Sony Alpha A3000

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' 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, Aug 27, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    Bowser Guest

    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.
     
    Bowser, Aug 27, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    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
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's bewildering. E-mount, but call it an Alpha (A-mount).

    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.

    Still. Bewildering. Only from Sony.

    --
    "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
    illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media,
    which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
    to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
    -Unknown
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2013
    #4
  5. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    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
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Also, put E lenses on it instead of A lenses... Huh?
     
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #8
  9. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

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

    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #9
  10. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    I have a Nikon E lens. (The 75-159.) It is nice and sharp, with good
    contrast. The build quality sucks.
     
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #11
  12. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    you must have had a dud or you didn't focus properly.
    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.
    more evidence yours was a dud, but regardless, that's easily fixed in
    post.
    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.
     
    Guest, Aug 28, 2013
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 28/08/2013 12:37, Sandman a écrit :
    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
    #13
  14. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

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

    But both the 18-200 and 18-300 need help with the contrast really.
    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #14
  15. Sandman

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 28/08/2013 15:37, Sandman a écrit :
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 28, 2013
    #15
  16. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Happy you are satisfied with yours.
     
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #16
  17. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    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.
    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, Aug 28, 2013
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's a nice enough walk around solution, but a somewhat dull knife for
    most of the photography that I do.


    --
    "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
    illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media,
    which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
    to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
    -Unknown
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 29, 2013
    #18
  19. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 28/08/2013 14:01, nospam wrote:
    []
    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.
     
    David Taylor, Aug 29, 2013
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    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, Aug 29, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.