DSLR Photography Forum

I finally uploaded some test shots so I could pixel-peep what this camera is giving me.
So far I'm impressed.
Can't wait to really dig into a subject that interests me.

The noises and vibrations from the autofocus system and mirror-slap and sensor-dust-wiggle upset me every time because I'm not used to my cameras being anything but totally silent and inert.
I'm sure this will pass, and in fact mirror-slap is a sound and feel I now enjoy!

The speed of a DSLR is a bit staggering, from AF that's like lightning to almost zero shutter lag to the 3 frames per second I enjoy when shooting jpgs--it's almost too fast to believe possible but I'm not complaining.
My old camera was slow, but I never minded because I didn't shoot sports or anything else that absolutely needs the speed, but was that because I knew that I couldn't?
Maybe I'll try my hand at a few types of photography that I didn't explore before.

The cheap line of Sony lenses (made in China) are good enough from what I've seen.
I finally put my 55-200mm on the body today and really enjoyed the 300mm-e magnification combined with in-camera sensor-shift stabilisation.
Between the two lenses I have a range of 27-300mm-e compared to around 38-180mm-e, and using the longer one for shooting my bands means I can keep the aperture near F3.5 for less light lost.
While both lenses are F3.5-F5.6 and therefore much slower than my old Zeiss's F2-F2.8, iso up to 1600 compared to my old camera's much worse looking 400 should more than make up for this difference.
(I won't even mention the iso3200 setting. This won't be used unless it's the only way to get a shot of Bigfoot playing poker with Aliens).
I look forward to testing this on the weekend, and hope for a shutter speed that's somewhat higher than the 1/30 I was using before.
Although I really liked the effect of 1/30 in a lot of cases for time/motion, I welcome the ability to go faster if the situation calls for it instead of being stuck in the slow lane.

Lens sharpness is fine, although again I have to give my old Zeiss glass the win.
Same with bokeh, although Sony (and of course Zeiss as their lens partner) have higher priced lenses with special aperture blades that give you an almost perfectly round hole at larger aperture settings for really smooth and pleasing out of focus areas.

The totally non-standard Minolta hotshoe is a stupid move on Sony's part. Now I need a little adapter box between the camera and my flash or my wireless flash triggers.
But Sony inherited Minolta's excellent wireless optical flash system, so down the road I might switch from cheap manual flashes to their more intelligent gear.

The LCD is big and bright and tilts up or down, which is one of the main reasons I chose this camera.
I love it.

The optical viewfinder's specifications might scare people away, but it's really not that bad.

The menus are typical Sony--Excellent.

Live View is as-advertised, with autofocus being super fast and no mirror lockupdownup required.
It's just like using a digicam, only faster and better. The fact that they use a dedicated switch on the body means that Sony expects some people to use Live View almost exclusively.
As far as I know it's the best version of Live View to date as far as AF speed and simplicity for the user.
A smaller CCD sensor provides the Live feed so it doesn't look as good as a chimped exposure on the screen, but it's still very convenient sometimes.
Unfortunately it doesn't "Gain Up" on the LCD the way digicams do.
I really expected it to do this and am very disappointed, but it's only a minor thing especially if you're used to shooting at night with a non-Live View DSLR without a tilting LCD.

An interesting free item I received was a hardcover book that measures 8.5 by 12 inches and has over 140 pages. It's partly a Sony and Zeiss lens catalog but it goes much further with nicely printed photo galleries including examples with every lens offered plus easy to understand explanations of nearly every aspect of a DSLR's function and parts.
Very educational and well made.

So far, nothing about my new camera has really angered me and in fact there are pleasant and even astonishing surprises every time I try something new.
It hasn't taken me very long to get accustomed to button locations and functions, and I feel more comfortable every time I use it.
My plan is to take it slow and not try anything too crazy for the next few weeks, having learned many lessons from the hilarious discussion threads on other forums that begin like this:

"I decided to turn 'Pro' after getting published in a book that only cost me $175, and today bought my first DSLR so I can shoot a wedding in 3 days. What settings should I use? I've heard that off-camera flash is good, so I also want to use that in addition to shooting some HDR which looks cool. How does the flash connect to the camera? It's a 40 year old Vivitard flash my father in law sold me. RAW is better so I'll be using that, but should I get Photoshop or can I get by with Picture It or IrfanView for now? What is the aperture and why does it keep changing when I zoom? Shouldn't it stay at F22 where some guy said he used it for that picture I like?
Please help!!!"

A really detailed review Keith. I am glad you are enjoying the world of DSLR (so many buttons so little time). I am looking forward to your photos. Pavel

Thanks, Keith, I do really appreciate being able to read your impressions.

Any additional thoughts after having had a month to get used to the new camera?

Ditto...and if any personal thoughts/reflections change over the next week or so.

I still really like this camera.
The 0.74% magnification/92% coverage viewfinder is complained-about in reviews, but actually helps me because I usually frame a bit too tight and now have a free buffer zone of extra information should I need it.

The tilting LCD is a great feature that's even useful when sitting at a table reviewing pictures.

High iso (1600) is decently clean--while still not in Canon's league I've been very pleased with the results shooting my bands in nightclubs. I'm using NeatImage a lot less often now.

Finally received the hotshoe adapter I needed from Gadget Infinity.
Now I can use my off-camera flash gear!
The adapter also has a bonus PC jack, so in certain situations I can also use cables instead of my wireless triggers.

Being able to instruct the pop-up flash to only add minus 1.3EV of light (for example) is a great feature that I think many photographers don't utilize as often as they should. In nightclubs, setting for the ambient then being able to add a touch of flash on rear-curtain at different white balances has come in handy.

So far I have like the bokeh of both lenses.
Sony/Minolta uses curved aperture petals that give you a rounder opening, and it helps these inexpensive lenses achieve a more professional 'look' in my opinion.

Still haven't tried RAW, and don't plan to anytime soon.
The quality of the jpgs is such a step up for me that I plan to save RAW for when I eventually get dissatisfied or bored with my results--maybe next year.

I have shot a few paid jobs with the Alpha and my customers were very happy.

The larger files mean that storage is becomnig an issue--I need to get a bigger hard drive for my computer and am considering using DVDs instead of CDs for backup/storage.


I think Sony is going to become a major player in the DSLR market.
They already make Nikon's sensors, and are one of the main LCD manufacturers in conjunction with Samsung ($4 billion jointly-owned factories for TVs and monitors, plus the little on-camera screens) and the Minolta lens legacy serves them well.
Sony excells at camera battery technology, too.

I like the fact that in today's market I was able to get 2x2GB SanDisk CF cards for less than I paid for 128MB worth of memory just three years ago.

Just got a step-up ring, so all of my old 58mm filters can be used on these 55mm lenses--best $7 I ever spent.
In the body sensor-shift image stabilization really works and gives me a few extra stops of hand-held sharpness no matter which lens I might use, including old film-era Minoltas in the future.
I can't believe Canon and Nikon haven't embraced this better system.


Please remember that I have zero experience with other makes and models of DSLR, so I have no way to truly compare my Alpha with the D60 or Rebel series.
I like being different from the crowd and have no regrets not buying into the more popular systems.

Many thanks for taking the trouble here Keith; very informative.

Thanks for the review Keith! It's good to know that you've done paid work with it and that the customers were happy!

Did you have to change much to your workflow?

Workflow is mostly the same--I just have to make CDs for storage/backup much more often.
My old camera's jpg-fines were in the 2-3MB range, while the Alpha's go from 3-6MB, and being able to shoot faster means I take more photos since that's the best way to capture something special when doing live bands.

I don't have a CF card reader yet so I'm plugging the camera into the computer for now.
It transfers files VERY quickly, especially using the Extreme III card (which is supposedly twice as fast as the Ultra II).
But they are both speedier than my old system.

Photoshop takes a little longer to make any changes on the bigger files, but anyone with a relatively new computer (unlike me) probably wouldn't notice.
My bigger lens has a noticeable light fall-off around the edges which I rather like, unlike my old Zeiss which was bright all the way out, so I'm not adding fake vignetting in PS anymore. I'm sure this will eventually bother me in some situations, but not yet.