Sony Alpha 100 DSLR Gallery Photo Gallery by David Kilpatrick at pbase.com

Sony Alpha 100 DSLR Gallery

This gallery uses many original size, unprocessed, direct JPEGs from the new Sony Alpha 100, along with raw conversions and examples comparing with the Dynax 7D. See http://www.photoclubalpha.com for an Alpha 100 launch review. Please read captions with care, as conditions and lenses are not always identical, nor are focus points. The images need interpretation and are comparisons, not showcase pix. The cameras have been allowed to make their own decisions. For the launch (Morocco) the time frame was about 20 minutes initially handling the camera at a hotel location, and 40 minutes shooting in a Berber eco-tourism encampment. We had roughly one Alpha 100 for every three photo journalists, and took turns to do our test shoots.

In August 2006 I obtained my own A100 and further tests have been run here, under more varied and controlled conditions, and continue to be run.

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ALL

comparisononscreen.jpg	dro_off.jpg	dro.jpg	dro+.jpg
1600exportclip.jpg	5D1600clip.jpg	5DfromrawISO200.jpg	A100fromrawISO200.jpg
R1fromrawISO160.jpg	AdobeRGBat1600clip.jpg	fullimage.jpg	sRGBat1600clip.jpg

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ALL

comment |

Tim Elliott		25-May-2010 11:50
G'day David, I was most impressed with the review article you presented on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens and I am intending to purchase one for use with my Alpha 900, BUT, I have just discovered that Sigma have an updated version of the same lens, supposedly lighter(no weight indicated in specifications) and with a longer minimum focusing distance(55.1") and the new version is more expensive. My question is; Is the new version worth the extra cost, i.e., is the glass any better and would 15.7" matter all that much in the minimum focusing distance?. Tim Elliott

David Kilpatrick		13-Apr-2009 22:00
Older lenses - I am using the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 RS (1999) on my A900, as well as the 28-75mm f/2.8 KM. Both are excellent general purposes lenses without much expense. The 28-105 is far superior to the later 24-105 on full frame. I also get great results from the 70-210mm f/4 AF ('beercan') to the extent that I sold my 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM Minolta after getting the 70-300mm SSM G and the A900. And I bought an old focus-confirm Sigma fisheye 16mm which while a bit soft wide open has proved worth many times its cost.

Guest		19-Jan-2009 23:18
David, If I were to get the A900, what older Minolta AF lenses would be the best quality? Jon Fishbadk jpf1@aol.com

David Kilpatrick		06-Feb-2007 01:49
Dennis, your post is a little like usenet trollery. I am perfectly familiar with M645 and have shot thousands of stock images on 645s. For the last month we have been using the Mamiya ZD, their 22 megapixel digital camera. I post an example (page 8 of the gallery) showing both the A100 and the ZD enlarged to the ACR 3.6 maximum. Please remember that for my conversions, all sharpening is turned OFF and no post-processing is used. I'm not interested in proving that I can make a snappy pic. I am interested only in the native quality, as produced by the sensor with whatever AA filtering it has, without interference to enhance the result. My work is as a camera reviewer, not as a photographer showing off. There's a difference. The A100 is probably the sharpest of all the current 10 megapixel DSLRs, and although you may find DSLR images 'blurry', they are not. They usually contain more usable image detail than film, but there is a veiling diffusion created by the digital process and especially by the anti-aliasing filter. I will say straight out that I prefer any digital image of 8 megapixels or more to film up to 645 in format. 35mm is almost a lost cause for library sales today. What you must remember is that viewing my images at 100 per cent - they are not generally reduced in size, sharpened or otherwise enhanced (a few are, such as a couple of the aquarium snaps from today) - you are examining a negative using a Scoponet with the enlarger head set for a 12 x 16. I have some 40,000 film images covering 35 years of work and I'm sad that so few even come remotely near matching the routine quality obtained from consumer-level DSLRs like the A100 - whether shot on Hasselblad, Fuji GX680, Pentax 6x7, Plaubel Makine 67, Fujica 6 x 9, Mamiya 645, Bronica 645 or any of the other systems I have used and owned over the years. With tripod, most of the time, gladly left behind today in the era of image stabilisation. The fact is the most I ever did with my transparencies was to use an 8X Schneider professional lupe - I still have that. I did not examine them with a 20X microscope, and that's what full size viewing on a computer monitor equals.

Dennis		05-Jan-2007 23:55
It seems like a lot if not most of these images are somewhat blurry, and lacking detail. I know they are handheld shots, and on a tripod where possible I'm sure there would be improved clarity, but you can get a Mamiya 645e medium format film camera for $350 nowadays and have tons more detail and clarity and color than this camera seems to provide, IMHO. It would be difficult to catch that hawk picture on the Mamiya, though. :)

Javier		12-Nov-2006 02:32
Hi! Until today I found Your site (Because also found the PhotoWorldAlpha! :-)) Great two sites! thanks for a such valuable info! :-) I receive an A100 2 weeks ago, (as an on warranty replacement for a fault 5D), and at first, I was somewhat worry, because I use often low ligth shooting (But now,for SURE I feel really Happy and lucky with my camera)... well, I already made my Firmware upgrade to 1.02, and by now, I dont found any info about if the Sony Upgrades made some fixes/improves about noise & expo issues on A100, so, I wonder if may be possible, that You (with some more long time using the A100 and with a Pro eye), could note if there is some improvement, or what I see from my A100-upgraded-to-rom1.02 shoots, are probably the same that may came from an original A100 with 1.0 firmware version. Thanks Again for Your Great sites!

David Kilpatrick		08-Aug-2006 15:08
It would amazing if the 0.75X adaptor didn't. This sort of attachment is usually considered a very bad optical solution. I'm surprised it's as sharp as it has, and has only a degree of awful aberration at the extremes!

Guest		07-Aug-2006 14:38
David - The .75 adapter seems to 'soften' the image a bit? Howard

Roe..		05-Aug-2006 15:36
I'm thrilled to see your gallery..I love my sony dsc-f828 (even though it needed major repairs 3x's..manufacture problems..) I also have the the canon 350 but the sony lens is sweet...I just shoot for fun and the price is up there but this new sony is on my mind..

David Kilpatrick		15-Jun-2006 11:53
Will, it depends on how many Canon lenses you own. If you just have a couple, then the answer is yes, it's a more fully featured camera with several technological bonuses like dust removal and Dynamic Range Optimisation. See www.ukapical.com to learn more about this. If you have a whole bagful of expensive IS Canon glass, then no, you are better off upgrading to a 30D.

will tee yang		14-Jun-2006 07:33
i have 1 simple question. how does the alpha 100 DSLR compare to the rebel 350D(rebelXT) i have the rebel 350D right now. whould this Alpha 100 be much of an upgrade?!

Guest		13-Jun-2006 20:08
I would like to buy this camera, but i'll wait to see if theres any problems with it... I now have a Maxxum 7000 with 4 lenses(Minolta 24mm f/2.8, Minolta 50mm f/1.7, Sigma Macro 50mm f/2.8, Sigma 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO). I hope that all those lenses will be compatible without the need of an upgrade. You are welcome to my galerie...

David Kilpatrick		13-Jun-2006 14:54
I'll refrain from deleting your comment, despite the fact that it is a considerably bigger waste. If you have anything constructive to say, say it.

Jill Anderson		12-Jun-2006 23:38
Holly crap! These pictures are terrible! What a waste!

David Kilpatrick		10-Jun-2006 13:32
Last post... for 'loose canon' read, of course, 'loose cannon'!

David Kilpatrick		10-Jun-2006 13:29
If you have read my reports on DM, and comparisons, you will know that I have recommended it for colour accuracy above all else. I've advised many users that it was/is worth paying for just for portrait flesh tones, compared to using ACR. However, it is quite useless for up-rezzing images for picture libraries as they get rejected because of the jagged diagonals on sharp detail, and it's not possible to turn down sharpening to the same near-minimum as ACR. You can find the DM articles on f2photo.co.uk. They include its monochrome conversion functions compared to other methods, and the benefits of ACR highlight recovery (DM is not able to use any clipped luminance data - it's locked out of that part of the raw file deliberately). I'm not propagating myths. I get the cameras and the software to test, much though I hate installing more and more versions of things like Nikon Capture with each different model. I have yet to find any good reason - other than colour accuracy and awareness of camera settings - to switch from using ACR to any one of the dedicated raw converters provided by makers. That includes KM, and my brief as editor of a KM-specific user magazine did not include trashing their software's abilities. But I also have a duty to owners, to explain why Dimage Master might have been worth the £99 it cost. I always hope that by emphasising its benefits in certain aspects, and commenting briefly on slowness or artefact levels or interpolation, I have been able to get the negative aspects of such software forewarned. Dimage Master is excellent for unattended, automatic processing of batches of .MRW files overnight etc, especially for portraiture; at native resultion; at camera settings or with minor consistent adjustments. For loose canon shoots where every file needs a separate adjustment, on a limited power laptop, or for large numbers of images in a short timeframe 'live', I have advised PS Elements 3/4 and ACR/. There's a loss of colour quality especially in reds, yellows and flesh tones.

Guest		10-Jun-2006 08:29
"Phil used Nikon Capture. Just like Minolta Dimage Master, it gains sharpness by using nearest neighbour style interpolation during the conversion - and the result is some awful jaggy lines and little artefacts. D200 processed through Photoshop doesn't have any of this. All the 'own maker' software seems to come from the same software house obsessed with making very bad software which runs slowly and produces jaggy, coarse looking conversions from raw!" Not my experience at all! sure DM is a slow beast, but colour accuracy and printed results blow ACR away..... Stop the myths!

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 22:02
I have no idea why 'own maker' software not only looks awful (Fuji, early Canon) when it could look like Adobe Lightroom instead (which C1 Pro pulls off - as well as being genuinely good) - but also performs ultra-slowly and rarely renders the file cleanly. Pentax has just started working with Silkypix - whose RAW conversions are more Photoshop-like - and abandoned the usual sources. I honestly believe that one or two Japanese software houses have had a monopoly of OEM raw converter utilities, same way that a couple of German ones did all the scanner drivers for many years. Silkypix could prove to be the Silverfast of DSLRs - though I rather hope C1 Pro gets that title.

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 21:58
The DRO options operate in RAW mode, and apply to the RAW file. They are not a JPEG processing tweak. They actually improve shadow and highlight detail directly in the raw files, and you can see the differences clearly using Adobe Bridge/ACR.

Guest		08-Jun-2006 21:58
That is really interesting Dave. I am totally amazed that Nikon or Canon would allow the reviewer/s to use the in box software knowing how inferior it is to PS and that potential customers will be downloading the photos to print out and then walk away thinking the camera is flawed. It`s unforgivably short sighted when they`ve spent millions developing it. You would have thought they would ask the reviewer to use Photo Shop as so many photographers have it already. After all, they are testing the camera, not the supplied software that might as well go in the bin. A waste of the reviewers time posting the pictures on their sites if they could be so much better. I am really stunned about that

iota		08-Jun-2006 21:15
Hello. Can you activate the DRO option when shooting in RAW mode ?

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 21:15
Phil used Nikon Capture. Just like Minolta Dimage Master, it gains sharpness by using nearest neighbour style interpolation during the conversion - and the result is some awful jaggy lines and little artefacts. D200 processed through Photoshop doesn't have any of this. All the 'own maker' software seems to come from the same software house obsessed with making very bad software which runs slowly and produces jaggy, coarse looking conversions from raw!

Guest		08-Jun-2006 21:04
Dave, if you download the original file of this photo from Dpreview you will see what I mean about jaggies on prints from the D200. Obviously you will not get this problem all the time but for the cost you should`nt have it at all http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond200_samples/ Also this one caused problems on the black triangles and edges on the ceilings although it handled the WB much better than the 5D. The Nikon D200 would have been a giant killer but for this fatal flaw. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond200_samples/ These are the type of shots you will need to post on Pbase to show that the A100 avoids this characteristic. The Minolta A200 produced lovely prints so hopefully Sony & Minolta combined have got over this problem with smaller sensors or perhaps companies simply are not too bothered about print output.

Roger Gottlieb		08-Jun-2006 17:10
How to recreate D-R optimisation in Photoshop CS2 download dynamicrangesamples - open in photoshop - copy center no dynamic range optimisation - new layer paste copy into this layer - duplicate the new layer and set blending mode to screen around 80% - flatten image and compare they look almost identical.

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 14:07
Have a look on page 2, the rag fabric shot has some sharp diagonals, and the herb plant shot is full of them. No aliasing. I'll put more up with some straight lines if I can find any.

Guest		08-Jun-2006 13:25
Produces very nice prints David, with portraits. It would be nice to see some photos with fine straight lines & edges in also. The Nikon D200 also produced fine portrait prints but when it came to other subject matter the jaggies in the prints were awful. 30D also. The Canon 5D was faultless. It seems you need a full frame cmos for outstanding print quality without any hint of jaggies in any subject matter whether portraits or architecture. You get what you pay for

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 10:51
Just so you are aware, the pictures which end up here from are the result of approx 40 minutes with the camera; some earlier on, another ten minutes in a hotel garden only. No low light except under shade of awnings (hardly low light in afternoon sun), no night shots.

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 09:53
Further notes: the ACR 3.4 'manually tuned' if you have trouble understanding this is done with all the parameters adjusting by eye, not Auto. Sharpness is set to 50 (all the others are either Normal fromn camera, or Zero from ACR), Luminance Noise Reduction to 25, Colour Noise Reduction to 50. Usually I set ALL these parameters to zero. Export to sRGB. Usually I set AdobeRGB. Remember - I'm working professionally, and all forms of sharpening and noise reduction are ruled out because of the effect they have on later pre-press processing. The enthusiast user will enhance a picture's contrast, saturation, sharpening, USM etc as required for a good inkjet print or web page image. I don't. Unless I say so, all images are as soft, flat and unprocessed as you will find - and normally are AdobeRGB space.

Streetworks Photography		08-Jun-2006 09:51
An historic moment on Pbase -- first pix from a new generations of DSLRs! These come sooner than expected David, thanks for posting these, do post more soon. We're all probably the most concerned about noise levels, so any low lights shots you can post would be appreciated.

David Kilpatrick		08-Jun-2006 09:49
Please note: you should download the image and open in Photoshop. Many of these are shot as AdobeRGB in the camera and have not been converted to sRGB for Pbase. The colours will look pale and soft and the contrast low if you have a non-colour aware web browser (almost all systems except Mac).

fred		08-Jun-2006 09:33
Kall, Seems you are ignoring the comment which says the images are UNPROCESSED. These images are all jpegs at NORMAL settings according to the forum on dpreview. Go look there for more comments.

kall		08-Jun-2006 08:52
Are these right pictures taken with A-100, I'm so dispointed with these ones if it's real one. Or the shot was made by begineer. I think many guys will have same with me.

eow		08-Jun-2006 05:45
how abt it af speed/accuracy and shutter lag? any big improvement over the d7d,d5d?

Guest		08-Jun-2006 02:10
Does Sony A100 inherit KM 7D and 5D excellent vivid colors as well?

Eli Finkelstein		07-Jun-2006 22:32
Congrats on posting the first images from this camera. I enjoy your comments on the Minolta Forum at DPreview. Best regards Eli

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment