New High End Sony DSLR

[Guy Mancuso]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013109sonypma.asp

 

[DougDolde]

Something just doesn't seem right about that. A Sony camera? TV yes. Camera, I'd never buy a Sony camera.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Sony doesn't do this without backing it up with lots of resources. Looks like a very interesting camera to me, ugly, but interesting.

I had the opportunity to try the "junior" model, the A100, last year with the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8. I can't say anything about image quality, since I didn't bring a memory card with me, but build quality is second to none (apart from the fact that the 135/1.8 is a mighty impressive lens just to look at).

Few Canikon users will run head over heals to change to Sony, but give it a couple of years, and I believe we'll be seeing them at every major event alongside the big two.

 

[Steen]

... Looks like a very interesting camera to me, ugly, but interesting ...

Personally I like "ugly" design if it means "functional" design rather than "tasteful" design.
That's why I love ALPA design, it is SO functional.
And that's why I dislike e.g. Leica M design, it is SO slick and tasteful, and SO dysfunctional, nothing to hold on. "Don't drop your M8" like a wise man said
What I like about the Sony flagship is the viewfinder box with the clearly defined and functional designed pentaprism box. SO ugly and functional and therefore so compelling to my eyes. Reminds me about cameras when I was young, and believe me that is a long time ago.
On the other hand, after all I do not care all that much about design.
My approach is glass first and foremost.
I want good glass and then I start to look for a camera to shoot those lenses.
I love the excellent M mount lenses from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer. That's why I bought an M8 camera body.
I love the excellent F mount lenses from Nikon, Zeiss and Voigtländer. That's why I bought a D300 body.
And now this Sony DSLR ?
As far as I have understood the Zeiss ZA lenses are manufactured by Sony (or former Konica-Minolta or whomever) and not by Zeiss or their chosen manufacturer Cosina, despite the brand name. You can't even buy these lenses directly from Zeiss as you can with ZM, ZF, ZS and ZK lenses. I fear these ZA lenses are too much Konica-Minolta and too little Zeiss for the price. Not exactly cheap.
So at the end I don't really think I am interested in the Alpha series, despite Sonys excellent sensors.
Now think of this.
What if Sony and Zeiss had really joined their forces and expertices, either under the Contax brand name if that was no longer prohibited by the contract between Zeiss and Kyocera, or under the Sony + Zeiss brand names with a revived series of the legendary Zeiss N mount autofocus lenses. Now that would have been interesting.
Ehh, why do I tell you all this ?
I think I am just sharing with you what I just said to my shrink, my vicar and my bank advisor the last time we had a session.
They concluded I would be in deep trouble when the R10 arrives. I love R glass too

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I want good glass and then I start to look for a camera to shoot those lenses.

Just my ummm.... problem as well. I bought the E-1 for the 11-22 and to use all my old OM-lenses, and have a Fuji for a bunch of nice Nikkors. Now I would like to have a Pentax with some of those nice, little Limited jewels, and some of those Zony-lenses looks very tempting too.

There's a guy at pbase who have shot some very good portraits in India with the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8. That lens and the big, ugly Sony-thing looks like something I would like to take photos with

"Ugly" isn't an absolute term btw. It's kind of "Nikon F4 ugly". Not a bad reference for a camera. I need to print some more money

 

[Steen]

You are absolutely right, Jorgen. I adore Nikon F4 ugly

 

[Maggie O]

I like that Sony resurrected the Konica pentaprism housing! To me, this is one of the most SLR-looking DSLRs yet.