You can only call it as you see it Terry.

These marketing / packaging boys and girls have a lot to answer for

You say: You could say that the kit lenses are so cheap that they are irrelevant. Throw them away and invest in better glass. That's much the same as buying a Canon 450D with the enthusiast lens -- you are paying a lot more, getting one less lens, but getting one vastly superior lens for the money. As they say: it's not a deal breaker.

Actually I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that if the producer made a kit to a price target like the AUD 1100 threshold that I see in Melbourne now, sacrifices have to be made as you do indeed agree. However, after having bought the AUD 1100 kit, the buyer who is no pro but an enthusiast might have blown the year's budget or in my case 3 years budget. So you actually have to live with the kit for the time being, until some time as you lasso some money in. The Canon package I see usually is a single lens kit or a dual lens kit. The single lens zoom ribbing is a real deal breaker for me - I know, it's not an objective photographic assessment but we're subjective humans. The size of the Canon camera is not big but the grip does not feel right to me. Finally, I can see Canon chasing lenses that are white skinned, heavy and full frame pro quality - something that I will not assign budget for.

So, one man's meat is another's poison.....

"Incidentally, we have just finished testing the Sony a700 with a 24-70 Carl Zeiss lens. We have nothing but praise for it. It is a magnificent camera/lens combination."

I'm looking forward to your full review. I've heard nothing but positive things for the 24-70, but I need all of the justification I can get if I'm gonna' tell my wife, "I need another lens and this will cost more than the camera."

'Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more'

b shaw

I bought a Sony a100 about year ago but opted for the body with the Sony 18-200 lens which cost almost as much as the camera.

However I had planned to buy it with the Carl Zeiss 16-80 lens but its release had been delayed and, as I was in Hong Kong heading to China, I opted to have the 18-200. I have been reasonably happy with it.

However I still have a hankering for the Zeiss 16-80. I have held off because I was waiting to see it reviewed by DPExpert (for instance) but you never did. There is now a second Zeiss zoom available from Sony (the 24-70) and again no reviews.

Perhaps you could review the Carl Zeiss lenses with say the Alpha 350 and in the process explawin for less knowledgable snapper like me the difference between CCD and CMOS (which is better?) and why the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80 lens has a f3.5-4.5 while the new 24-70 has a single f1.8.

Jim: I will do as you suggest and request an a350 with the CZ 16-80 lens. Good idea.

The CZ 24-70 has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8. Only very good zoom lenses (meaning, expensive) have constant max aperture, most have a variable max, starting fast at the wide end and becoming slower at the tele end of the range.

As for CMOS/CCD -- there was a school of thought that CMOS, as implemented by Canon, produced less image noise than CCD. But by the time of the Nikon D200 it seemed to be obvious that there wasn't a lot in it.

As I understand it the really big advantage of CMOS, which is certainly well worth having, is that it uses less power and therefore you get better battery life. If my Nikon D80 compared with my Canon 40D is anything to go by then the difference is certainly huge. The Canon will run for much longer on a fully charged battery than the Nikon. But, it goes without saying, there may be other reasons for this than simply the different sensor type.

Terry

Hey Terry

I am considering buying this camera as my father
has some lenses from his old Minolta Dynax 7000
that should work with this??

I think they are decent AF lenses arent they?

Also, Camera House has the a200 with a 16-105mm
f3.5-5.6 lens for $1299. That would be a much better
lens wouldn't it? Esp since the price you were quoted
for the kit was $1400.

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Matt: The Minolta lenses should work fine on the Sony. They did for me.

The a200 is a good camera but the Sony lenses are pretty ordinary. However, when you've recovered from the outlay for the camera you can start lusting after their Carl Zeiss lenses which are in a class of their own.

So look on the a200 as an entry to a very good system. Terry