Sony A57 DSLT + 18-55mm + 55-200mm Lenses ONLY $649, 16MP, 10fps, 1080/60p AF Video, IS, 15 Point AF

Related Stores

Grays

• 

  Chongy288 on 29/07/2013 - 10:21

  +2

  yeah.. why arn't sony the game leaders in cameras I will never know…

  their stuff is just so much better than Nikon and Canon in all fields(ie compact and dSLR). More often that not sony's sensors are used in their competitors cameras..

  • 

    aim54x on 29/07/2013 - 10:41

    Sony make decent compact cameras, but in the realm on DSLR they have a long way to go. They have good tech, but they don't seem to be able to squeeze the same performance out of their own electronics as Nikon/Pentax (they use Sony sensors usually, Canon make their own) can, the latest Nikon's (D3200/D5200/D7100) have switched to in house designed, Toshiba fabbed sensors. Sony also does not have the entrenched user base nor a complete system, and it seems like they are confused as to what they are doing at times; their current interface is actually a step backwards from what they had 4 years ago. Sony has great potential, but they really need to stop rubbishing their own product (see "DSLR Gear, No Idea" campaign) and decide if they want to play in the DSLR game or put their investment behind NEX (where they are very successful). They have the potential but they really need to have a cohesive plan between NEX and Alpha, bring more glass to the game and really consider where they want to go with it.

    I love the RX1, the NEX system needs good glass desperately, the ALPHA system is due for some updates and could do with some more glass. Bring on the competition, it only benefits us (the consumer) with better product at better prices.

    • 

      jfkingdom1 on 29/07/2013 - 10:54

      Alot of people don't realise Sony bought out Minolta a few years back(6 or 7 years perhaps). Konica Minolta was actually quite a big player in the SLR areana. You can buy very cheap Minolta or third party lenses and use it on the current Sony A-mounts on ebay. I bought some great Minolta lenses some that are 20 years old (film) days and they work great on the current A-mounts. There are plenty of Sony lenses to chose from (altough not as many as Canon/Nikon), some of the best ones are Sony made Zeiss lenses that can do autofocus.

      • 

        nafe on 29/07/2013 - 14:44

        The high quality lenses are still expensive, even second hand. It's the scarcity of them that kills it compared to Nikon and Canon. I have a mate who shoots Sony, and he uses his pro Minolta lenses, but trying to find them is a pain, and people want stupid money for the good ones. Buying the cheapies doesn't work for him because he needs quality glass.

      • 

        aim54x on 30/07/2013 - 12:56

        I'm well aware of that fact, their purchase of Minolta led to the introduction of the Alpha system, a trademark borrowed from Minolta. Sadly they have not modernised a lot of the Minolta lenses (35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4) and they really have to come up with a cohesive plan and roadmap to deliver Sony Alpha users a sense of security.

        I work in the industry, I play with everything that comes through. I even own a Sony A65 (not my main system) and have extensively used their system, there is plenty of positives, but without a plan, without support, without positive marketing they cannot dream of being what Minolta was, especially if they price their good lenses higher than the Canon/Nikon offerings.

    • 

      The Quote Train on 29/07/2013 - 13:40

      Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the glass issue esentially solved with adaptors?

      • 

        nafe on 29/07/2013 - 14:41

        You can get adapters for just about anything these days, but some lose you autofocus, some lose AF speed. It can be hit and miss depending on what you're adapting from and to.

      • 

        aim54x on 30/07/2013 - 12:57

        The Alpha system cannot be saved by adaptors, as it has a relatively long flange back distance meaning there is no room for an adaptor in most cases. The NEX system is your adaptor happy friend.

  • 

    nafe on 29/07/2013 - 10:43

    It's all about lenses. Sony compacts are great, I own one, and have given serious thought to an RX100.
    But DSLR wise, they do not compare for availability of lenses for professionals. Buying a DSLR is buying into a lens ecosystem, whether it is Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony etc.

    • 

      jfkingdom1 on 29/07/2013 - 10:57

      I would have to disagree with that, no it's not all about the lenses. Most important is a good camera with good sensor. Lenses although I do agree does help but it's secondary to a good camera. Plenty of Sony lenses to choose from, question is do you have the money to buy them all?

      • 

        nafe on 29/07/2013 - 14:40

        People swap camera bodies all the time, but good lenses stand the test of time.
        Stick a crap consumer lens on a great body and you'll have a rubbish pic.
        Stick a good lens on a mid-range camera and you can still churn out great images.

        ideally you have both, but if you need to compromise, you do it with the body, not the lens. The bodies are disposable these days, the upgrade path for those wanting to keep up with the joneses barely lasts 12 months.

        Sony lenses are very good, but they are also ridiculously expensive for a lot of them. And the range is not as extensive as other systems. I'm merely pointing out why Sony are not a market leader for DSLR, and likely they won't be for a very long time.

      • 

        jfkingdom1 on 29/07/2013 - 14:54

        -1

        Stick a $25,000 lens on a crappy camera and you will get crappy pictures. Stick a crappy lens on a good camera you get ok pictures. I have tested this out with kit lens and with expensive G lenses, the results are not that dramatic when you have a good camera.

        Plenty of good lenses on the Sony. Most people buying a DSLR only uses the kit lenses anyway

      • 

        nafe on 29/07/2013 - 15:03

        As I said, you buy decent lenses and you KEEP them. They will outlast just about any camera body available. I've had Canon L glass on 10D/20D/30D/1D2/1D3/1D4/1DX - if I stuck with shitty cheap kit lenses they would have gone LONG ago.

      • 

        freesteakknives on 29/07/2013 - 19:03

        +1

        Agreed - My mate was still using old manual Nikon lenses on his modern Nikon bodies. Features change, physics doesn't.

      • 

        aim54x on 30/07/2013 - 13:12

        -1

        I would beg to differ…

        You cannot claim that there is no difference between your DT 18-55mm and a CZ 16-80mm, or a CZ 24-70mm f/2.8. Or even the DT 55-200 and the G 70-200mm f/2.8. If you cannot see/feel the difference then you are lucky.

        Not the best reference, but this was an entertaining watch that came to mind
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

        The truth is that the cheap bodies are pretty damn good these days.

        Also….what 25K lens is in the Sony Alpha system?

      • 

        jfkingdom1 on 30/07/2013 - 14:24

        If you go and read my post again I never said there is no difference in image quality but rather the differences "are not that dramatic" as some people put it - not like you put a good lens into a crappy camera. The 25K lens is a made up figure to make my point of an expensive lens.

        It is the imaging sensor and the image processing engine that produces the image. Yes I do agree that having a good lens helps to produce better images but that is secondary to a good camera with good sensor and I stand by my point. When image quality as good as the A57 can produce, expensive lenses don't make such a "dramatic" or another word a "huge" difference in image quality, that is what I'm saying.

        P.S DigitalREV is run by lunatics I take them as a grain of salt.

      • 

        aim54x on 31/07/2013 - 12:46

        DRTV is a lighthearted take on the matter, their primary aim is to entertain.

        There are always going to be cheap gems and overpriced crap (ie Canon EF50mm 1.8 vs EF28-300mm L IS, or Nikon AF 50mm 1.8 vs AFS 18-300mm VR, or even Sony SAL50F18SAM vs SAL18250). But in general an expensive lens is going to provide improvements in image quality, a noticeable.

        Go out there and test your 18-250 @200mm against your 70-200 @200mm….even it up and use them both a f/5.6 (or 6.3, not 100% if you can get F/5.6 on your 18-250 @ 200mm). You sound like you have a few bodies, try the combination on an A100/A200 and have a look, in good light you will find that the advantage of the good lens on an older body will still better that of the newer body with the lower quality lens.

  • 

    jfkingdom1 on 29/07/2013 - 13:45

    What they need is marketing and advertising - I see none so far

    • 

      aim54x on 30/07/2013 - 12:59

      only negative marketing….http://www.youtube.com/user/dslrgearnoidea

      Yes those are official Sony adverts…for their NEX system

      • 

        jfkingdom1 on 30/07/2013 - 15:14

        I agree, bad advertisement. Who the hell would feature competitor's products in their ads?I think they need to sue the advertising agency.

      • 

        aim54x on 31/07/2013 - 12:49

        actually the DSLR's in those adverts are all Sony units……(other than the one with the idiot Gary Heery….pretentious scumbag)

• 

  aim54x on 29/07/2013 - 10:29

  this is a better camera than the A58….it actually has a metal lens mount!

• 

  LaTerrible on 29/07/2013 - 11:18

  As aim54x mentions above, this is a better camera than the A58 (the A58 is the successor to the A37, not the A57 as the numbering would imply). This was my second choice camera (behind the Pentax K30), and I very nearly bought it a few weeks ago at this price when we were talking about it in the forums earlier, but in the end preferred the couple additional things about the K30 (namely the Astrotracer GPS and weatherproofing).

  Still, this is a killer camera and a great price. Anyone umming and ahhing over this, the K30, the Nikon D5100 or the Canon 650D would not be disappointed to buy the A57.

• 

  deek on 29/07/2013 - 14:01

  +1

  Thanks! I've been casually looking for a replacement for my ageing DSC-F828. Looks like I found it.

  Grays Online also had the same model available for $549, but they were returns, and it was only $70 cheaper (with shipping included). I'm happy enough to get the brand new model.

• 

  mooreshady on 29/07/2013 - 19:11

  +3

  Curious why this getting only 10+.
  But 60D gets 100+ positives…but 1 lens less….

  I see this deal as killer deal than 60D. As 200mm lens is almost a bonus!

  • 

    nafe on 30/07/2013 - 08:53

    +1

    Because the Sony isn't as popular (rightly or wrongly), there's likely less people viewing it than the Canon

  • 

    jfkingdom1 on 30/07/2013 - 08:59

    +3

    Tell me about it man, people are so narrow minded and refuses to look at anything better out there. This is a much better camera then the 7D let alone the 60D. This deal should get 200+ votes if the 60D had 100+

    For a beginner the A57 is much easier to use then any Canon/Nikon and takes great pictures. I see alot of my friends buying Canon and Nikon but leaves it at home all the time and I ask them why, they replied it's too big and bulky and they are not getting the picture quality they are expecting and it's too hard to use. Most of the time they just use their phones to take pictures which is so silly. The Sony is so easy to use and can get you hooked into photography. I know because I used to shoot Canon.

    • 

      aim54x on 30/07/2013 - 13:06

      The A57 is a great camera, I will be the first to admit that, and it does out spec its closest rivals (D5100/D5200, 650D/700D/60D). I would have not issue recommending this camera to a new user as it is as intuitive as the competition.

      However the Nikon D5100/D5200 and Canon 650D/700D are smaller than this camera, the Canon 60D is approx the same size…your "too big, too bulky" argument is moot. As for image quality, there isn't much in it, technically the Nikon's are better (see DXOmark for a pseudo science explanation), and for the lay user you can expect to get good images easily out of any (HINT: they all have AUTO, Scene and P/A/S modes for those who are afraid of Manual), the only real advantage in usability is the Sony's ability to focus during video…it simply is the best in that respect (not counting mirrorless cameras).

• 

  Charlotta on 31/07/2013 - 02:19

  My two golden rules for anyone buying their first DSLR:-

  1/ For anyone wanting their first DSLR be aware that inter-brand compatibility is fairly non-existent. Therefore you'll be best served if whichever brand you first buy is the brand you stick with into the future. The DSLR market (particularly lenses) is dominated by Nikon and Canon. Choose either of these brands and stick with them. Other brands may make good or even great products but none match the depth of options - and the availability and competitive pricing for these options - that Canon and Nikon have.

  2/ If you have made the decision to upgrade into the DSLR market you have expectations of image quality above what will usually be produced by kit lenses. There can therefore be no possible justification for buying or owning a kit lens.

• 

  jfkingdom1 on 31/07/2013 - 09:57

  Stereotypical BS. Your the reason why Canon/Nikon hasn't innovated in the past 4 years. Competition is always good for the industry. When you can buy a camera that is alot cheaper (in this case more then half the price of the competing DSLR) and takes better pictures then the competitors then go for it. I betcha my $500 camera can outperform and takes better pictures then your $1500 camera.

  What percentage of Ozbargainers do you think are professional photographers or even hobbyist? I would think not a huge percentage. Most people buying a DSLR just wants a better camera to take pictures of the family.

  There are plenty of lenses to choose from, I own quite a few of the Sony lenses: 70-400mm f4-5.6 G lens, 70-200mm f2.8 G, 135mm f1.8 CZ, 50mm f1.4, 18-250mm, 100 f2.8 macro, three kit lenses (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 16-50 f2.8) as well as some old Minolta, Tokina and Sigma lenses - 70-210mm (beercan), 50mm f1.7,35-70mm 100-300mm… There are a few other lenses that I would like to add to my collection, i.e a super wide angle, a fish eye and a 2x teleconverter but I'm still saving up for those lenses.

  • 

    nafe on 31/07/2013 - 12:16

    You're even more of a fanboi than Canon or Nikon owners.

• 

  BigglesKDH on 31/07/2013 - 10:06

  +1

  Brought one yesterday and can't wait to get it, so many great reviews for this camera.
  thanks jfkingdom1

  • 

    jfkingdom1 on 31/07/2013 - 10:19

    No problem, you won't be disappointed. It's an awesome camera, great low light, images are sharp and colors just pop.

    Don't forget to give positive vote if you have not already done so.

  • 

    aim54x on 31/07/2013 - 12:19

    Congrats, you will enjoy that camera, it is a great performer