Ben's Bargains Serving Fresh Deals 24/7

Kit lens is a waste of money & time, oh wait so is $ony.

How does this compare to the Rebel XTI?

Stabilization seems nice, but memorystick seems bad.

Ha. Make way for the Sony DSLR haters (despite what the reviews say).

Does this have DRM? I'd hate to have to pay to view my own pictures. Sony would stoop that low..

I don't know much about the camera, but it's cheap enough for any new DSLR user. Keep in mind lenses get expensive for Canon and Nikon. Sony lenses are 1/2 the cost if not less and already have stabilization.

...or just the Sony haters in general #3. I hate on iPods, but at least I give reasons (overpriced, for one). The people dogging on a camera for DRM... just need to let go and take a couple of deep breaths.
It's neat that this supports compact flash, and not just memory stick.

Well, for hate: These are the old Minolta cameras, before they sold off to Sony which, before that I would have endorsed them, but Sony, as for the last 5 or so years has several sub-standard products where 10+ years ago I would have sworn by their quality. I've had Sony TVs, VCRs, sub-woofers and remotes all go on me, all of a more recent fabrication than my 8+ year old Sony products that still run like clockwork. Get a Nikon or Canon DSLR (which depends on your "Camera Religion") for about the same price, enjoy better quality and a wider selection of lenses.

This is a replacement for the A100, which is a fantastic camera. But this is not the lens you want. The 18-200 lens gives you wide angle to real telephoto and is the only lens you will need.

The Sony image stabilization in the body of the camera is awesome. I was able to get flash pictures at maximum telephoto with perfectly sharp images. If you shop around you can get the A200 with the 18-200 lens (about 24mm to 300 mm in film cameras) for a grand or less.

The A700 is a lot more pricey for not a whole lot more camera.

Awesome info guys. Especially #7&8. But can someone compare these to the XTi that is around the same price these days?

From what I can tell, here are the pro's of the Sony...
--Possible to reach ISO 3200
--Image Stabilization
--Next-gen camera released at CES 2008, so should have more bells and whistles than older cameras.
--Supposedly, Sony lenses cost 1/2 the price of Nikon/Canon
--2.7" LCD

The con's, I'm not sure of. I hear that EVERYONE loves their XTi, so I want a reason to go that route instead. Please help me here...

supacheep - after much reading and debate, i sold my Konica Minolta 7D DSLR and bought the Sony A700. I couldn't be happier. Most all of the core Minolta technologies moved forward, especially image stabalization from the body rather then the lens, amongst many others. The build quality of the Sony A700 is just as good as the Minolta. To be honest, I am not a big Sony fan but was happy to see that they carried the Minolta brand forward and didn't reduce some of the qualities that Konica has always had. Before passing judgement on this line of Sony products, I suggest going to a shop and holding one. Bring a memory card with you, take photos and bring them back for analysis. I think you'll be pleasently surprised all the way around.

#8 if you're only going to ever have one lens, you may just as well buy a point and shoot with such a lens. the whole point of an SLR is to be able to change lenses

#2, the unit offers industry-standard CompactFlash as well. CF is typically better than SD, especially the majority of SDHC behond 2GB. Stop with the ignorant proliferation of complaints on Stick.

#8, I've gotta agree with #11, using a single superzoom is a waste of a dSLR, especially at 8x or more. The image quality really brings things down. I'd go for the 7x zoom range Sony 16-105mm (24-160 or so) equivalent, which is really a nice wide (50% more than typical 1x in a PnS) to fair telezoom (about 5x or so equivalent in a point'n shoot). For more reach, get a real 300-something that starts at near 100mm.

#9, I don't know if I would list On-body Image Stablization is an advantage. I know a lot of average amateurs find that useful, but the more you go into photography, it makes more sense to have IS on the lense due to different focal length and optic design. On body IS was a one-size-fit-all design, but unfortunately doesn't work that way for everyone.

Like #7, I used to love Sony products until they acquired & turned Minolta product into a piece of crap, and their scandalous practice of putting rootkit on people's PC without their consent/knowledge, not counting the DMR deal.

Besides, Canon & Nikon have a better selection of lenses. Why the hell would you want to limit yourself with a sub-standard camera body from a questionable company?

You can get a semi-used XT(i) or D## from either Nikon or Canon at a cheaper price & get yourself a nice lens for a better image quality.

#13: So, the professional reviews of the Sony Alpha series count for nothing? Labeling their Alpha DSLRs crap seems pretty far from reality when the reviews of the cameras are overwhelmingly positive.

If you don't like Sony products, great. Don't buy them.

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>phazeless wrote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">#9, I don't know if I would list On-body Image Stablization is an advantage. I know a lot of average amateurs find that useful, but the more you go into photography, it makes more sense to have IS on the lense due to different focal length and optic design. On body IS was a one-size-fit-all design, but unfortunately doesn't work that way for everyone.
</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody">

First off, I agree that if you are a semi-pro or higher that in-lens IS is better. But for novices and amateurs, or anyone with an investment in older lenses, in-body IS is not bad at all.

As far as "different focal length" comment, it shows you've never used in-body IS and are totally unfamiliar with it.

Focal length, aperture, metering and other factors are accounted for with in-body IS. If you use a really old lens that does not provide the focal length, Pentax/Samsung and Sony dSLRs with in-body will ask for the focal length manually.

In a nutshell, many agree in-body IS works better with quality lenses than most cheap in-lens IS lenses. The new Pentax 2nd gen 18-55 is still considered the best $50 "kit" type lens (largely thanx to their modern, shared fab with Tokina keeping price down with commodity fab <img src="http://bensbargains.net/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" border="0" /> ).

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>phazeless wrote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Like #7, I used to love Sony products until they acquired & turned Minolta product into a piece of crap, and their scandalous practice of putting rootkit on people's PC without their consent/knowledge, not counting th... [Truncated]

Bought the Olympus E-510 @ CC for $628 w/$100gc, came with 18-40 f2.4 Bought a Sigma 44-200 f4.6 @ B&H for $140. It has body IS, slightly different approach than Sony's, but similar, and also the only cmos cleaning system that shows any promise. I can take amazingly clear shots down to 1/4sec with body bracing. It's a real nice camera for the money, and I agree, body based Image Stabilization is the way to go... high end IS in lenses is quicker, but costs a lot more and ads a lot of weight where it is more difficult to hold.

I went with the Oly mainly because of their 'open format' four-thirds mounting system. Several camera manufactures make or have announced switching to the four-thirds system... a step that will drive prices down on quality lenses with this mounting system.

The XTi is a small camera with a lesser sensor and no image stabilization unless you buy the $$$ lenses, this Sony and the Olympus E-510 really feel nice in the hand.

#14, #15, #16
Open your damn eyes and go read reviews from other cameras as well. If you love $ony so much feel free to go buy them. I personally ain't spending another dime on $ony due to their business practices, and yes crappy products (cameras) as well.

I stopped buying P/S and spend my money on pro lenses rather than gimmicks pixel counts, IS body, self-dust cleaning sensor. But I guess there's a sucker born every minute.

I'm offering my professional advice to anyone who wants to listen, but it's hard to go through stupidity. So yes, it's a good deal, go buy it and may $ony bless you with their superior - advanced r00tkit, DMR *features*...*roll-eyes*

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>phazeless wrote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">#14, #15, #16
Open your damn eyes and go read reviews from other cameras as well. If you love $ony so much feel free to go buy them.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> I have "opened my eyes." Dude, I'm a Pentax owner, not a Sony owner. It sounds like you've been reading too many "paid" Nikon articles yourself -- Nikon spending 3x more than Canon on marketing, which is already 10x Sony, and 1,000x Pentax/Samsung.

For the price, the Nikon D300 is worth the few extra bucks over the Sony A700. But at $1,500+, such products are in the semi-pro region. We are not talking about semi-pro or higher! We're talking about sub-$1,000, novice to amateur.

I have a body+3-lens Pentax system that cost me just under $1,000 all said'n done after rebates. From 10mm fisheye to 16-45 wide to 320mm telezoom (15.3 FE, 24.5, 490 equivalents). I'm a novice, but the crap works.

But I seem to know what I'm doing, because not only are the Nikon/Canon novices and semi-amateurs envious of what I have in shots and equipment, but even several heavy Nikon funded stores have people that say, "That's how you build a good system with a lot of features for $1K, you know what you're doing."

I've used a Nikon D300, I love it! I have used various Nikon glass, some outstanding stuff! I've used a D80 as well as an even older D50, good feature sets. I've used a D40, it sucks and the new D60 is designed for the same, "cripple it with lack of an in-body motor, basic features like bracketing, etc... so people want to upgrade" marketing as the D40 before it.

And the Canon Rebel XT series, while nice in features, is a load of plastic -- at least c... [Truncated]

Thank you TheBS, for helping clarify the difference between subjective and objective.

I am a virgin to the SLR market who knows his way around Photoshop. That said, IS, cost, and quality construction are the highest features for me. I was leaning towards the Rebel for the features, didnt know it was cheap-plastic though. Sony will get my virginity

See you all on the other side