what is the real advantage of the alpha system

[Dr. Harout]

Super Steady Shot and Minolta lenses (just to name two).

[Dr. Harout]

But you don't have vr on all lenses, right? VR lenses are more expensive than their non-VR counterparts.
So price is another issue.

[lightdreamer]

1. Zeiss autofokus lenses, 135/1.8 24-70/2.8 and 85/1.4 (I don't have a 16-35mm) simply are the best in its class worldwide.
2. G Glass 2.8/300 or 70-400 and 70-200 also class leading.
3. The 135 STF a unique jewel worldwide.
4. A A900 that is a real compact workhorse, compared to 1DS MIII, D3x. The A900 "includes" a D3x, a D300 and besides about one f-stop a D700 also.
5. A real intuitive user interface and if you shoot under pressure and time restrictions you will love it.

Only my first ideas. And I have Canon and used Nikon gear much too...

BG Hans

[Dr. Harout]

The original post in this thread has been deleted, but never mind, it's a good topic.

[youpii]

In body stabilization, especially for full frame
Zeiss AF lenses, especially 135/1.8
Minolta primes
A900's viewfinder (same as Canon 1D & Nikon D3 but in a cheaper body)

[bakubo]

For me it is only SSS. That's all. There are other good things too, of course, but if Sony didn't have SSS or if Canon/Nikon did then I would be just as happy, probably happier, with them.

[bfitzgerald]

I will agree SSS is the main one.
Obviously the continuation of A mount for Minolta users is another one.
Situation may be somewhat different for new buyers though.

[David Kilpatrick]

For me, it's the Alpha mount, SSS and the affordability of high resolution full frame. I'd say that today the Alpha 900 would still be a major factor if I was obliged to pick a system from scratch and finance it in a single hit. I'm not a fan of Canon lenses, and a few years ago I would not have considered Canon, but combining the 5D mKII with Sigma HSM lenses would be the other affordable option.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Yep, it's the AS/SSS (I have a KM version and a Sony version), good affordable lenses (past tense), and the wonderful Minolta Macro flash system...errr hang on...Sony screwed that up, so it's just the first two.
Greg

[FramerDave]

To me, it can be summed up by 2 things.
Being number three, Minolta was not afraid to experiment and innovate, I am glad Sony picked that up and brought us SSS, STF, Acute Matte focus screens, F58AM with head that swivels for portrait shots, verticle grip that works better etc.
Sony's partnership with Zeiss and the lenses mentioned earlier.

[alphaomega]

Cameras and lenses are just tools. I got into Sony because I was a Minolta MD user and purchased the R1 (Zeiss lens and no dust on sensor possible) I loved the 16-80 lens but not the camera (slow processor, poor EVF and atrocious higher ISO results. Because of the 16-80 being released for DSLRs I purchased the A700 and then A350. I have no intention of switching manufacturer but it irks me that Nikon generally gets less higher ISO noise than Sony using the same basic sensor. On the other hand I would miss body SSS in a Nikon body. I really will be displeased if Sony do not bring out a replacement for the A700 that beats competition including the new Pentax K7. They have the resources. Do they have the will and desire? Time will show. So for me maybe the title to this thread should have read ...real advantages and disadvantages.... Disadvantages includes limited lens availability, No T&S, higher ISO noise, slow response (or no response?) in meeting competition (50D, D90, K7) in the higher amateur/enthusiast segment. I would not expect Sony to compete in the professional segment but I would expect them to have a full line-up to cover Nikon/Canon up to D300/5D type cameras.

[picman]

1. Carl Zeiss autofocus lenses
2. Super steady shot
3. Camera which comes closest to the Contax heritage as far as manipulation is concerned
4. Look at my avatar

[Chris Malcolm]

Don't forget the only autofocus mirror reflex lens! (500mm f8)

[PhotoTraveler]

If I had seen this post a few days ago, I probably would have just said SSS and some minor things. But now, I have a very different opinion.

I rented a Nikon D700, 24PCE, and 2.8/14-24 for 10 days. You would think it would be super fun time for me. I did this as I've been working on shifting towards probably nikon for a while, mainly due to the PC lenses. Also things like GPS support, some firmware options Sony doesn't give (like control over file naming), and the support of a company who isn't going to blink out of the camera biz (not that I'm too concerned with Sony on that). So a trial run was the D700.

Basically, I hate this camera in so many ways. And the reason is Something Sony has a leg up on the competition in a way I could have never imagined.

The interface! The Nikon is absolutely horrible. The more you use it, the more it comes clear that Nikon never left the AF film era. The interface is completely built around an AF film body. Where you have a top plate, you change shutter and aperture speed and not much else. And there is no rear screen. It's positively awful to use. I don't even know why they bother with a rear screen since they don't use it. It only comes on by hitting an info button, and then will time out after a time length you set. So if your like me and tap the shutter button to check or change settings, it's a night mare. Put the camera on a tripod, now your completely hosed, you can't see the top plate (not that it's useful for much), so you have to keep peaking in the view finder to really work it. Everything is painfully slow to use/do from formating cards, to changing ISO speed, to changing modes. It's like everything involves holding button while poking something else on the other side of the camera. The menu system is stone age compared to Sony. And you can only use the bubble wrap like multi-way control pad. The control dials do nothing, you often have to hit a separate "ok" button instead of just center clicking. It's all painful. The sony you can find new shortcuts all the time, as they were smart enough to have the camera adapt as you go into a menu and such, the dials and buttons change purpose automatically to be more useful and give you options. Such as the control dials suddenly becoming vertical scroll and tab changers. Want to change ISO? the nikon has you hold the ISO button, while turning a dial. And that dial you need to set the intervals, so unlike a Sony where you can have one do full stops, the other do 1/3rd stops, the nikon you have to pick one option and live with it. It just goes on and on. Plus the grip is just awful, like early canon digital rebel bad, but on a very over weight camera. There are things that are just different, I can deal with that. But most of it is they just haven't woke up. It really makes you appreciate how vastly advanced the 7D was, and how the A700 really kicked things up some more (though some things went backwards). It's no wonder Nikon and Canonites want top plates and can't fathom a camera without them. Nikon (and I'll assume canon is the same) have so under design the controls that makes the concept of using the rear LCD impossible. It doesn't come on when it should. There is no eye sensor to turn it off, no rotation and so forth. Indeed you couldn't use a nikon without the top plate, but that's because Nikon made the controls so horrible. I'm now convinced the nikon folks are under a rock someplace.

I've never read the full manual to my 7D, never had too, it was just all obvious. I've barely ever cracked open the manual to the A700. But to even use the D700 I've had to keep going into the manual. I had to open the manual to figure out how to even change from A to S to M.

So now, I basically have to give a huge hats off to Minolta and now Sony on the interface. But since reviewers never care about that (even though it's the most important part of a camera today in my opinion (cause all camera take perfectly find images)) it doesn't come up.

I think a Nikon user can pick up a Sony, and use it, but use it like they do a Nikon, so they don't notice everything. The full extent isn't obvious to them. A sony can act like a Nikon to a user. But a Nikon cannot act like a Sony.

I wasn't a huge fan of the A700 when it came out. But now I find it brilliant because I've now tried using similar camera of Nikon. Lets just hope Sony doesn't complete F up the future models. The on/off switch around the shutter on the entry level models worries me. I hate that design, always have. And true to form, I've inadvertently turned the D700 off many many times when trying to use the front control dial, which is horrible placed, like just about everything on the camera.

One thing that does work great on the D700 is the GPS support. That's just like magic almost. And the accuracy is spooky. So far I'm finding it comes up within about 6 inches of where I was. Sony really needs to get that in future models.

So now beyond SSS, I have to say the having a massively better interface/controls, low weight are big gains. Also having a battery compartment where batteries don't get stuck like the D700 is better on the Sony's.

Another thing I found has to do with F mount. It's really small, and on a lens like the 24mm PC-E, it's too small of a hole. Very easy to get vignetting from that. The lens isn't too bad. But I think Canon has upped the game. Plus it really needs worm gear drives, as the whole things flops in use which is no good. And just to complete the problems, the 14-24 flares like no tomorrow. It would have been brilliant as an F4 lens. Going for F2.8 made it a trailer queen of a lens.

Some gibberish about grass being greener on the other side applies here. If you have a beef with the Sony's. Go rent other options for a bit. I still have the D700 for a few more days, and really don't feel like doing much with it. Now I just want a A900, but bummed it has no GPS support still.

[PhotoTraveler]

I should probably note, I came to A mount with the 7D. And the reason I bought it was the controls/feel. Anti-Shake was a nice bonus to me at the time, both because it worked on every lens, and wasn't in the lens, as stabilized lenses are an anti-feature for me.

But I was coming from an X-700 and digital P&S, so even AF was new to me on a SLR. Playing with cameras in stores at that time I wouldn't have noticed all the things I would today. The 7D just felt so right when the others were very wrong. Now going back and playing with others again, it's the same thing all over. The other makes just aren't right now matter how I slice it. If I had bought a Nikon back then, I'd probably work fine with it, as I would have never used something so much better. And that's why I think things stay as they are, users in other systems don't know a better way is out there.