a dslt not an slr.
10 frames per second
1080p hd video recording
14 or 16 megapixel cropped sensor (a33 / a55)

I think the main thing that interests me is the idea of a digital viewfinder with 100% view but that all ties in to the transparent mirror. its also cheap and has bundles of technology onboard. i doubt i would buy one but everything i read about it sounds cool.

Isn't the point of not having 100% view to reduce the strain of resizing it?

huh?

optically its difficult to show 100% due to the glass and mirrors.

well i decided i will buy one of these and test it out so i will let u all know

If you really want to get serious with photography you should stay away from Sony because they simply don't have that many high quality large aperture lenses like Canon and Nikon
and their from the sample images I have seen Sony cameras are far behind when it comes to high ISO performance.

are the carl zeiss lens no good?

i know theres not a large range, but i will never turn pro with photography, it will always be just a hobby, is it really a bad idea?

Zeiss also makes lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts and yes they make some of the best out there but they simply don't have that many to offer.
meh, I doubt I will ever go pro either it's really something I like to do for fun but that doesn't mean I am not passionate about it

Well it's your decision to make but you MAY will find Sony and their Alpha line inferior after seeing what those Nikons and Canons can do.
Sony does release a lot of new product all the time but I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a pro photographer walking around with an Alpha.

This post was edited by Futurama on Oct 6 2010 02:47pm

Bad advice. Your data is simply erroneous.

And maybe 2-3% of photographers actually NEED high iso performance. Most photographers who make money with their cameras rarely go above iso 400 unless its event shooting in questionable light and then they may push it to 800-1600.

Zeiss lenses are great and there are a few gems in the Sony line-up as well. In addition you can use the old Minolta lenses which some of them were second to none. Also Sony, crappy Sony the unprofessional of unprofessionals, MAKES THE NIKON SENSORS.

Serious. You can be a professional with almost any outfit these days. Limited thinking, inside the box and misguided propaganda and outright bias keeps the flames of fanboyism alive. I should link this to the Sony forum at DPReview to have some of the Sony pros (the ones who make money) come here for a laugh.

But I won't.

Yes I do admit that most of what I know about Sony Alpha and their lenses are from photography forums dominated by Canon and Nikon users
and I don't intend to do some research on their product either but let me ask you if I start using a Sony consumer SLR like the A300 series and
500 series with those kit lenses and later on want to move to more advanced equipment like fast primes and zooms and of course professional
high performance bodies do you really think Sony have everything that Canon and Nikon have on offer?? Do they have any equal or similar product
to compete with the D700, D3s, D3x, 5Dmk2, 1Dmk4 and 1Ds? or even D300s and 7D? Not to mention those fast prime lenses like 24 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2,
135 f2, 200 f2 IS, 400 f2.8 IS and 800 f5.6 IS?

edit:
I guess I probably can answer some of the questions I just asked lol
I do know there is Alpha 900 and 800 but according to DPreview they are inferior to similar Canon and Nikon cameras.
and yes Zeiss does make some very good manual focus primes but they are being offered in Canon and Nikon mounts as well
so they are not exclusive to just Sony.

This post was edited by Futurama on Oct 6 2010 05:38pm

You're forgetting the legacy Minolta glass. Some of the best glass I've used during my film days.

Do you think Pro's are confined to only using primes?? Most of the pros I know or know of, who are making thousands if not hundreds of thousands in photography a year do over 80% of their work with fast zooms.

What gets me is you admit to not even wanting to research the Sony product and that you have derived your conclusion from "dominated" C+N forums ... and therefore "know enough" and can suggest to someone else without having any first hand knowledge.

It's not just you though, there are plenty here blinded by marketing and heavily influenced by spec sheets than actual field use of different systems.

If one wanted only primes he'd shoot medium format which has better image quality than ANY 35mm camera today.

Also you never even asked what the guy's purpose was. You just said "stay away from" then followed it up with "[because these are MY REASONS AND MY NEEDS]."

And who's to say Sony or Zeiss doesn't have more Primes in the line-up??

Just because Nikon and Canon have the best marketing of all the camera guys, don't make them the ideal for every situation and for everyone's needs.

If there were only wheat bread and white bread it'd be a pretty dull world.

I was also curious on this camera... I heard about it from a girl at work that asked me if I knew anything about it.. I have no clue? I don't understand the non SLR part?