We've been hearing vague murmurs of revised Sony Alpha DSLRs all week, but now we've got some actual proof: these shots of the new Alpha 230, 330, and 380 went up briefly on Sony's Russian website earlier today. The biggest improvements seem to be smaller cases, a revised interface, and HDMI out, but there's also a new "handbook" to help new users get started and a Bravia control mode that allows the camera to be controlled by your TVs remote while it's displaying pictures. A nice enough upgrade, but unless these are somehow super cheap we'd say the omission of a video mode is going keep most people focused on the
Nikon D5000 and
Canon T1i. Bigger screenshot with the full feature list at the read link.
[Via
Photo Rumors]
posted May 9th 2009 2:37PM
Cool! I've been waiting for the next round of Alphas before making the plunge.
Translation: I got brainwashed by Canikon and totally thought Pentax and Olympus are making refridgerators
I still am an original owner of the A100, and have always been happy with my SLR. I was hoping the next round of SLR's would introduce a new version of the a700 series, I've wanted to upgrade for awhile but never took the plunge.
The fact that they're not a Nikon or Canon would be enough to keep me away. Picture quality and camera body might be equal but when the glass attached to the camera matters most... well I rather stick to systems that have years of quality used lenses available or much more complete communities.
Quality glass? You have 20 years of quality glass you can throw on them; the Alpha's are compatible with all Minolta AF glass. Not to mention that Sony is the only company that can provide a stabilized 85mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.4..
True but the market is still not as large and is not growing at the same levels.
" Picture quality and camera body might be equal but when the glass attached to the camera matters most... well I rather stick to systems that have years of quality used lenses available or much more complete communities."
Sony took over Minolta's camera division, including their Alpha lens mount. So us Sony DSLR owners have the huge range of excellent Minolta used glass available for use. Not only this, but Carl Zeiss is designing some great lenses for the system - I think their up to 6 now.
Best of all - ALL LENSES - PRIMES INCLUDED - ARE STABILIZED.
Really, it's a great system. And after getting feedback from a coworker with a Nikon D90, I wouldn't count on good video from a camcorder, yet. He reported lots of jello wobbles when the camera moves even a small amount.
Also the zeiss lenses are the best in class for MTF ratings and overall IQ. The 70-200/2.8G from sony is also the best in it's class. Sony has the best standard lenses of all the companies.
Sony can use lenses from the first autofocus minolta, which was a couple of years before Canon came with their EF mount. And their lenses from that time are dog slow, the Minolta lenses on the other hand rely on the camera motor which have improved a lot, thus making the old lenses faster to focus. And the number of lenses and the quality of them are, unless you're extremly rich, nothing to complain about.
Take what you said back, and apologize...
The list of modern alpha glass is UNBELIEVABLY EXTENSIVE... The list of old minolta glass is UNBELIEVABLY EXTENSIVE... Try judging cameras based on their actual merits, and not something you pulled out of your butt.
Sony has the worst lens selection of them all. They haven't even got a good DT standard zoom. The Zeiss 16-80 sucks, so does the 18-70 kitlens, and so does the 18-105.* Also, they are all slooow.
The only outstanding, hands-down _awesome_, is the STF. And that is a Minolta design.
Did i mention that alpha users who don't have an A900 don't have decent UWA options (11-18 sucks)?
Sony's ass is saved by Sigma and Tamron.
Even Olympus, a much smaller company that had to build a lens selection from scratch now has a more cohesive lineup. And it is getting better since there are 4 prime lenses coming.
*check photozone.de
@bluecold. If you read the review of the zeiss 16-80 they say its a desirable lens. And for kit lens, they are all not that good. So what you are saying is that because they have amateur kit lenses their glass sucks? What you listed is no where near the top lens designs but mere kit lenses.....
Don't be stupid by only reading the conclusion. The 16-80 has issues with CA, vignetting and distortions. And kit lenses don't have to be woeful. Olympus has shown that. And the new kit lenses from Canon, Nikon and Pentax are also way ahead of Sony's offerings.
This SLR battle is getting pretty good!
What drives me crazy about Sony cameras is the Sony memory stick and the proprietary flash hot shoe. I refuse to but a Sony camera because of this.
Sony cameras use Compactflash and optionally memory stick, and their flash foot are the one Minolta developed, which is an ISO standard. This foot have been used for twenty years now.
Sony DSLRs (at least all the ones released so far) have slots both for Compact Flash and Memory Stick. I have an A900, and I hope they release a firmware update that enables writing of RAW to the CF slot, and jpg to the MS slot. This be great for making sure memory failure doesn't destroy a critical revenue-generating photo shoot.
Regarding the proprietary flash hot shoe, yes, it can be a pain - I'm ordering some $16 adaptors today so I can mount my Sony flashes to standard lighting rigs.
But remember that they redesigned it for a good reason: it locks into place, requiring a button push to unlock. The traditional hotshoe design is prone to the flash slipping out, so many rigs have to use thumbscrews to tighten up the connection.
1. Every camera manufacturer has a proprietary flash mount... canon, nikon, sony(minolta), pentax, etc... It sucks, but this is not the time to bash Sony...
2. This sony uses a CF cards, which are even less proprietary than an SD cards...
although your general frustrations with sony are substantiated, THERE'S NO NEED TO SPREAD YOUR PARANOIA ONTO EVERY SONY PRODUCT... find out first...
It should also be noted that Sony supplies sensors and image processors to Nikon. The sensor in the D90, D5000, and D300 are derived from the Sony IMX-21 sensor( and its variants) that originates in the A700. Even the full-frame sensor in the $8,000 D3x is from Sony.
derived from this:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/30/sonys-24-81-megapixel-cmos-sensor-going-pro-this-year/
Luke,
I'm not your father.
Your a f'ing disgrace.
-Darth V.
For me, movie mode is only a side story. The big question is image quality, and for a low light freak like me, how good is the ISO3200?
The size decrease is very welcome too, though lens size won't change.
"The new generation of cameras a high sensitivity (up to ISO 3200) coupled with high levels of noise."
Machine translation FTL. It actually says "high levels of noise reduction."
Yes, this news has to come up just when I had almost made a decision on which DSLR I'm gonna buy.
I'll just wait for these to come out, maybe current Alpha's will go down in price!
Such a pity, I was hoping for a sensor upgrade. I'm really not into video mode just yet, the tech has to mature, but the fact they didn't change the sensor for this batch is a disappointment.
Who wrote this article? Since when are smaller body and revised controls benefits? What kind of a knuclehead are you? Have you ever tried to use a Canon midget rebel, or a Nikonchina low end D-too-small?
I hope to God they didn't reduce the grip size of remove some the standard dial controls; that would make these models overpriced Point-and-Guess cameras.
Video on SLR? please. Lets focus on image quality and shutter speed please.
The "non-standard" comments are from typical Canikon fanbuttboys, same with the 'more lensez" whiners. Plenty of choices out there.
I really don't see how you can be a serious photographer and not have either a Canon or Nikon. Those really should be your only 2 choices. The only good thing about the other brands is they are there to keep Canon and Nikon on their toes and keep coming out with bigger and better things.
You know, if you are going to make such stupid comments, you could at least TRY to back them up with facts.
Of course, any "serious" photographer" will be using a good medium format back, and won't be playing with these 35mm kids toys.. but you knew that already, didn't you....
It's not the brand, it's what you do with it. How serious about photography is up to the photographer. Different tools allow you to do different things. That's like saying only serious mechanics use Snap-On tools, and anyone who uses anything else can't possibly be serious. Put down the Canikon cool-aide and open your eyes.
@dbayliss: I'd like to see a serious sports photography use a medium format camera.
@ehisforadam > "It's not the brand, it's what you do with it. Put down the Canikon cool-aide and open your eyes."
I agree that it's the photographer, and not the camera, that makes the difference... but there's gotta be some reason why more professionals use Canon and Nikon...
@ Michael Scrip
It might be because Sony just got into the DSLR game and people have been using Canon and Nikon for a long time and don't want to buy new glass.
@ Michael T >> "It might be because Sony just got into the DSLR game and people have been using Canon and Nikon for a long time and don't want to buy new glass."
If that's the case... can Sony ever catch up?
What about the years worth of Minolta glass that I'm always hearing so much about?
@ Michael Scrip
It will be interesting to see if Sony can ever catch up. I hope they do because competition is always a good thing. I think more people would be willing to adopt them if they lowered their prices a little bit. For example, their 70-200 f2.8 is priced significantly higher than the Canon/Nikon counterpart. I don't think they will be attracting a lot of business that way.
The years worth of Minolta glass is quite excellent, to be honest. I was thinking of buying a Canon myself, but got a steal with a Sony a350 and decided to go for that, thinking that glass is what's important. After all, it's usually the photographer's fault if the picture turns out to be bad, not the camera (at least most of the time). I haven't regretted my decision one bit.
Thanks for having a civil conversation with me on here. It's a nice change from all the rants and raves. I'd love to hear what your answers to your questions. =]
and so how much will they cost?
I'd take in body stabilisation over shoddy video any day. I've got a D90 and the video mode is basically useless unless you're slow panning at infinity focus. However, having something like VR for some of my older lenses would be a boon!
Medium format back's are for those who feel the need to make up for their small... members. Honestly, it doesn't matter what camera you have, it is the photographer. Any good photographer can take amazing pictures with these cameras, just as they could with a Canon or Nikon, or even a medium format back. The photographer is 99.9% of the picture.
Only studio photographers will be able to reliably use a medium format anyway, and that's only a small part of what photography is.
I just love the latitude on these things though, I admit.
I agree with you that there is an over-emphasis on equipment on equipment boards, but I don't think you're taking into account the needs of different types of professionals.
Studio photographers, shooting models or product shots, might actually need 22+ MP if their photos are going to be plastered all over Times Sqaure or Sogo or a highway billboard. No amount of skills is going to plaster a 15MP image all over the side of a skyscaper. They also need flash sync and goodness knows what. Action sports photographers might be able to get by with a Rebel + big L lens, but the faster continous mode on a D3 might just bring them that better pic and therefore thousands of dollars.
People should think of photogaphers only in terms of "MAD PHOTO SKILLZ." Many professionals do not have that artistic leeway because of their specific work requirements, but still need insane gear for insane moments. Don't diss them like that.
Hmmm, none of these cameras have anything new like video mode or a new must have feature. For instance:
ISO goes up to 3200, but has too many megapixels too be clean at that setting. Competing models at that price range can already do 6400 fairly well, plus Sony doesn't have the best track record with low noise.
Handbook mode is too simple "Macro: shoot closeups of small objects..." (well yeah, anyone with a compact digital could have told you that) and Nikon had this for over three years on all of the sub menus (question mark button), so not sure how deep Sony goes with its help. Basically it could be good if it's full menu help, otherwise a checksheet gimmick.
Dynamic Range optimiser, all cameras already have that including old Alpha's. Nothing new.
Creative Setup. Again, called Picture Modes or Scenes on other cameras, had been around since Canon 5D and Fuji S3 Pro. Nothing new.
New graphical interface, again, Nikon and Canon had detailed shooting info on back LCD for ages and Sony is breaking interface mold with older cameras (however I'm sure people will pick this up easily)
TV slideshow sync. Having your TV "... [provide you] with an even more vivid impression on the viewer..." Show everyone how wildly over-saturated your travel photos look on the big screen, then be disappointed when you print them. Again, HDMI out is not new on the cameras, plus new Nikon and Canons can also display your *videos* on the big HD screen.
Steady Shot: Kit lenses are already stabilized on Canon and Nikon which a vast majority of amateur users have. Pentax has this too, so again, not a Sony only feature.
Dust Cleaner: Nothing new, pretty much a necessary feature nowadays.
BIONZ (image processing): Nothing to suggest it's been upgraded so the jpgs will have same amount of noise as older models.
I'm sure the fanboys (fuck I hate that word...) will rate me down, but all I've done is looked at all the features from the link and commented on them individually. In conclusion, stick with a brand/model you already have and upgrade your lenses if you wish to spend money.
"ISO goes up to 3200, but has too many megapixels too be clean at that setting. "
It's too early to come to any conclusion on that front. Let the camera come out, see how both JPG does out of the camera (a legit Sony gripe) and how different converters handle the RAW files. (Adobe Camera Raw is notoriously bad for generating noisy images from Sony RAW.)
-----------
"Handbook mode is too simple "Macro: shoot closeups of small objects..." (well yeah, anyone with a compact digital could have told you that)"
Most everyone I know has a compact digital. One out of ten can tell you what Macro mode is. Of course, maybe another one out of ten owners will use this new help system, but it's a start...
-----------
"New graphical interface, again, Nikon and Canon had detailed shooting info on back LCD for ages and Sony is breaking interface mold with older cameras (however I'm sure people will pick this up easily)"
On my Minolta and Sony cameras, you can hit the "Menu" button to get different interface modes on the back. Let's see if the same holds true with this good-for-newbies feature.
-----------
"TV slideshow sync. Having your TV "... [provide you] with an even more vivid impression on the viewer..." Show everyone how wildly over-saturated your travel photos look on the big screen, then be disappointed when you print them.
Regarding oversaturation, I just enter the "Computer/Video Game mode" on my TV to take care of that. (It's an issue with Home Theater computers, too.)
-----------
"Again, HDMI out is not new on the cameras, plus new Nikon and Canons can also display your *videos* on the big HD screen. "
The Nikon D90 video I saw could have been marketed as WobbleVision. To be fair, I've seen cool footage generated by a Canon 5Dmk2.
-----------
"Steady Shot: Kit lenses are already stabilized on Canon and Nikon which a vast majority of amateur users have. Pentax has this too, so again, not a Sony only feature. "
The whole point of a DSLR is that you can add new lenses - including primes, which hardly ever come stabilized. Pentax, sadly, isn't the player that they used to be.
-----------
I'm not saying that Sony is the be-all and end-all - they have their things to work on, especially in their in-camera JPG code. And Canon & Nikon make great cameras too.
All I'm saying is don't knock these cameras until they actually come out, we see what the price is (a HUGE factor in the Wonderful New Economy), and what the image quality of these guys are.
Uh rated you down for being a douche, saying that fanboys will rate you down when no one would've done such a thing just because you criticized the release.
Also, you're really stretching with your critique of some the improvements. The new graphical interface is better than the older ones for new users. It makes it easier to remember and understand what adjusting aperture and shutter speed does. No one is saying that Nikon/Canon (or Sony) never had detailed info on the LCD. You completely missed the point there. Congrats.
So yes, these new releases are not worth an upgrade for most people, but they're just little improvements that will push new users towards buying a Sony DSLR over a Canon/Nikon one.
@ exponent
Yeah, I didn't want to use absolute terms because you're right - cameras are not out yet, and for all we know they could have the best image quality out of the entire crop of entry level cameras.
But image quality alone won't sell cameras theses days (as sad as it is), and the features Sony is offering in three new models is nothing spectacular, rather they are very 'me-too' feature sets. So I guess my original point was that in current economic climate, these new cams don't have the best bang for your buck ratio in contrast to Canon/Nikon variants. If you already have an Alpha, skip the upgrade (or get an A900 :)) and get some quality lenses instead.
As far as video goes, like it or hate it it's here to stay. I foresee every new camera in two years will have it, which is odd for Sony and their excellent Live View implementation to omit such a hot new feature (dSLR video is just a recording of Live View onto flash memory btw.)
@ jeez
"Uh rated you down for being a douche, saying that fanboys will rate you down when no one would've done such a thing just because you criticized the release."
You just did...
"Also, you're really stretching with your critique of some the improvements. The new graphical interface is better than the older ones for new users. It makes it easier to remember and understand what adjusting aperture and shutter speed does. No one is saying that Nikon/Canon (or Sony) never had detailed info on the LCD. You completely missed the point there. Congrats."
I was commenting on the link in the article. On the brochure it says "Superior Ease of Use" where it has info about the new display screen. This was already available on other cameras and older Sony models, so it's not a new feature just a refined version of something which already exists. Also I said it breaks away from older Sony cameras which could confuse new users (but said that it will be easily learned).
"So yes, these new releases are not worth an upgrade for most people, but they're just little improvements that will push new users towards buying a Sony DSLR over a Canon/Nikon one."
We both agree on that part. Little improvements, nothing else. It's up to the individual to decide whether the lack of some key features will nudge them towards Sony or other brands. Btw, good job on giving your argument credibility by calling me names...
About the comment regarding the sensors inside the newer Nikons being Sony censors, their actually Nikon designed, Sony produced. And if you ask anyone, the low-light capabilities and noise control between the D3x and the A900 are completely different stories (I said different, not whichever one is better. Go find out for yourself). Just wanted to clear that up. I'm not bashing on Sony, many people I know use Alphas and they love them. Shoot what you prefer; it's not the camera, it's you. Your photos are bad because you are bad. Haha.
@Skrying: Congratulations, you're an idiot. Ignorance is bliss eh.
hmm I guess they are "a little" pre-maturely ejaculated?
I have an A700 and I got it precisely because of the Minolta glass sitting around. Aside from the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 (possibly the best zoom I've ever used, and better than most primes) everything else I've gotten used. I don't think you could build a lineup like this for twice what I paid in Nikon/Canon glass:
Sigma 10mm f/2.8 fisheye $200.00
Sony 50mm f/1.4 $190.00
Minolta 70-210mm f/4 $150.00
Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G D $650.00
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro $210.00
Aside from the Macro these lenses stack up very nicely to the current crop of Canon/Nikon glass, with the legendary 70-210mm beating anything in the same price range. Add the phenomenal CZ 24-70mm and, frankly, I'm glad Sony is in third place right now. It means I can add a new, possibly interesting lens to my lineup for next to nothing every time I see a pawnshop.
I'm thinking... would there be as many bashing comments about those SLR's if they still carried the Minolta brand?