Sony Alpha A3000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    <http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000>

    So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the first mirrorless
    camera in a DSLR house (with interchangeable lenses)?

    As far as I can work out, they made this for two reasons - body image
    stabilisation and perceived camera quality. I.e. this is just your
    normal mirrorless compact camera in a big body, so I'm guessing they're
    counting on people imagining that a DSLR body equals DSLR quality? Just
    a bit strange to me. It's like taking the hardware of a laptop and stick
    it in a desktop computer trying to fool people they are buying desktop
    class performance.

    And is the EVF up to the task really? The number one complaint I have
    with mirrorless cameras is the horribly slow autofocus. It's ok on a
    small compact camera because you trade off AF for mobility, but if you
    have a huge DSLR in your hand you sort of expect desktop class
    performance and when you get laptop performance, well...


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 27, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    Bowser wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:25:28 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    >> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000>
    >>
    >> So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the first mirrorless
    >> camera in a DSLR house (with interchangeable lenses)?
    >>
    >> As far as I can work out, they made this for two reasons - body image
    >> stabilisation and perceived camera quality. I.e. this is just your
    >> normal mirrorless compact camera in a big body, so I'm guessing they're
    >> counting on people imagining that a DSLR body equals DSLR quality? Just
    >> a bit strange to me. It's like taking the hardware of a laptop and stick
    >> it in a desktop computer trying to fool people they are buying desktop
    >> class performance.
    >>
    >> And is the EVF up to the task really? The number one complaint I have
    >> with mirrorless cameras is the horribly slow autofocus. It's ok on a
    >> small compact camera because you trade off AF for mobility, but if you
    >> have a huge DSLR in your hand you sort of expect desktop class
    >> performance and when you get laptop performance, well...

    >
    > This is a beautiful combination of genius and moron. Genius by the
    > marketeers and morons who will buy it. Unreal, isn't it? Wrap a NEX
    > body in black duct tape, label it "Alpha," and away you go.
    >
    > Pardon me while I puke.
    >

    Hi,

    How about the Hassleblad Lunar, which is a small Sony body in sheep's
    clothing and at an extremely high price. They are milking the 1969 lunar
    landing thing for all it's worth.

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Aug 27, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:25:28 AM UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
    > <http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000>
    >
    >
    >
    > So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the first mirrorless
    >
    > camera in a DSLR house (with interchangeable lenses)?
    >
    >
    >
    > As far as I can work out, they made this for two reasons - body image
    >
    > stabilisation and perceived camera quality. I.e. this is just your
    >
    > normal mirrorless compact camera in a big body, so I'm guessing they're
    >
    > counting on people imagining that a DSLR body equals DSLR quality? Just
    >
    > a bit strange to me. It's like taking the hardware of a laptop and stick
    >
    > it in a desktop computer trying to fool people they are buying desktop
    >
    > class performance.
    >
    >
    >
    > And is the EVF up to the task really? The number one complaint I have
    >
    > with mirrorless cameras is the horribly slow autofocus. It's ok on a
    >
    > small compact camera because you trade off AF for mobility, but if you
    >
    > have a huge DSLR in your hand you sort of expect desktop class
    >
    > performance and when you get laptop performance, well...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Sandman[.net]


    If by DSLR house you mean same registration distance and DSLR-like body, then no, the Pentax K-01 was first. But the Sony's specs make it a P.O.S. A 1/2" viewfinder and a 230k LCD?? Is it 2005 again?
    RichA, Aug 28, 2013
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    On 27 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Alan Browne wrote:

    > One website (also bewildered) at least put out the point that those
    > who would buy such a camera will likely get a high ratio zoom and
    > that will be the only lens the camera will ever see.


    I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw the
    pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000 with an 18-
    135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an 18-200, and noted that
    he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So it's not just the lower end of
    the market.

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
    Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
    Joe Makowiec, Aug 28, 2013
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Bowser <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:25:28 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    > ><http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000>
    > >
    > >So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the first mirrorless
    > >camera in a DSLR house (with interchangeable lenses)?
    > >
    > >As far as I can work out, they made this for two reasons - body image
    > >stabilisation and perceived camera quality. I.e. this is just your
    > >normal mirrorless compact camera in a big body, so I'm guessing they're
    > >counting on people imagining that a DSLR body equals DSLR quality? Just
    > >a bit strange to me. It's like taking the hardware of a laptop and stick
    > >it in a desktop computer trying to fool people they are buying desktop
    > >class performance.
    > >
    > >And is the EVF up to the task really? The number one complaint I have
    > >with mirrorless cameras is the horribly slow autofocus. It's ok on a
    > >small compact camera because you trade off AF for mobility, but if you
    > >have a huge DSLR in your hand you sort of expect desktop class
    > >performance and when you get laptop performance, well...

    >
    > This is a beautiful combination of genius and moron. Genius by the
    > marketeers and morons who will buy it. Unreal, isn't it? Wrap a NEX
    > body in black duct tape, label it "Alpha," and away you go.
    >
    > Pardon me while I puke.


    Also, put E lenses on it instead of A lenses... Huh?


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <XnsA229D2E14B9CDmakowiecatnycapdotrE@78.46.70.116>,
    Joe Makowiec <> wrote:

    > On 27 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    > > One website (also bewildered) at least put out the point that those
    > > who would buy such a camera will likely get a high ratio zoom and
    > > that will be the only lens the camera will ever see.

    >
    > I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw the
    > pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000 with an 18-
    > 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an 18-200, and noted that
    > he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So it's not just the lower end of
    > the market.


    Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
    level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
    about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
    most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.

    The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
    purpose.

    I find that people with D7000 (or other midrange Nikons, like
    D70/D80/D90) are more likely to carry along a second lens.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #6
  7. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:

    <nmip>
    >
    > Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
    > level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
    > about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
    > most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
    >
    > The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
    > purpose.
    >


    I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
    walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    was good for snapshots.





    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #7
  8. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 1:36 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:25:28 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/sony-alpha-a3000>
    >>>
    >>> So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the first mirrorless
    >>> camera in a DSLR house (with interchangeable lenses)?
    >>>
    >>> As far as I can work out, they made this for two reasons - body image
    >>> stabilisation and perceived camera quality. I.e. this is just your
    >>> normal mirrorless compact camera in a big body, so I'm guessing they're
    >>> counting on people imagining that a DSLR body equals DSLR quality? Just
    >>> a bit strange to me. It's like taking the hardware of a laptop and stick
    >>> it in a desktop computer trying to fool people they are buying desktop
    >>> class performance.
    >>>
    >>> And is the EVF up to the task really? The number one complaint I have
    >>> with mirrorless cameras is the horribly slow autofocus. It's ok on a
    >>> small compact camera because you trade off AF for mobility, but if you
    >>> have a huge DSLR in your hand you sort of expect desktop class
    >>> performance and when you get laptop performance, well...

    >>
    >> This is a beautiful combination of genius and moron. Genius by the
    >> marketeers and morons who will buy it. Unreal, isn't it? Wrap a NEX
    >> body in black duct tape, label it "Alpha," and away you go.
    >>
    >> Pardon me while I puke.

    >
    > Also, put E lenses on it instead of A lenses... Huh?
    >
    >


    I have a Nikon E lens. (The 75-159.) It is nice and sharp, with good
    contrast. The build quality sucks.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >
    > <nmip>
    > >
    > > Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
    > > level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
    > > about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
    > > most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
    > >
    > > The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
    > > purpose.
    > >

    >
    > I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    > standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    > closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
    > walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    > was good for snapshots.


    Huh, for a zoom lens I found it really sharp compared to the competition
    from Sigma and Tamron. Obviously there are tons of sharper lenses out
    there, but for a DX 18-200 lens it was plenty sharp for the versatility
    you get with it.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #9
  10. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    > standard,


    you must have had a dud or you didn't focus properly.

    > For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    > closer to a 175.


    all internal focusing lenses work that way. nothing unique about the
    18-200, and it's actually more like 100mm.

    do you own a 70-200? it too is not a real 200mm at close range.

    > The lens had very low contrast.


    more evidence yours was a dud, but regardless, that's easily fixed in
    post.

    > I used it solely as a
    > walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    > was good for snapshots.


    that's what it's designed for.

    if you want top quality, get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for roughly
    10x the price of the 18-200, plus an assistant to carry it all.
    nospam, Aug 28, 2013
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 28/08/2013 12:37, Sandman a écrit :
    > In article <>,
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>
    >> <nmip>
    >>>
    >>> Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
    >>> level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
    >>> about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
    >>> most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
    >>>
    >>> The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
    >>> purpose.


    >> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    >> standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    >> closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
    >> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    >> was good for snapshots.

    >
    > Huh, for a zoom lens I found it really sharp compared to the competition
    > from Sigma and Tamron. Obviously there are tons of sharper lenses out
    > there, but for a DX 18-200 lens it was plenty sharp for the versatility
    > you get with it.


    I used to have a D90 with a 18-200. I was delighted with it.
    Now I have a D7000 with a 18-300. I do everything with it.
    I'm delighted. I'll never buy another lens, that's my philosophy.
    I think its performance is quite sufficient.
    Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
    18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d7000_00419-001_1.jpg
    300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg
    (Château de Chantilly, France).
    Note : the distortion corrections were off.
    And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
    (Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 28, 2013
    #11
  12. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <kvkt7f$tgn$>,
    Ghost-Rider <> wrote:

    > I used to have a D90 with a 18-200. I was delighted with it.
    > Now I have a D7000 with a 18-300. I do everything with it.
    > I'm delighted. I'll never buy another lens, that's my philosophy.
    > I think its performance is quite sufficient.


    Well, the 18-300 is less sharp than the 18-200 over the entire range,
    but especially when zoomed in. It holds up the edges better in wide, but
    that's all.

    > Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
    > 18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    > http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d7000_00419-001_1.jpg
    > 300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    > http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg


    Well, it's hard to judge sharpness on resized images :)

    But both the 18-200 and 18-300 need help with the contrast really.

    > Note : the distortion corrections were off.
    > And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
    > http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
    > (Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)


    Well, with f22 it's easier to be sharp in the center. I usually judge a
    lens sharpness when it's wide open. I liked this shot though. :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 28/08/2013 15:37, Sandman a écrit :
    > In article <kvkt7f$tgn$>,
    > Ghost-Rider <> wrote:


    > Well, the 18-300 is less sharp than the 18-200 over the entire range,
    > but especially when zoomed in. It holds up the edges better in wide, but
    > that's all.


    Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the settings but I don't really care, I
    just sharpen a bit more if need be, the 18-300 supports it well.
    >
    >> Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
    >> 18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    >> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d7000_00419-001_1.jpg
    >> 300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
    >> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg

    >
    > Well, it's hard to judge sharpness on resized images :)


    True, and I sharpened them too, so here are the naked originals :
    http://minus.com/lIh1EAMfGnaq2
    http://minus.com/lbqHxxBFHHqntF
    http://minus.com/lbhIkVjfnFn7EY
    Put your mouse in the top-right corner to download the original.

    > But both the 18-200 and 18-300 need help with the contrast really.


    That is true, unless I use a scene mode. In that case, the photos are
    really flashy.
    >
    >> Note : the distortion corrections were off.
    >> And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
    >> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
    >> (Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)

    >
    > Well, with f22 it's easier to be sharp in the center. I usually judge a
    > lens sharpness when it's wide open. I liked this shot though. :)


    I usually stay at f16 because of diffraction, but that depends on the light.
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 28, 2013
    #13
  14. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 6:37 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>
    >> <nmip>
    >>>
    >>> Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
    >>> level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
    >>> about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
    >>> most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
    >>>
    >>> The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
    >>> purpose.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    >> standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    >> closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
    >> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    >> was good for snapshots.

    >
    > Huh, for a zoom lens I found it really sharp compared to the competition
    > from Sigma and Tamron. Obviously there are tons of sharper lenses out
    > there, but for a DX 18-200 lens it was plenty sharp for the versatility
    > you get with it.
    >
    >


    Happy you are satisfied with yours.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #14
  15. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 9:01 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
    >> standard,

    >
    > you must have had a dud or you didn't focus properly.
    >
    >> For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
    >> closer to a 175.

    >
    > all internal focusing lenses work that way. nothing unique about the
    > 18-200, and it's actually more like 100mm.
    >
    > do you own a 70-200? it too is not a real 200mm at close range.
    >
    >> The lens had very low contrast.

    >
    > more evidence yours was a dud, but regardless, that's easily fixed in
    > post.


    Nikon repair worked on th elens, and it still did not satisfy my needs.
    If others are happy with it, I'm happy for them.

    >
    >> I used it solely as a
    >> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
    >> was good for snapshots.

    >
    > that's what it's designed for.
    >
    > if you want top quality, get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for roughly
    > 10x the price of the 18-200, plus an assistant to carry it all.
    >


    You have your requirements and opinion, I have mine. Glad it works for
    you. I have the 70-200, 80-400 (new version,), 16-35, plus a bunch of
    others, that I do not need to list. For a walk around lens I use my 28-300.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #15
  16. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 28/08/2013 14:01, nospam wrote:
    []
    > if you want top quality, get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for roughly
    > 10x the price of the 18-200, plus an assistant to carry it all.


    Quite! Not everyone's needs are the same, and different folk make
    different compromises. I am often in situations where there is not the
    time to change lenses, so an image with the slightly poorer results from
    the 18-200 (although still more than adequate for my needs) are better
    than /no/ results from having to change lenses. Getting the lens set
    mentioned would simply be over the top for me.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 29, 2013
    #16
  17. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <280820130901002666%>,
    nospam <> wrote:

    > if you want top quality, get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for roughly
    > 10x the price of the 18-200, plus an assistant to carry it all.


    Well, my Lowepro Fastpack 350 packs all of them along with my 50/1.4 and
    a D4 with GPS unit on as well. And room to spare. Plus, it's not that
    heavy anyway.

    A bit more cumbersome than a 18-200, of course, but still :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 29, 2013
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    <> wrote:
    : On 27 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Alan Browne wrote:
    :
    : > One website (also bewildered) at least put out the point that those
    : > who would buy such a camera will likely get a high ratio zoom and
    : > that will be the only lens the camera will ever see.
    :
    : I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw the
    : pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000 with an 18-
    : 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an 18-200, and noted that
    : he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So it's not just the lower end of
    : the market.

    Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that a bit
    redundant?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 31, 2013
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:

    > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    > <> wrote:
    >: I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw
    >: the pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000
    >: with an 18- 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an
    >: 18-200, and noted that he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So
    >: it's not just the lower end of the market.
    >
    > Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that
    > a bit redundant?


    Not if one is my wife's...

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
    Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
    Joe Makowiec, Aug 31, 2013
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:38:33 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    <> wrote:
    : On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    : > <> wrote:
    : >: I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw
    : >: the pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000
    : >: with an 18- 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an
    : >: 18-200, and noted that he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So
    : >: it's not just the lower end of the market.
    : >
    : > Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that
    : > a bit redundant?
    :
    : Not if one is my wife's...

    I totally get it. My wife refuses to consider an upgrade from her Rebel T2i,
    because anything newer and better is heavier. I think her 17-55 f/2.8
    walkaround lens may be heavier than the camera.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 1, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Digital Photography Now

    Sony Alpha 100 image samples to compare noise

    Digital Photography Now, Jun 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    377
    Digital Photography Now
    Jun 12, 2006
  2. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Sony Alpha DSLR-A100K rated 7.5/10 on CNET

    newcamz.blogspot.com, Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    376
    Fred McKenzie
    Jul 29, 2006
  3. deryck  lant

    Sony Alpha DSLR A100 full dpreview

    deryck lant, Aug 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    498
    John Turco
    Aug 4, 2006
  4. Larry

    Sony Alpha and Apple Aperture?

    Larry, Aug 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    388
    Shawn Hirn
    Aug 23, 2006
  5. bmoag

    Sony Alpha

    bmoag, Sep 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    357
    Neil Ellwood
    Oct 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page