Let's talk Sony SLRs and SLTs

[iangreenhalgh1]

Ever since my A100 died, I've been unable to use my Minolta AF lenses on digital, and I've come to miss them, as they are very good.

So I'm thinking of getting another Sony camera, but the range confuses the hell out of me. I'm not really interested in another 10mp one.

I read that most of the DSLRs have tiny, dim finders, bu that wouldn't be too much of an issue as I'd be using AF lenses. The SLT cameras intrigue me, bu I have some concerns about the light loss due to the fixed mirror, how much of an issue is it in real world usage?

What are the EVFs in the different models like? Did the first generation SLTs have issues with their finders such as tearing, bad contrast etc?

Which models do people like? A good LCD screen would be a good thing, no obsolete 230k or 450k ones appeal to me.

[ManualFocus-G]

a57 is a decent middle of the road SLT with a nice LCD, but the EVF is a bit gash, partiucularly for manual focusing. Light loss is not a major issue...the 16MP sensor is excellent. The consequence is high ISO performance in the same ball park as the 18MP Canon DSLRs, rather than that of the Nex/Pentax/Nikon cameras.

I had this camera for two weeks but sold it because:

* I don't like the lack of top LCD and controls
* IBIS didn't meet my expectations (neither did electronic first front curtain)
* Just didn't do anything remarkable (I don't have any Minolta AF lenses anymore e.g. 50/1.7, 70-210/4 beercan, I found them poor by modern standards)

a58 is specced down as far as I remember, and the a33 and a55 were early SLT models. a65 is the one to go for as it has a far better EVF.

[Aanything]

I have bought an a55 little after slts came out, as I was extremely intrigued by the 10fps capability and the quick and continuous af in video mode - two features I rarely used, to be honest.
Anyway, about the light loss caused by the translucent mirror, I must say that is not noticeable, and I know that because since about a year I'm using the camera without the mirror - it can be removed: this obviously disables af.
Well, the light difference is not noticeable at all in normal use (i.e. not specific run tests), so I guess it should be around (or lower) 1/3 stop.
As for the viewfinder, I never had problems with my a55's one. Both the EVF and the LCD are good enough for focusing at narrower apertures, and it has focus magnification 7x and 14x when more accuracy is needed.
The main downside is the lack of compatibility with c/y lenses, imho: basically you'll be limited to m42's and mount replaced leica r's, but you gain access to the many excellent (and still relatively cheap) minolta af line.

All in all, in my opinion, the a65 for me is one of the best values out there in aps-c cameras (the a77 is simply amazing, but performance is similar, and price sensibly higher).

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers. No top LCD is annoying. I don't use high ISOs so not worried about that, SteadyShot doesn't bother me, I always kept it turned off on my A100 and A200.

What didn't you like about the 1.7/50? It's one of the very best 50s imho. What about the beercan didn't you like? It needs a deep hood, but otherwise, it's great, better than the Canon L 4/80-200.

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Lloydy]

[ManualFocus-G]

The 50/1.7 was well beaten by several of my manual focus 50mm lenses (I'm going back a few years when I only used M42 lenses on my a100 and a200) for sharpness and contrast. I owned two copies and just didn't like them. The beercan had nasty purple fringing (again, I tried two copies).

I look back on time with the a100 and a200 with fondness though, and I briefly owned an a450 which was very nice too. Again, no top LCD though.

[ManualFocus-G]

Sony can only take M42 lenses. You can replace the mounts of some C/Y lenses with Leitax mounts, but it's expensive and the cameras are not good enough to warrant the cost IMO.

[Aanything]

Sony Alpha mount flange to focal is 44.50 mm, which is around 1mm shorter than pk, c/y and om.
I guess it's not enough for a bayonet to bayonet adapter.

AFAIK, only m42, medium format and interchangeable mount systems are adaptable.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Aanything]

[Lloydy]

I guess I won't throw the Pentax away just yet. But I would love a DSLR to use the Minolta 500mm AF Mirror lens, or I get the AF adapter for the NEX? But one of the older Sony's might be had for similar money?

[iangreenhalgh1]

The older 10mp Sonys can be had really cheap on ebay, they are decent cameras, a bit plasticky and the finders are a bit small and dim, bu no worse than the consumer EOS in either regard really.

[Aanything]

[Lloydy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

The 1.7/50 is a truly superb lens, just like the MD 1.7/50 but with AF, compared to the crappy Canon EF 1.8/50 it's light years better. The 4/35-70 is great too, apart from being a bit sensitive to flare and ghosting, but a good hood and avoiding pointing it at the sun cures that. I had the MF version of the Tokina SD 70-210, I rated it as so-so, but I didn't use it all that much before I sold it. You can always replace it with the truly excellent 'beercan' 4/70-210 for 25-30 quid. The 2.8/28 prime is common, cheap and excellent too.

There's loads more excellent Minolta AF lenses, you want the original 1985-1990 generation, from these the 28-85, 28-135 and 35-105, 75-300, 100-200 and 70-210 are all excellent, there are tohers, but that's just off the top of my head. The next generation also has a load of excellent lenses, in may cases optically the same, just with lighter plastic barrels. Then there's the xi generation, which are best avoided (with a couple of exceptions) as they are not so great and have very annoying power zoom. The 35-200 xi is worth having, it's surprisingly good for such a long zoom range. After that, the lenses become plasticky and not great at all, sadly.

Have a look at the lens database on dyxum.com.

Like Canon, old Sigmas don't work on digital Sony bodies, sadly, so those are best avoided.

I think now is the time to grab a collection of Minolta AF lenses because they are still really cheap and if we see the advent of affordable FF bodies from Sony soon, then the prices of the old but excellent Minolta glass is going to soar.

[ManualFocus-G]

I really can't see the value of Minolta AF lenses soaring, Sony have had ff and crop cameras out for years and this hasn't happened (as the newer lenses are better for a start).

BTW, I've not had issues using old Sigmas on Sony DSLRs, although I understand the SLT models are more prone to issues.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Newer lenses are better? Which ones? Some of the Sony lenses have terrible performance, such as the 18-70 kit lens. A blanket statement about the new lenses being better is full of holes, sorry.

Here's one hole - the people at lenstip did a very comprehensive head-to-head test of the old Minolta AF 1.7/50 vs the current Sony DT 1.8/50 and the Minolta is, overall, the better lens. Doesn't surprise me because I've owned the 1.7/50 since 1993 and I know how good it is, a much better lens than the Canon EF 1.8/50:

http://www.lenstip.com/121.1-article-A_history_of_Sony_Alpha_-_Minolta_AF_50_mm_f_1.7_versus_Sony_DT_50_mm_f_1.8_SAM_Introduction.html

One key area where the older Minoltas are a lot better is in build quality. Build quality is important to me - it's one big reason I've abandoned Canon, they sell awful junk that falls apart like the EF 1.8/50 and EF-S 18-55. Sony are culpable of selling similarly flimsy junk too whereas the old Minoltas are superbly well built. If I buy a lens,I want to know it will survive regular use without me having to worry it will fall apart.

There are many old Sigmas that won't work on Sony digital bodies, off the top of my head they include the 3.5/18, 2.8/24, 75/300 APO, 2.8-4/28-70, before buying any old Sigma for A mount, it is important to check with people who have tried that particular lens on a Sony body.

Up until this point, FF Sony bodies have been expensive items and the people who would buy them would also buy the latest high-end glass to go with them. If affordable FF bodies appear, a good number of the people that buy them will want affordable or even downright cheap FF glass to go with them, that's why I suspect the prices may rise.

[bhargav]

I have been using Sony A580 since well over a year now and I'm quite happy with it. It was the last DSLR before they launched the SLT. Still no top LCD. Also the bracketing is in 0.7 range only so limited options for HDR. But the image quality is pretty good. You should be able to find a SH body cheaply from CEX or similar.

Here in Finland, one of the shops has a brand new A65 body for €499 for a while. I'm tempted to switch but many reviewers talk negatively of SLT's ISO performance. Snapsort also rates a580 higher than a65.

[eddieitman]

Ian, if you want a nice body with a good viewfinder take a look at the a700 an impressive camera built from magnesium, can be had for under 200 these days and a very capable camera
The slt cameras i have never noticed an issue with the light drop off, and the range of lenses are great i have the folloiwing
35-105, 24-85, 28-85,50 f1.7, 35-70, 80-200f2.8 100mm macro really all top class

[ManualFocus-G]

[ManualFocus-G]

[TAo2]

Hi Ian,

+1 tae what Eddie said above. Have a used A700 since (nearly new)was only @ 6 months old, when I got it. excellent LCD, viewfinder, build(weatherproofed areas). Handles all my M42 lenses( ah use a Fotodiox ,plain adaptor). Oh, and Sigma 75-300APO works on it - ah know, ah have one.

[buerokratiehasser]

There are two main issues with Sigma not work
(should maybe write a faq about that?)

The 1987 protocol change (very old third party lenses, some only partially ie there are newer models that do work) Affected are Tokina, Sigma glass that is very old and usually there is a warning on dyxum, like with 2.8-3.5 75-200 or what that lens was again..

Then the SLT issue. Said to be a problem with "aperture control". Whatever it is, it affects almost all lenses, and they cant be really fixed (would be easier for Sony to do that I guess) because Sigma doesn't have the parts and if they do (for say 2008 lens) they will charge comparably to a full used lens

So it comes to this: if you never need SLT, most Sigmas will just work fine. One of the best lenses ever, the sigma 50/2.8 1:1 UC macro, is from 1993 or so and works perfectly fine on my a230.

I don't know whether the 50/1.7 is as good as its price, I always was too stingy.

[buerokratiehasser]

on the q of mounts to adapt

the ffd is nice (take that nikon!) but not so much allowing as mirrorless usually is
If you want to adapt everything try a nex maybe

Another issue is that for uncommon mounts the adaptors are quite rare and expensive. To a stingy person like me, 50 bucks buys a whole lens. So even IF you could technically adapt whatever, Nikon? it is just hassle.

So there is M42, and T2. And M42.
And maybe YS if you obtain YS-PE butt. (PE=M42)

Even the MD->MA adaptors are not traded widely. They would be good for macro only anyway if you take out the glass if any.

There are Sigma TCs that take MD and make them MA. I hear they are good. That's all you will hear because these things go like Leicas if they ever show up on auctions.