Digital SLR Camera Advice

[red_5ive]

I know this isn't really blu-ray or movie related, but I thought I'd reach out to any DSLR camera experts out there for some advice. And being that I'm looking into possibly getting a Sony DSLR, I thought it'd be ok to ask about it here since it's, well, Sony

Anyway, I'm new to SLR/DSLR and I know very little about it. I will never expect to go beyond amateur photography, and I just want to take good pictures of family (my boys are in sports, I'd like to get decent action shots) and scenery when we're on vacation or whatever. That said, I'm considering either the Sony DSLR-A200K or the Canon EOS 400D. I'm leaning more toward the Sony because for the price it has a 10.2MP sensor, 18-70mm lens (vs. 18-55mm on the Canon 400D), and image stabilization in the camera itself. Plus I've read a lot of the positive reviews that it's getting as an entry level DSLR camera comparable to the Canon EOS 400D and even the Nikon D60. Can anyone advise on this? I'd like to make the purchase today as I can get the A200K with a 75-300mm lens for about the price of the EOS 400D (sale ends today).

Thanks!

[mattym]

www.talkphotography.co.uk for camera advice. The sony is a very accomplished camera, though the new nikon is supposed to be very good..

[groovyone]

Check out popphoto.com and dpreview.com for reviews. I'd recommend the A200. I bought an A100 almost 2 years ago and now use an A700. I think if you are just getting into DSLRs it is a great way to go! For $500, the A200 Kit is a great deal! The Sony uses any A-mount lenses, which includes the Minolta AF. The sensor based image stabilization is effective. The kit lens with the Sony is one of the top kits out there with good performance and good range. If you like the idea of Live View, the Sony A300 is a great deal for only $600.

That being said, be sure to go to stores and feel them all out. You may find the controls of one work better than another, or one may fit your hands better, etc. I have friends with Canon, Nikon and Sony. Each system has it's strong points.

I have used the Canon Digital Rebel, Canon XTi, Canon 30D and Nikon D70. If the A100 hadn't come out when it had I'd very likely have gone with the D70 and would probably have a D300 by now. There is also some interesting offerings from Pentax and Olympus.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me. If you are in the Houston, TX area, definitely shoot me a message and you can check out my A700.

[Blu Kreme]

There are only 2 competitors in this game ..

Nikon

&

Canon

I have never used a Nikon. Some swear by them. I don't hate them and like I said, never used one so can't say anything about them.

I have used many Canon's. I have a G3. Got it many years ago and that thing is still kicking out incredible photos. I have had an EOS 20D and 30D. I got rid of them because I did not use them as much as I thought. However, my hobbies have changed. I will be getting a 40D as long as something new does not come out before the end of the year for Canon.

Want a great SLR - Get a Canon EOS 40D. Best bang for the buck. Anything higher, you pay more and is reserved for the real serious photographers or those amateurs that don't mind spending big bucks!

[red_5ive]

Originally Posted by groovyone

Check out popphoto.com and dpreview.com for reviews. I'd recommend the A200. I bought an A100 almost 2 years ago and now use an A700. I think if you are just getting into DSLRs it is a great way to go! For $500, the A200 Kit is a great deal! The Sony uses any A-mount lenses, which includes the Minolta AF. The sensor based image stabilization is effective. The kit lens with the Sony is one of the top kits out there with good performance and good range. If you like the idea of Live View, the Sony A300 is a great deal for only $600.

That being said, be sure to go to stores and feel them all out. You may find the controls of one work better than another, or one may fit your hands better, etc. I have friends with Canon, Nikon and Sony. Each system has it's strong points.

I have used the Canon Digital Rebel, Canon XTi, Canon 30D and Nikon D70. If the A100 hadn't come out when it had I'd very likely have gone with the D70 and would probably have a D300 by now. There is also some interesting offerings from Pentax and Olympus.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me. If you are in the Houston, TX area, definitely shoot me a message and you can check out my A700.

Thanks everyone for the input.

groovyone, I ended up going with the A200 today (I missed out on the additional 75-300mm lens deal for an additional $100). Anyway, they were out of stock on the A300, but now I'm wondering if I should have just bought that one anyway and had it shipped as the idea of Live View does interest me. So my question then is for the extra $100 is Live View even worth it? I'm coming from a Sony DSC-F707, and even with that model I never really took full advantage of using the LCD to adjust the picture. Am I missing anything without Live View on the 200, or would it be better to put the $100 price difference toward the 75-300mm lens which I'm thinking of going back and buying today to take advantage of Circuit City's tax free sale?

And one more question, the Canon EOS XTi was on clearance for $650 ($150 more than the A200). I had an impulse to get that one instead, but for the price of the Sony the included 18-75mm lens enticed me over the XTi which is 18-55mm. Would you recommend the XTi at that price over the A200 or even the A300?

Thanks.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by red_5ive

Thanks everyone for the input.

groovyone, I ended up going with the A200 today (I missed out on the additional 75-300mm lens deal for an additional $100). Anyway, they were out of stock on the A300, but now I'm wondering if I should have just bought that one anyway and had it shipped as the idea of Live View does interest me. So my question then is for the extra $100 is Live View even worth it? I'm coming from a Sony DSC-F707, and even with that model I never really took full advantage of using the LCD to adjust the picture. Am I missing anything without Live View on the 200, or would it be better to put the $100 price difference toward the 75-300mm lens which I'm thinking of going back and buying today to take advantage of Circuit City's tax free sale?

And one more question, the Canon EOS XTi was on clearance for $650 ($150 more than the A200). I had an impulse to get that one instead, but for the price of the Sony the included 18-75mm lens enticed me over the XTi which is 18-55mm. Would you recommend the XTi at that price over the A200 or even the A300?

Thanks.

I personally don't think I'd use Live View much. The advantage of the A200 over the A300 is a brighter viewfinder. Sony uses a second sensor for their live view, which is great for those that use Live View, but it makes the viewfinder alittle dimmer and smaller. There is a good comparison of the 3 here: Shutterbug A200, A300 and A350 Comparison

As for the Sony 75-300, you may want to see if you can snag a used Minolta model, or better yet, find a good Minolta 'Beercan' 70-210 f4. I was able to score mine for about $150 on eBay. There have also been good Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO lenses going for just over $100. I bought the Sigma as my second lens, then followed up with the beercan and Minolta 50mm f1.7 for about $60.

Currently I have 50 f1.7, 100mm f2.8 Macro D, 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 and 70-210 f4 Minoltas; 50 f1.4, 16-80 f3.5-4.5 Zeiss, 70-200 f2.8 G SSM, and 2x TC Sonys; along with 70-300 f4-5.6 and 400mm f5.6 Sigmas. I also have a HVL-F56AM Sony flash.

You can also research other Minolta, Sony and A-mount lenses here: Dyxum.com Lens Reviews. My login ID is the same there.

*forgot the Minolta 28-75 f2.8, which is a great, fast lens that can usually be had for under $400

[red_5ive]

Originally Posted by groovyone

I personally don't think I'd use Live View much. The advantage of the A200 over the A300 is a brighter viewfinder. Sony uses a second sensor for their live view, which is great for those that use Live View, but it makes the viewfinder alittle dimmer and smaller. There is a good comparison of the 3 here: Shutterbug A200, A300 and A350 Comparison

As for the Sony 75-300, you may want to see if you can snag a used Minolta model, or better yet, find a good Minolta 'Beercan' 70-210 f4. I was able to score mine for about $150 on eBay. There have also been good Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO lenses going for just over $100. I bought the Sigma as my second lens, then followed up with the beercan and Minolta 50mm f1.7 for about $60.

You can also research other Minolta, Sony and A-mount lenses here: Dyxum.com Lens Reviews. My login ID is the same there.

Awesome, thanks for that input on the viewfinder. I'll def be using it 99% of the time as a DSLR and would rather not lose any clarity in the viewfinder.

And yeah, I started researching lenses and you're right, there's more out there for less. Thanks again for the information. I'm keeping the 200.

[groovyone]

No problem! Always glad to help. The brighter viewfinder is a huge help for manual focussing too. In fact, I even have a magnifier on my A700 now. I'll have to double check teh PN, but it is actually a Pentax piece that happens to fit the Sony viewfinder.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Blu Kreme

There are only 2 competitors in this game ..

Nikon

&

Canon

Well, said. Sony is too new to the SLR market (even though they bought Minolta).

[cravnsn]

Canon & Nikon do indeed make good cameras, and have been in the biz a long time. That said, Sony does make very good CCD’s (which is what the image is being rendered on) and some of their lenses use Zeiss optics. Whether it’s film or digital, quality glass can make all the difference, and Zeiss is quality stuff.

Stevesdigicams.com is also a good place to get some data & real world pics comparing PQ of various lenses & cameras.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Well, said. Sony is too new to the SLR market (even though they bought Minolta).

In case you haven't noticed, with the possible exception of the D700/D3, Nikon's sensors are all made by Sony. Check out the expanding lineup of Zeiss lenses too.


For the record, Sony did not buy Minolta. They went in together on a joint venture when Minolta bailed on the SLR market. Sony did a remarkable job of getting the A100 out quickly, likely based on what would have been the 5Ds replacement, and have made great strides with the A700. It will be interesting to see what the A900 has to show beyond its 24MP FF sensor.

[Blu Kreme]

Originally Posted by groovyone

In case you haven't noticed, with the possible exception of the D700/D3, Nikon's sensors are all made by Sony. Check out the expanding lineup of Zeiss lenses too.


For the record, Sony did not buy Minolta. They went in together on a joint venture when Minolta bailed on the SLR market. Sony did a remarkable job of getting the A100 out quickly, likely based on what would have been the 5Ds replacement, and have made great strides with the A700. It will be interesting to see what the A900 has to show beyond its 24MP FF sensor.

Lets not start that debate.

Sony is not known for their cameras or any SLR for that matter. Sony is known for their audio equipment, computers and are expanding.

Nikon and Canon are the big guys in the SLR sector and will remain that way for a while. Those are the two names you look at when you want to buy a camera. Period. All those National Geographic images and all those jaw draw dropping photos see day to day are either from a Nikon or a Canon.

Be it may that Nikon uses a Sony sensor, that does not mean anything other than the sensor is provided by Sony. There is much more to a cam than just the sensor.

[groovyone]

I think you need to do more research. Sony not known for cameras? Look up pro video for starters.

As for NatGeo photos, also look into Medium Format. Many use DSLRs, but many shoot Medium Format. Besides, you could give most of those guys a P&S and get great results. A great photo has more to do with the skill of the photographer than their tools.

Yes Minolta hurt themselves with poor marketing and lawsuits, but they were key in the evolution of the SLR.

[cravnsn]

One of the main things to look for are the coatings on the lenses. Lens aberrations will effect a digital image differently than an image captured on film. Trouble is, the Nikon & Canon lenses are (mostly) made to fit both film and digital bodies. If a lens says it’s designed more for digital, then that might be the way to go. Better glass = better pictures, period. If you start with a sharp focus and well exposed picture, the limits to how you can make it look on a computer are almost limitless.

[AliceT]

Originally Posted by groovyone

I think you need to do more research. Sony not known for cameras? Look up pro video for starters.

As for NatGeo photos, also look into Medium Format. Many use DSLRs, but many shoot Medium Format.

Yes Minolta hurt themselves with poor marketing and lawsuits, but they were key in the evolution of the SLR.

While I personally have the A200, if you tell a professional photographer to go with a Sony, they will laugh at you. The Sony is a great beginners SLR, as I think the IS is great on it.

[Blu Kreme]

Originally Posted by groovyone

I think you need to do more research. Sony not known for cameras? Look up pro video for starters.

As for NatGeo photos, also look into Medium Format. Many use DSLRs, but many shoot Medium Format. Besides, you could give most of those guys a P&S and get great results. A great photo has more to do with the skill of the photographer than their tools.

Yes Minolta hurt themselves with poor marketing and lawsuits, but they were key in the evolution of the SLR.

I underlined and made bold the thing Sony is known for. Video. Not photography.

Originally Posted by AliceT

While I personally have the A200, if you tell a professional photographer to go with a Sony, they will laugh at you. The Sony is a great beginners SLR, as I think the IS is great on it.

That's what I was trying to say - Any pro is either going to have a Nikon or Canon in their bag. Not a Sony. Sony is not bad for consumer cams. They are just not known for pro material.

To each their own

[red_5ive]

I did say in my first post that I'll never go beyond amateur use. I'm not any kind of pro (obviously or I wouldn't have asked about the Sony). Now, I can still take it back and lose 15% on a restock fee, but that's not too bad since it's tax free purchases today at Circus City so I'll just think of it as losing $30 had I paid tax to maintain my sanity. So, should I go back and get the Canon EOS XTi for $150 more? Or what about the Nikon D40 for the same price as the Sony, except the D40 is 6.1mp vs. 10.1 on the Sony?

[groovyone]

In 2 years Sony has secured the #3 spot. As for Pros, I know people who make their living using a Sony, which makes them professionals.

I am not arguing that Canon and Nikon are #1 and #2 right now, but to ignore all the others on the market is foolish.

If you think Sony's are entry level only, check out the A700. The 40D, D300 and A700 are all considered 'Advanced Amature' but they each have different strengths. Canon has a good price point and Live View. Sony has IS a better built body and most argue better ergonomics. Nikon's D300 is a beast with great noice reduction and an incredibly sturdy body.

Look at the lenses. Yes, there are MORE Canon and Nikon, but not necessarily better. Look up comparisons in the 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 range.

Yes, a true PRO camera does not yet exist in the Sony lineup, but should that keep anyone from buying one? Unless you plan on investing $5-8K in a camera body eventually, no.

My point with Sony's Pro Video knowledge is they can support professional gear. Talk to Nikon owners who have tried to get issues resolved.

Red, if you are worried that you may one day be a pro sports photographer in the next year or so, then consider Nikon or Canon. Otherwise go with whichever system fits you best.

As for XTi vs A200 vs D40/D60, I think you'll get the most enjoyment out of the A200. The XTi is a good camera, and I have used one. I do not think it is worth more than the A200. You'd be better off stretching for the XSi. The D40/D60 is decent, but I did not like the 3 point AF system and that they removed the AF motor from the body.

Blu, go try other systems out there. You said yourself you have only shot with Canon.

[red_5ive]

Originally Posted by groovyone

As for XTi vs A200 vs D40/D60, I think you'll get the most enjoyment out of the A200. The XTi is a good camera, and I have used one. I do not think it is worth more than the A200. You'd be better off stretching for the XSi. The D40/D60 is decent, but I did not like the 3 point AF system and that they removed the AF motor from the body.

Thanks again, groovyone. Another question, though, can I expect better pics with either the XTi or the D60 over the A200? Those are both in my price range.

[cravnsn]

Originally Posted by red_5ive

Thanks again, groovyone. Another question, though, can I expect better pics with either the XTi or the D60 over the A200? Those are both in my price range.

Dude, do yourself a favor - check out this website with real world tests & pictures

http://www.steves-digicams.com/