin which is real good in this camera but nothing much in my opinion.

[Balls @ Jun 7th 2006 4:40PM]

"I'd probably only use it for low or high shots: macros, children shots, over crowd shots, etc. Believe it or not, there are people who are vying for such a feature, and it would be nice to have the option to use either the LCD or viewfinder."

So you'd "probably" use this feature? Doesn't make a good case for a make or break it feature. I'm not denying that feature wouldn't have some benefit, but it think its more gimmicky like say ECF. I don't care how and why you make your buying purchases, I was hoping for insight as to why live-preview was important to a photographer, other than live histograms.

The only people clamoring for this feature are the point-n-shoot digital photographers. They see a $1000 camera, they expect it to have at the very least the same features as thier $300 point and shoot. The same people expect to have 35-400MM zoom lenses. Camera manufacturers are putting them into their non-pro bodies because they want to enlarge their customer base. Obviously its going to work. That said, non of the pro-bodies out there have live-features, so I'm gonna stick with my opinion that it's not useful.

"It would not be a competitor to a 30D; this is a pro-sumer (i.e., used by consumers and pros), as was the 20D."

Are you saying that the 30D isn't prosumer? Or are you saying the Sony isn't a prosumer. Either way, both the Sony, and the 30D are prosumer bodies (as is the 20D,10D,300D,350D,and 5D).

[Tonicboy @ Jun 7th 2006 4:41PM]

I'm all for competition and more choices in the market, but when it coemes to an SLR, the lens is way more important than the camera. Unfortunately, Nikon and Canon have infinitely better glass, and a much bigger third-party market as well.

I've always wondered why smaller camera companies such as Konica-Minolta didn't design their cameras with Nikon or Canon compatible lens mounts.

[Elliot @ Jun 7th 2006 4:42PM]

I'll come to the defense of iomatic on this claim of fuddy-duddy-ism. For the same reason I'm not interested in the gimmicks on this Sony, live LCD preview is just more junk thrown in to distract you from the real important parts of the camera: the performance and the optics. If you're looking for a quality camera with these kinds of features, go with the prosumer digicams, Canon's G series, for instance. You'd be spending more than you need to get into an SLR.

By the way, ever try focusing through an LCD? It don't work too good...

[Jeff @ Jun 7th 2006 4:49PM]

"Stop being an old fuddy-duddy. Your kind of SLRs will be around for a long time, but there are some of us that wish to have a hyprid - the best of both worlds."

The point is you're not looking for an SLR, you're looking for something else. An SLR is, by definition (as in, this is what it's *called*), a camera using a viewfinder looking through the lens by a series of mirrors. That's what "single lens reflex" means. One of those mirrors is necessarily attached to the shutter, meaning the shutter has to be closed and the mirror in the down position in order for you to get the lens view. This means true live preview is just not possible on an SLR.

Yes I know, there is at least one model that has it. But this is not a real live preview in the way that I think you want it (it is not "the best of both worlds") - it's using a second, smaller sensor for the preview that's placed somewhere else, or it has a second mode that's basically doing a mirror lockup function and using the main sensor. Both modes have severe disadvantages that render them basically useless for framing shots properly - which is the whole point of having a camera that lets you see exactly what the lens is seeing.

I don't think anyone is arguing that live preview is not useful in certain situations. The point is this is an SLR, and we are talking about SLR's - cameras where you look through the lens. If you want live preview, you are just not looking for an SLR, because you are asking for a design whereby you are not looking at a mirror projecting an image directly from the lens. You can't be; it's impossible. Light doesn't bend, at least not in this universe.

You may not like the term "point and shoot" but that's just a semantic name - that is what you're looking for. Either that, or you're going to be stuck with the kludgy way a certain manufacturer has enabled live preview on one or two models of SLR - that's fine, but it's never going to work the way you want it to. I admit that their kludge is pretty ingenious, but it is still a kludge and it will always be a kludge. There's no way to do a live preview the same way that point and shoot cameras do it on an SLR... just like there's no way to do a reflex viewfinder the same way that SLR's do on a point and shoot. They are mutually exclusive technologies, divided by the physical properties of light. "The best of both worlds" is not possible in a single camera. The most you can hope for is the best of one and a poor approximation of the other.

[Balls @ Jun 7th 2006 4:50PM]

"I've always wondered why smaller camera companies such as Konica-Minolta didn't design their cameras with Nikon or Canon compatible lens mounts."

Not sure about Nikon, but Canon's EF mount is proprietary, and they'd need to license the spec from Canon. Kodak may have done this, with their last DSLR.

Companies like Sigma reverse engineer the EF mounts. Buying 3d pary reverse engineered gear is risky, because Canon has changed the spec before, which can cause problems with 3rd Party lenses. Some sigma lenses had to be "rechipped" while others were left incompatible.

[Jaxim @ Jun 7th 2006 4:59PM]

>...If you're looking for a quality camera with these kinds of features, go with the prosumer digicams...By the way, ever try focusing through an LCD? It don't work too good...

Like I said, I'll pass on the point and shoots. They don't have the quality that I am looking for. And as it stands right now, there aren't any dSLRs that have both live preview and are of superb quality design. Plus, when I did use the LCD to take a shot, I'd be sure to focus the shot using the viewfinder first. How many pressrooms have we seen on TV where the photographers take blind shot over a crowd of there photographers to take a shot of the President or some other politician. I'm sure these photographers would love to be able to set their shot up using the live LCD as opposed to taking it blindly.

So please don't dismiss it just because you think it's not a useful feature.

Just imagine all the "purist" photographers out there who have dismissed and are still dismissing digital cameras.

[Elliot @ Jun 7th 2006 5:15PM]

>Plus, when I did use the LCD to take a shot, I'd be sure to focus the shot using the viewfinder first.

Let's all take a moment to consider the logistics of this proposition...

And I think you're unfairly dismissing prosumer point-and-shots, they really are quite good for what they are. SLRs just aren't for everyone, as Jeff said. You seem like you'd be ashamed to be in the prosumer point and shoot market, but it's clear thats where the features you want are.

[Balls @ Jun 7th 2006 5:16PM]

"How many pressrooms have we seen on TV where the photographers take blind shot over a crowd of there photographers to take a shot of the President or some other politician."

How many pressroom photographers use prosumer bodies? Everyone I've ever seen is a pro body. Canon and Nikon 1 series bodies. Very few features.

Obviously its a feature you care about. My original question was trying to find out what value it had to you, wondering if there was something I'm missing. There's not, and so I'm happy shooting with my dslr. I really want ECF, but its not a make or break feature. ECF is cool, but I've never been able to not take a picture because my camera lacked it.

[que @ Jun 7th 2006 5:36PM]

"They are mutually exclusive technologies, divided by the physical properties of light. "The best of both worlds" is not possible in a single camera. The most you can hope for is the best of one and a poor approximation of the other."

Jeff, I disagree. Consider your eye to be a sensor for a live LCD preview. Instead of feeding the image which bounces off the mirror while the viewfinder is active to the eyepiece, they simply need to feed it to a lower resolution image sensor, and display what this sensor "sees" on the LCD. Voila! live preview. This is what Olympus did. The constraints lie not in being able to do this technically, but in battery life (full size dSLR sensors suck juice) both from sensors and screen, as well as heat production from the larger sensor. The best alternative, as I said, is to use a smaller sensor for live preview, and a larger standard dSLR sensor for image capture.

[AG @ Jun 7th 2006 6:13PM]

Nice, Ive been waiting for this since I first heard about it last year.

My first digital camera was a Sony DSC-S30, then a Sony F-717, and now the Sony F-828.

I love the F828, but I want flexibility with lenses and more sensitivity. So far, I have seen good things about the A100.

Lets hope Sony can make good with the A100 and produce a quality DSLR

[lithium @ Jun 7th 2006 8:55PM]

I'm all for competition. the sony alpha sounds great ... the 10mp sensor is likely to be the same as the higher end canon/nikon. not to mention built in anti-shake - no need to get expensive vr/is lenses. the eye sensor - why write it off when you have not even tried it?

as for minolta being second rate, have you tried their 2 dslr - 7d and 5d? they are on par with the popular d50/350d.

i for one would not mind a quality camera with extra features built in as long as the price is good and the picture quality up to my expectation.

live preview may not be slr but there are times when these could be useful - like those difficult camera positions :)

[Jordan @ Jun 7th 2006 11:28PM]

one of the reasons it's being compared to the D200 is that it uses the same CCD... literally, Sony supplies the exact same CCD to Nikon for use in the d200

throw in image stabilization, anti-dust technology, and the eye sensor AF and this camera has the potential to completely outclass the d70s and the Rebel XT.

it will be interesting to see what Canon and Nikon respond with.

[Mr. B @ Jun 7th 2006 11:42PM]

I've been hoping Sony would get into the dSLR market for years, so this is very exciting for me. Sony has always made interesting cameras, so it will be interesting to see how this camera evolves over the next few years.

[LMN @ Jun 8th 2006 5:10AM]

This looks an excellent first SONY DSLR, most of the features are not new it was heralded from Minolta cameras. Watch-out Canons and Nikons because theres more to come, the next camera will be even better (a Dynax 7D replacement) Sony is not joking when they say they want 25% market share. Minolta didnt get there only because of their non existent marketing, they selled (and A LOT) just for the value and quality of their cameras! Sony will change that for sure

[B-. @ Jun 8th 2006 6:08AM]

I am no "brand"wanker, they all have their value, but ...

5D relates to the 350D and the D50, 7D is in a higher class. I shoot with Minolta 7D, the comments on inferior glass are irrelevant if you have been reading up what Sony will bring to the market in collaboration with Zeiss. It might take 2 years, but Canikon will have a run for their money with this behemoth entering the market - currently deprived of innovation (mainly because of Canikons attitude towards the customers). KM was brave in a way that they presented thos innovations into their camera's - unfortunately they did not have the mgt capabilities to market them properly.

Also remember that only 20% of a good shot can actually be attributed to technology - you will still need to be a good photographer :-)

[scott @ Jun 8th 2006 9:08AM]

as someone who works in the press, a live preview lcd would be a nice touch on SLR's.

I don't shoot stills -- I'm in video -- but we crank down the eyepiece all the time so we can get high shots on the sticks..

To those who don't understand, how about this: being able to see what you're shooting is a nice advantage. To those who still don't understand, I'm not sure I can help you.

[schmod @ Jun 8th 2006 9:39AM]

As other people have mentioned here, live preview is inherently impossible in an SLR ("Single-lens-reflex"), the reflex(mirror) of which effectively prevents light from reaching the sensor unless the shutter's triggered.

This is also why SLRs can take such rapid bursts of pictures without sacrificing quality. With a live preview, the presence of a shutter means that it's not necessary to wipe the residual charges off of the sensor between shots.

The only way to get a live "preview" with a DSLR would be to place a tiny CCD in where the viewfinder is. This would increase the price by a significant amount, and wouldn't even give an accurate preview of the image being taken because it's a different sensor.

So in short, don't fault the dSLR makers for not putting a live preview on their cameras. If it was technically feasable without sacrificing a significant amount quality or functionality, everyone would be doing it.


That said, this looks like one of the first products sony's produced in recent years that actually looks appealing. I don't think it's going to give a huge amount of competition to canon or nikon, but you can bet that olympus is going to suffer.

[iceng @ Jun 8th 2006 6:27PM]

" There's no way the old Minolta glass compares to Nikkor or L-series lenses. Sorry. Wrong race; thanks for trying"

". Unfortunately, Nikon and Canon have infinitely better glass, ...."

While it is true that Canon and Nikon had/have a much wider variety of lenses due to their larger investments as well as due their wise choice of backwards compatibility it is not true that the quality of the lenses, on average, are better than the Minolta lenses. I think this is a myth pepetrated over time by the users of the Canon and Nikon systems(who most likely never even tried or switched systems in their lives)... so how would they know to compare ?
It's one of those things where if you're the big kid on the block you become elitist and snobish.
If I were to put "identical" photos in front of one of these people, in a blind test (no pun intended), taken with similar lens offerings/settings from all 3 companies (and other companies as well.. e.g Pentax, Olympus) how many people would be able to correctly tell me which camera/lens combination took which photo ? None I bet. Perhaps if I blew up the photo to 16 x 20 or higher(and how many users do ?) some differences might appear but staking your life that the Nikon or the Canon was the best/sharpest photo in the group might prove to be(embarassingly) the wrong choice.

Minolta had plenty of lenses, both their G series and some of their less expensive lenses that were superb and technically the equals to or better than their counterparts at Nikon and Canon... see www.photodo.com and www.photozone.de. Overall there may be more great lenses from Nikon and Canon but that's also because there is a greater number of lenses in their inventory that were designed over the years... but percentage of good lenses to total lenses is about equal.

Remember that the photographer plays the biggest role in the photo... the lens comes in second, and the body last.
A million dollar system with the best lens is no better than a disposable camera if the photographer is lousy... and unfortunately there are too many people like that who think that paying more automatically translates into them being a better photographer... but I digress

[Valter @ Jun 8th 2006 6:33PM]

Why the inclusion of a viewfinder?

Why just 2.5" LCD ?

Why Just Black & Silver colors?

[lithium @ Jun 9th 2006 5:31AM]

iceng - great post!

[Mack @ Jun 12th 2006 12:10PM]

Why all the fuss about the lenses, if you read the full info about the camera you will see there are 22 lenses to choose from including three Carl Zeiss ones 2 Planar T* and a Vario Sonnar, I can assure you those three lenses will be far in advance of any Canon or Nikon glass.

[Bahuddha @ Jun 12th 2006 12:30PM]

Apparently, there are those who are unaware of the history of Minolta. At one point Minolta was on track to be numero uno after their intro of the AF system. Due to ill fated litigation they were left financially wounded which made them ripe for merger/take over. This is not a johnny come lately company. Many of the inovations used by the big two originated with Minolta - such as AF and wireless flash. As one person commented the glass issue is moot.

Sony is building upon and enriching a system that may surpise many disbelivers. I for one want to wait and see the facts and results before reaching any conclusions. After all this is just Sony's entry level camera.

It was also mentioned that the NIkon D200 had an identical sensor to the Alpha 100. They are in the same sensor family but not identical.

Last but not least... I hope that this does spur competition among the camera makers. This would then altimately be to the advantage of the consumer through price relief and higher quality products.

Good shooting everyone!

[Arvind @ Jun 13th 2006 10:07PM]

Why is no one appreciating the fact that this body has the minolta's antishake technology. So you can use the standard lenses and don't have to invest in expensive image stabilized lenses. And tomorrow if the anti-shake technology improves, I don't have to buy new lenses. I can simply replace the body and still use the other lenses.

[Rich @ Jun 16th 2006 2:27AM]

two things:

one: irrelevant but let's remain educated -- light certainly does bend, and in this universe.

two: in the digital age the old adage that camera bodies are much less important than the inventory of lenses is no longer so certain. Is the lens much more important than both the body and the 'film?', as of course digital bodies play both roles. Add body stabilisation to the continual improvement of auto-exposure technologies, and the lens becomes less dominant.

Camera loyalty is a funny thing, but of course we all want to believe we've made the best choices.

[Ronnie @ Jun 16th 2006 4:24PM]

Really looking foward to buying Sony Alpha 100. I already own an Minolta 5D which take excellent picture, color and detail right on the money. I had thaught about getting an Cannon or Nikon before I aquired my Minolta 5D. I looking for great things down the road with Sony.

[Matthew Griffin @ Jun 19th 2006 8:54AM]

Thanks sony for the cheaper canon cameras that have to come from this.
There is going to be no choice now but for canon and nikon to compete,anti dust for one thing is going to be standard pretty soon on any DSLR.
And finally the companies are starting to do something about the dynamic ranges on there cameras.

[Matthew Griffin @ Jun 19th 2006 8:57AM]

Thanks sony for the cheaper canon cameras that have to come from this.
There is going to be no choice now but for canon and nikon to compete,anti dust for one thing is going to be standard pretty soon on any DSLR.
And finally the companies are starting to do something about the dynamic ranges on there cameras.

[eric robinson @ Jun 21st 2006 1:54PM]

The new Sony ALPHA 100 has the exact same sensor as the Nikon D200, so at
it's price point it is a contender . Minolta has always has aline of PRO glass as well
35mm 1.4, 84mm 1.4, and the big guns with fixed 2.8's .
The body is not plastic, it is a magnesium alloy.
Remember NIKON users, you are using a SONY sensor in any digital product you own from NIKON.
I print A3 size using my 6.1 MP D7 and in RAW get tack shaprness.
In a church or available light without a tripod but with a high speed lens this camera will show superior performance over anything out there ..

[J Cadenhead @ Mar 12th 2008 1:19PM]

Does any digital camera manufacturer make camera which is compatable with my chinon cs 35mm camera which I use with a wide angle lens and a telescopic lens These lenses have a screw fixing into the camera body