More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface

While Sony was showing off its new Alpha DSLRs all the way back at PMA in March (where we snapped up plenty of pics of 'em), it looks like the company is just now starting to let loose some official shots to flaunt the cameras in their best possible light. Unfortunately, they aren't yet providing any specs to go along with the pics, although we do know that the cameras will boast the same BIONZ image processor and image stabilization of Sony's A100, which these cams are set to succeed. From the looks of it, Sony will have more to say about 'em at the Seoul International Photo & Imaging Industry Show that's just getting underway. Until then, you can check out a couple more pics of the various models after the break.

[RyanTV @ May 17th 2007 2:47PM]

every time i see one of these i look over at my D200 and smile.

[NeoteriX @ May 17th 2007 5:55PM]

"every time i see one of these i look over at my D200 and smile."

Every time I see a pointless, meritless, douchy, self-indulgent comment, I remind myself that these people don't need our resentment, but our pity and help... and then I smile.

[Orbitcorbett @ May 17th 2007 6:02PM]

So Ryan, what do you like/love about your D200? Have you shot with an Alpha? Don't dis it til you've kissed it!

[Orbitcorbett @ May 17th 2007 3:11PM]

Every time I look at my Sony Alpha, I smile that I didn't buy a Nikon or Canon. As a wedding photographer, the image stabilization built-in to the body makes every Minolta Maxxum-compatible lens I attach to it (and there are millions of them) stabilized, and I can literally handhold the camera in a dark church 2 stops darker than I could with a non-stabilized camera. With Nikon or Canon, I would have had to buy hideously expensive stabilized lenses to do the same thing. Now, I have no beef with Nikon and Canon cameras in any other area but that, and in fairness, they are all awesome these days. But, that stabilization gives me an edge, not only in speed (not having to switch to a stabilized lens), but in price (reducing the cost of my gear). This is the ONLY Sony camera I've ever been a fan of, and I generally don't buy anything else by Sony.

[jasper @ May 17th 2007 3:20PM]

IS does not make you shoot at faster speeds, it only allows you to handhold longer shots better. A moving subject will still be blurry regardless of that technology.

[Raygun @ May 18th 2007 7:16AM]

The problem with A-100 (as opposed to Minolta DSLRs) is that it's NOISY. Okay, so is Nikon D80 (a bit less, though). 400D is the best of the crop (pun intended), but I'm not a fan of APS-C cameras with 10 megapixels.

8 is more then enough, IMHO, if you REALLY need more (landscapes, extra-large prints), why not look at the full-frame cameras (Canon EOS 5D springs to mind - it is THE ultimate low-light DSLR in my opinion, plus it's hard to beat in terms of real resolution). Or, good'ol medium format.

[Orbitcorbett @ May 17th 2007 5:24PM]

I didn't say that IS made you shoot at faster speeds. You can just handhold a camera with a slower shutter speed in darker conditions than you can without it. This also allows you to use a lower ISO, so your pics aren't as grainy.

The advantage the Pentax and the Sony have over the "big dogs" is this built-in stabilization. Every lens you have, no matter how cheap, is stabilized. Like I said, you have to pay big bucks to get lenses that are stabilized from the other manufacturers.

[Dan @ May 17th 2007 3:20PM]

To think I bought my A100 just a couple months ago, and Sony now has some obviously great new cameras coming soon to drool over. Sony DSLR's passed all my expectations, and have been impressed with it, moreso then the Rebel XTI and D40/50/70 which it was closely priced to compete with.

[Stephan @ May 17th 2007 4:09PM]

Why not just use the Pentax K10D if you really want image stabilization? That also has the added bonus of weather resistance, so if it starts to rain on the brides day at least you can sanp a pic of her crying.

[Orbitcorbett @ May 17th 2007 5:24PM]

That's a good point, but I was already invested in lenses and Minolta 5D body (the Alpha predecessor) before the Pentax came out with the 10D. Otherwise, I might have leaned that way. The Sony was a good progression for me. And, thankfully, I haven't had to shoot much in the rain. But, the Pentax is sweet, no doubt.

[sixty9 @ May 17th 2007 5:53PM]

Canon and nikon don't offer stabilization on primes. I have the old minolta 7D, but with the combination of that and my 35/1.4 lens, i have an unbeatable low-light monster. I also enjoy having stabilized macro and portrait lenses which i end up having with my 100mm macro and 85/1.4.

[Chris K. @ May 17th 2007 5:54PM]

I almost bought a D80, but with the image stabilization, the fact the D80 has the same Sony CCD as the Alpha, and the fact that is was so much cheaper than the D80, it was a no brainer for me. And I don't regret it at all!

[NeoteriX @ May 17th 2007 5:59PM]

Oops, got cut off. While the D200 is a fine camera, it does not mean there is space in this market for other SLRs with redeeming qualities. The Sony brings many features to the table, and is worthy in its own right. No one cares about your selfish need to validate your purchase.

[tekdroid @ May 17th 2007 6:21PM]

If Konica-Minolta had this level of fanboyism before Sony essentially bought their IP and stuck their badge on it, I doubt they'd be in the position they're in :)

Credit where it's due of course, all are making decent DSLRs now. With Olympus about to introduce their in-body stabilised cam, too - so there should be even more incentive for Nikon & Co to move that way, IMO.

[nov @ May 17th 2007 6:33PM]

Try some research on pentax K10D. It's stabilization is working but Alpha's is waaaay more capable.
With pentax you barely get 1 stop vs at least 2.5 for apha. Please go to the store and test it yourself. It is much more superior than pentax.

Alpha with Zeiss 16-80 lens is the most potent DSLR in the sub $1800 range. Nikon and Canon has nothing to come even close. 16-80 is measured the sharpes zoom ever produced!

[Castle @ May 17th 2007 9:58PM]

According to Asahi Camera Magazine, one of Japan's leading photography magazines; the flag-ship Sony DSLR will have a "full-frame" 35mm sensor with over 16 megapixels.

[Castle @ May 17th 2007 10:00PM]

The final product should be announced at Photokina in Aug rather then Seoul. However, Sony has been showing the camera off to certain publications.

[Mike V @ May 17th 2007 11:36PM]

Huh?

Canon have heaps of IS primes.

[Doug F @ May 18th 2007 12:05AM]

Nikon users must be nervous. Sony can now bring out chips in their own camera first, and seeing how their mission is to reach number two in the DSLR world, I would imagine competition will get tight over the next few years. All the DSLRs out right now look pretty sweet, so consumers rejoice! Personally, I love the look of the Sony Flagship, and if the rumors are true about a mythic full-frame sensor WITH image stabilization, then sign me up. I can't wait to slap a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 on it.


p.s. what "heap" of Canon stabilized primes are you talking about??

[Chris @ May 18th 2007 12:24AM]

First, Canon's got quite a few fixed IS lenses, a 28 and a 50 come to mind. I'm sure there are more.

Second, while you might get IS in the body, neither the Pentax or the Sony offer the low-noise capability of the Canon or Nikon, so it's probably a wash. I can push the ISO my XTi up and hand hold it just fine w/o an IS lense and be perfectly happy w/ the image quality. Add an IS lense and push the ISO and the Sony or the Pentax just isn't gonna keep up.

Unless one of these new Sony's really jumps forward quality wise, you also have nowhere to go w/ the Sony (yet, maybe later) or the lense collection you have or build from scrath. I always know that I can upgrade to a much better Canon body w/ a 30D or the upcoming 40D, same goes for Nikon owners.

No thanks, I'll keep my XTi.

[chych @ May 18th 2007 2:19AM]

Yeah, Canon has no IS'd 28 and 50 primes. And mind you, the A100 can out-resolve the XTi in extinct resolution (see dpreview tests). It's a tradeoff, want more noise reduction? Lose some resolution. NR can always be applied in post processing too, with better algorithms.

[Chris @ May 18th 2007 9:20AM]

Sorry guys, my goof there, got caught up in my thinking process about the noise issue and got mixed up. I meant USM, not IS, which I know is totally irrelevant and completely stupid on my part, just a total brain shutdown there. Correct, no IS lenses in that range, but as mentioned there are IS primes at the upper end.

Anyway. I will have to disagree on the noise reduction issue, or at least from the standpoint that I'd be willing to give up what the Canon or Nikon do in this area in exchange for an Alpha w/ IS in the body. Why, as an amateur/photo-hobbyist, would I want the extra work of dealing with noise in post processing if I don't have to...when I can get a perfectly good image (from a noise standpoint) with little to no post-processing.

Again, no thanks. Just my .02.

Sorry about the IS/USM confusion, just wasn't thinking clearly at the time.

Chris

[Legacys7 @ May 18th 2007 10:34PM]

So what. Remember it is Sony who makes the chips for Nikon. So it's not difficult for Sony to make a good ccd chip. Sony realize that this is their basic camera and there was no need to go crazy on the camera.

It's obvious that Sony can mnake good ccd chips. My Minolta 7D is on the par with the 20D as far as little noise wise. And let's not forget thier ccd chip in Nikon.

Sony has the ability to do what Canon can do and more, now that they are making their own cameras now. Bottomline, you under estimate Sony. You Canon geeks read as bad as the MAC users.

[Linda @ May 19th 2007 3:11AM]

Just for the record, Canon has numerous primes Image Stabilized. 300 2.8IS, 300f4 IS, 400 f4 Do IS, 500 f4 IS, and a few more.

No one else has anything even close to these long lenses quality. I love Sony, and if they can come up with anything close for wildlife you can count me in. Gotta be longer than 300mm. Hope the sony reps take notice and run with it!

[ronin @ May 18th 2007 1:24AM]

Um, Chris, what are you talking about? Canon doesn't have a 28 or 50 IS prime. Their IS primes are all 300mm+ because it's usually in those long ranges that you really need IS for. While IS for anything less than 100mm is nice, it's not absolutely necessary. I'd rather have a fast lens at those lengths. The nice thing about the Canon in-lens IS is that at the longer ranges (200+) where I prefer to have it, you can see its effect through the viewfinder which helps with more accurate focusing. In-body IS doesn't help stabilize your view while you're shooting.

[Marc @ May 18th 2007 2:04AM]

Just wait for the new bodies and improved specs ... don't be surprised when the high ISO quality overtakes the competition ... and I'll feel for other brands when Sony's marketing machine kicks in high gear ...
I've never seen Minolta full window displays in Taipei before, but now Sony is gearing up and already photo stores are filling whole windows with only Sony, and they just have one body at the moment. Sony is going to be seen ... and bought ...

[Raygun @ May 18th 2007 7:17AM]

Not quite so, Canon makes great CMOS sensors, and as for the differences in resolution - I'd attribute those to stronger AA-filter in the Canons (which has it's upsides and downsides - MUCH lower risk of moire at the expense of some loss of sharpness)

Take a look at these crops (Sony Alpha A-100, Nikon D80, Canon 400D @ ISO 1600) -
http://videomax.ru/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25875

I'd go with 400d if i had to choose between these three (but I'm much happier with my 20D anyway :) )

[C J Goh @ May 18th 2007 3:48AM]

Ok, passed the initial shock and horror of discovering that Minolta wrapped up its camera division and sold it to SONY, and after I have gone and frantically purchased the Alpha A100 just to keep my existing 7 Minolta mount lenses relevant and useful, I must say I am now really glad I took the blind plunge into SONY's DSLRs. To me it feels like a Minolta, functions and layout of buttons and dials are similar, but its performance has taken quite a big leap!

I used to be skeptical about Digital Photography as I began my earlier years with film (as did many others), but the Alpha A100 proved my doubts unfounded!

I have never felt so liberated!

[Joel @ May 18th 2007 5:16AM]

The reason KM had to sell out is because they did not aggressivley market their cameras like Nikon and Canon do. This is not to say that the latter brands are bad. It just goes to the point that advertising can convince people of anything. I have looked at photos from people shot with lower than 6.o mpxl point and shoot Kodak crap that still look good. This whole Nikon and Canon against the world is stupid argument and its annoying.

[Raygun @ May 18th 2007 7:15AM]

Or, better yet, upgrade to Canon EOS 5D, now THAT'S an unbeatable low-light monster ;)

[BH @ May 18th 2007 7:52AM]

I'm sure the specs will be high enough to again force Canon and Nikon to up their end as well. The A100 forced both companies to 'kick it up a notch' at the 'entry level' end.

You may smile when you look at your d200 but I smile whenever I have to change a setting.

IS is IS no matter the lens or cam but I'll take mine built into the cam. All the lenses with it do different is make a boatload of money for the manufacturer. I have 22 year old lenses which now have IS capability. Instant upgrade.

Once you add the Grip those become some very hot looking cameras. And you KNOW that pentaprism viewfinder in the high end model is going to be good.

[Chris @ May 18th 2007 9:32AM]

Another thought I had as I was thinking about IS bodies, and some Alpha/K10D folks can chime in here if I'm incorrect. While it might be nice to have IS on all lenses as a result, it only really helps 1 of the 2 major issues IS technology is suppose to resolve.

1. Hand holding shots in lower light. Either body or lense based IS benefits here.

2. Image stabilization on long zoom/telephoto. Only lense based IS benefits here, unless I'm mistaken about how IS works on the Alpha/K10D. You guys don't get the benefit of IS to compose your shot, because it's not thru the lense, it's built into the image sensor, which occurs after the mirror is up.

Anyway, just another thought I have. Depends on what you really need IS for. If it's for composing those far away shots w/ a long lense that makes your framing jump all over creation, then the body based IS is not as useful.

Chris

[Travis @ May 18th 2007 10:04AM]

What I'd love to see beyond the IS and CCD size is live preview on an articulated LCD display. Candids can be so natural when attention isn't drawn to the picture taking process. The niche with tilt-and-swivel LCD displays on prosumer cameras has been largely neglected. I hope it cycles back.

[Orbitcorbett @ May 18th 2007 10:20AM]

Well yeah, the Canon 5D is a sweet camera, and packs plenty of street cred, but my God, it's nearly $4000 for the body. Let's talk apples to apples here people!

The only Alpha available now is the current one. These new Alphas will be awesome, and will be more expensive (wish I knew how much), but my guess is it won't be anywhere nere $4K. Yeah, if money is no object, you can have what you want. But if you're a wedding shooter like me, and you'd rather carry $5k in equipment around instead of $10K (I banked the other 5K), then your best bang for the buck will be with something like the Sony. I assure you, your clients won't know the difference, full frame or not. I've NEVER had a client ask me what camera I shoot with, or anything technical about my equipment. My pics speak for themselves.

[Raygun @ May 18th 2007 2:13PM]

Well, I wouldn't like to get into the endless "photographers make pictures, not cameras" Rockwellesque-style argument, it's just that your sensor matters, too. Clean ISO 1600 is a GREAT feature, I'd rather have this, not the stabilizer.

And last time I checked, 5D was something like 2700-2800, not 4k.

P.S. Good luck to Sony, I wish they bring the competition to the full-frame market.

[ronin @ May 18th 2007 11:50AM]

$4k for a 5D? Maybe when it first came out. It's down to a more manageable $2.5k now. ;-p

[Orbitcorbett @ May 18th 2007 12:02PM]

Sorry, I was thinking of the 1D MkII N, which B&H has for about $3400. Heck, the 1DS MkII is 7 grand, though, if you wanted the creme de la creme. The Alpha is a $700 camera.

[Raygun @ May 18th 2007 2:13PM]

Yes, but the loud clunk of the mirror/shutter will give you away instantly ;)

[Joel @ May 20th 2007 12:01AM]

SAL-500F80 - 500mm f/8 Reflex Super Telephoto 500F8.0
Get ideal results for field work on wilderness and nature assignments with the SAL-500F80. To reduce blur, this lens takes advantage of Sony’s Super SteadyShot® image stabilization system.

No time to type but thats a 500 mm lens.

[conradoh @ May 22nd 2007 12:31AM]

Looking at the new pro prototype Sony Alpha. Sony has lost the charm by taking out the selector control Knob which makes it the friendliest user camera in the market,if some new changes should be implemented would be on the ergonomic of the triggering finger,it should be more like the vertical grip on the Maxxum 7 or the old Exacta if any one can remember such a great camera

[kombizz @ Jun 11th 2007 10:19AM]

Wish we could have few specifications of these new cameras.
sigh

[Rod Adams @ Jun 25th 2007 9:15AM]

I've owned Nikons since 1967. I bought the Sony A100 a few months ago and have shot a good 6000 plus shots. I love it!!! So long Nikon. it's been fun and expensive!

[Devin @ Aug 31st 2007 10:57AM]

You shouldn't envy your camera because of a brand. Remember Sony's R&D department has more than 10 times the capital as Canon and Nikon even though I love all those companies, at this point it seems every one's opinion is branding. Let the camera's speak for themselves. imaging analysis for the printing industry on camera's in the 10.1 MP range from the leaders its been proven the color. When people fight back or try to cut the product down its because they know that they aren't the only big players. Today's technology...its what the camera can do, not who the company is, of course they all do a great job. Let's not be childish about the new guy who has turned industry leaders upside down.

[MKFAGAN @ Apr 8th 2008 11:37PM]

He is mad because he has a sony sensor in his sonikon d200 he wishes he would have invested in sony instead because now he can buy his second hand parts with his new cameras that sony decides to sell to nikon

[sony-alpha @ Jun 16th 2008 10:09PM]

Great success for Sony Alpha .
http://www.sony-alpha.org