Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 18, 2008, 2:24 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You can use much dimmer lenses and still get usable results with stabilization, with the flexibility and lighter weight of a walk around zoom instead in some conditions.

You also have the same benefit of being able to use a brighter lens and/or flash if desired. There's no downside to having stabilzation available from my perspective, even in conditions that you have other alternatives. Plus you don't have to irritate subjects in many conditions with a flash, even if you don't want to use a brighter lens.

As for brighter zooms in longer focal lengths, that's only if you're shopping for Sony lenses. You see Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses show up on a regular basis used. I came close to buying one recently on Ebay that sold in the $500s.

Plus, you can order a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Autofocus lens in Minolta Maxxum/Sony Alpha mount for only $699 brand new, with dealers like Adorama taking orders now. See this listing as an example:

http://www.adorama.com/TM70200MAX.ht...&item_no=2

Look for it to show up on dealer shelves very soon now that dealers are taking preorders, and I'd also see what Sony has to offer in this lens mount (I'd expect new announcements in the near future at trade shows like PMA)

These lenses would also be stablized on a Sony Alpha DSLR model.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 2:44 PM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
You can use much dimmer lenses and still get usable results with stabilization, with the flexibility and lighter weight of a walk around zoom instead in some conditions.

You also have the same benefit of being able to use a brighter lens and/or flash if desired. There's no downside to having stabilzation available from my perspective,
Actually, 2 points to make:

To your first argument, I point back to your posted photo Jim. You relied on anti-shake and got a soft photo. It's about getting the shot not about being able to shoot at 1/5. My point is anti-shake will let you down - IMO it did for the shot you posted and any shot where your subject moves. And when people are involved unless you want to tell them not to move (how natural is that) it's something you cant count on.

As for there not being a downside - I would agree if everything else were equal. And that is absolutely not the case. Every system has pros/cons. Walk into a camera store today - how many Sony lenses can you buy? Now, how many Canon or Nikon lenses are there? Like it or not - that's a fact. It's an advantage those systems hold. And again, not everyone likes buying off the used market. some people like new equipment with OEM warranties. Take a look at B&H in their new lenses - see what's available in Canon or Nikon mount vs. Sony. So, you absolutely give something up to get the in-body anti-shake. You give up all those lenses. You also give up other things as well. What's sony's full frame sensor solution? Don't want one now but if you want to upgrade in a couple years you know Canon has that solution - Sony currently doesn't.

Look my point isn't to say don't buy sony - I think it's a great camera. The point is - don't make the choice based upon the availability of in-body IS only. Consider what you're giving up to get it. In the end it may be the best decision for the OP. They may not care about the features other systems offer that they wont get with Sony. And thats OK.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 2:53 PM   #13
Member
 
Dolce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 46
Default

I just came back from Sony store. No more A100 on display. I didn't ask about the A200. Guess it's arriving soon.

Well, it's a + to have a built-in AS. But when I'm gonna use it? I'm thinking of buying a either 75-300mm or 100-300mm (Minoltas) if I stick with Sony. They cost around $150-$200 on ebay.

If I ever get the Nikon D40x, then I'll go for 55-200mm VR.

Should I just exclude the XT, because it's only 8MP compare to Sony's and Nikon's 10MPs.

Error : Used Sony A100 + 18-55mm is $550. Either 50mm or 18-55, not both.
Dolce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 2:59 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
Actually, 2 points to make:

To your first argument, I point back to your posted photo Jim. You relied on anti-shake and got a soft photo.
Without attracting attention or irritating anyone with a flash. ;-)

Photos are often more about capturing the moment than perfect sharpness at larger print sizes (plus that one would sharpen anyway).

Quote:
As for there not being a downside - I would agree if everything else were equal. And that is absolutely not the case. Every system has pros/cons. Walk into a camera store today - how many Sony lenses can you buy? Now, how many Canon or Nikon lenses are there? Like it or not - that's a fact.
Check the Autofocus lens listing at reputable vendors like keh.com, adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com, and there are usually *more* used lenses available in Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha mount compared to used Autofocus lenses for Canon or Nikon.

You'll see more and more new lenses as time passes.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 3:58 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Photos are often more about capturing the moment than perfect sharpness at larger print sizes (plus that one would sharpen anyway).
Actually, IMO, photography is about capturing the moment as perfectly as possible. The best way to do that is using the right tool for the job. If you as a photographer have the option to:

a) capture the moment with clarity

b) capture the moment with less than clear results

Why would you choose B?

For the shot you posted and the shots I posted - all captured the moment. I merely point out my methods did so with more clarity. If it's about capturing the moment how is it that your photo illustrates a better job of doing so. again, just talking about IQ - not composition. The posts on this site aren't large print sizes. So just judging IQ, I'm not seeing how the demonstration of anti-shake stacks up favorably against the other options.

But that's the great thing about a photography forum. Others can judge for themselves. You and I could argue till the cows come home. But the images are here for people to make an informed decision. Which is what's nice about people actually posting photos to illustrate their points. That's beneficial, IMO - not just theory but actual evidence people can weigh and make a decision.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 5:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I would not take the Canon XT out of the picture just because it has 8 mp. But that's just me - you might have a specific reason for needing as many pixels as you can get (it is nice for some shots where I know I have to crop a lot).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 7:48 PM   #17
Member
 
Dolce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 46
Default

Alright. Will not forget XT then. I don't think I will do cropping alot. As far as I know, I'm keeping all my images (with previous Samsung) at original sizes. A few Black and Whites, that's all. I did try my friend's XT, I really like it (compare to my Samsung). But the fact that it is 8MP vs 10MP bothers me (a bit - I tend to want something superior : LOL). XTi is over my budget (1 XTi = 1 XT + 2 lens).


Dolce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 8:04 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Dolce wrote:
Quote:
But the fact that it is 8MP vs 10MP bothers me (a bit - I tend to want something superior : LOL). XTi is over my budget (1 XTi = 1 XT + 2 lens).
Let me just say this on that topic: The single most used professional sports camera in the world is 8mp. Lots of cameras with more MP to choose from yet the pros stick with the 8mp model.

Having said everything I've said in this thread though - in many ways a camera is like a toy to many of us. If you've convinced yourself the camera with the most MP is the best it will be a self fulfilling profecy for you. If you buy a 'lesser' camera you'll always doubt your decision.

If your gut tells you to get a certain camera then get it. None of the cameras being discussed will disappoint.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2008, 11:38 PM   #19
Member
 
Dolce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 46
Default

Thanks John. I will go again to the store, and have a grip on each of them, feel them.

I didn't know that most pros are using 8MP camera. It's nice to know. That means that higher res is not always the first choice. So, I'm rethinking the XT.
Dolce is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:01 PM.