[Kevinkpc]

Starting my Photography Journey with my Sony Alpha350 and lens, maybe one day, will join the ranks of the elite and get myself a Canon, but until then will develop my skills with my Sony Equipment. Took this lens for a trial run today, no digital editing apart from a little contrast alteration.

[IMG][/IMG]
F5.6 - 1/125 - 280mm - ISO400

[IMG][/IMG]
F13 - 1/40 - 250mm - ISO800

[IMG][/IMG]
F5.6 - 1/320 - 70mm - ISO100

PIXALO UPDATE
See more example shots which may help to show the attributes of different lenses, cameras, etc. here :- http://www.pixalo.com/community/tags...nce+shots.html

Please feel free to create your own threads following naming convention you see within this thread,

[Spirited]

Why are people always putting Sony down? They're bread from Minolta, and there's certainly nothing wrong with them

As for your photos, they're good; the duck is a little bright/over-exposed on the chest; but I love the second one

[silkstone]

Originally Posted by Spirited

Why are people always putting Sony down?

'Cos they're labelled as an electronics company rather than a camera manufacturer, and some people haven't adjusted to the fact that modern cameras are boxes of electronics. Provided they get the lenses sorted out (perhaps by teaming up with companies such as Zeiss), there's no reason why they can't be as good as (or better than) the established camera brands. The same applies to Panasonic, Samsung, Casio, etc.

As these shots demonstrate.

P.S. To be fair, Sony's cause hasn't been helped by their adherence to Memory Stick instead of the CF and SD cards that everyone else uses and which are generally cheaper.

[Spirited]

Originally Posted by silkstone

'Cos they're labelled as an electronics company rather than a camera manufacturer, and some people haven't adjusted to the fact that modern cameras are boxes of electronics. Provided they get the lenses sorted out (perhaps by teaming up with companies such as Zeiss), there's no reason why they can't be as good as (or better than) the established camera brands. The same applies to Panasonic, Samsung, Casio, etc.

As these shots demonstrate.

P.S. To be fair, Sony's cause hasn't been helped by their adherence to Memory Stick instead of the CF and SD cards that everyone else uses and which are generally cheaper.

Sony's Alpha's use CF cards, but they come with an adapter if the user wants to stick with Memory Sticks; and everybody forgets that before buying them out Sony were working with an established camera brand that was founded in the late 1920's

[silkstone]

My pocket camera is a Sony A200 - now about three years old but still going strong.

[Steve_Turner]

It is strange, Sony practically own the pro video market, are very strong in the camcorder / ameteur market and are very strong in the point and shoot camera market. The only image market where they are not leaders is in the DSLR / pro photography market - Why?

They have bought out a well respected camera manufacturer (minolta), they have deal with a pro lens manufacturer (Carl Zeiss), they have release at least 6 DSLRs (from the A100 to the A900), as well as a fistfull of lenses in the last 3 years and yet still they only command 6-10% of the market - why?

The only reason I can think of why it is dificult to make bigger inroads into the market for comapies like Sony is brand loyalty.

Why do DSLRs command such loyalty
Lens investment - lenses aren't cheap and if you have a sizable collection it's cheaper to stick to one manufacturer.
Fear of change - DSLRs are complex pieces of kit. There could be a fear of learning how to use a new piece of kit, and in the process somhow we will forget our hard won photographic skills.

Does anyone else know why there seems to be a reluctance to change brands even to the point of playing down manufacturers like Sony, after all it seems to me that the capability of a modern DSLR from any manufacturer is greater than most photographers (me included).

[dabhand16]

I think part of the problem is the brand. Now, you might think that strange because in pretty much every other area of sony's activity - audio, video, TV etc, they are perceived to be brand leaders. Stills photography is different. Although they bought the very respected Minolta brand, they then were out of the market while they did their development, and when they returned a considerable time later they were seen as newbies who are very good in audio, TV and video, but have no reputation in stills. I think if they had retained the Minolta brand for the stills cameras they would have been more successful.

if you were in the market for a compact, would you buy a Casio or a Canon? Most people will see Casio as makers of cheap watches and Canon as makers of good cameras.

There is also the issue you highlighted of investment into a system. In the time they were out of the market people have spent a lot of money on their kit and are not going to go to the expence and inconvenience of selling up and buying Sony - their products are not significantly better that the established brands. The reviews I've seen of the lenses and top end cameras don't have them standing out from the crowd unlike the entry level models that do get good press.

In the video world many people see the Sony stabilization system as inferior as it is electronic rather than optical. I have no idea if their dSLR's have electronic stabilization, but the thought that they might would put me off buying Sony.

So I think that Sony are having to start from scratch and build their fan base from the people who are buying their first dSLR and upgrading, and that will take a long time to get any sort of market penetration.

[bain]

i wonder if we digresed here.:..... i think the lens looks quite sharp centainly looks better than my sigma 70/300 and i think there is the image stablisation built into the camera in which make a big difference. nice shots btw

[Ub3rn00ber]

very nice shots. It looks like a very nice setup you have there. Not owning any DSLR, I'm quite jealous.

Originally Posted by silkstone

My pocket camera is a Sony A200 - now about three years old but still going strong.

you have huge pockets

[Steve_Turner]

Here's one from it's cheaper brother 75-300mm(F4.5-5.6). F5.6, ISO100, 1/400th sec, 120mm,

[Dave]

Lens Reference Shots