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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 12, 2008, 7:43 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm seeing the same thing echoed in some of the forums from Canon shooters that have tried the D300, too (as in the two comments I posted above from two different Canon users). So, it's not just the reviewers take on it (or the slower measured results using 51 AF points).

Just because both the D3 and D300 use a 51 Point AF sensor, that doesn't mean the camera's processing is the same (speed of processors/ASICs, algorithms used, etc.)

NHL has some Canon and Nikon gear. So, perhaps he'll notice this thread and comment. But, if memory serves, he uses mostly Center Point AF for his birding (which is much faster according to tests I've seen).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 8:37 AM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

tapout13 wrote:
Quote:
I am not looking towards sony, because I want lens options
I wouldn't discount Sony until you decide what lenses you'll need.

Keep in mind that Sony DSLR models were based mostly on Konica Minolta's DSLR models, and use a Minolta AF lens mount, since Sony acquired Konica Minolta's camera related assets.

So, they can use any Minolta Autofocus Lens ever made (as well as third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and others in Minolta mount), and you'll typically find as many (or usually more) Autofocus lenses in Minolta AF mount in the used departments at reputable vendors like bhphotovideo.com, keh.com and adorama.com, as you will for Canon or Nikon mount.

The weakest area from my perspective in Sony's new lens lineup is lower cost primes. Sony decided to introduce the premium lenses first. For example, they offer a 35mm f/1.4 (but, don't offer a 35mm f/2), they have a 50mm f/1.4 (but, they don't offer a lower priced 50mm f/1.8 ), they have an 85mm f/1.4 (but, no lower priced 85mm f/1.8 ).

So, you'd need to go used if you don't want to spend the money for the brighter primes Sony currently offers in these focal lengths. Some are very inexpensive (for example, you can pick up a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 AF lens for under $100 on the used market, with better construction quality than you see with the "plastic fantastic" 50mm f/1.8 lenses from Nikon or Canon). But, some are a bit pricey (for example, prices have been increasing on the Minolta 100mm f/2 AF lens a lot lately). The Minolta 85mm f/1.4 AF lens is more readily available used (but, it's not exactly cheap either).

I'm shooting with the Sony A700 now, and I use a Minolta 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8, 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, 35-70mm f/4 Macro; Konica Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6; Tamron 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5, Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8; and Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4. All Autofocus (and all are stabilized on my Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and Sony DSLR-A700), and most of the Minolta lenses were purchased on the used market (mostly from the used departments at B&H, Adorama, and keh.com)

Another area in the new lens lineup that's a short term concern right now is the 70-200mm f/2.8 range. The lens Sony offers is an extremely high quality lens. But, it's pricey. Sigma and Tamron will be offering new 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses in this range in Sony/Minolta mount (adorama.com is taking preorders now, waiting for delivery on them from Tamron and Sigma). So, that should help out users wallets when someone needs a lens in this range.

Now that Sony has gone from one DSLR model (the DSLR-A100) to 5 DSLR models (DSLR-A100, A200, A300, A350, A700), with at least one more DSLR model on the way for this year, I think we'll start seeing better support from third party lens manufacturers (as you found with Minolta AF models in the past), with more competitive pricing on Sony lenses as time passes.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2008, 7:55 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
NHL has some Canon and Nikon gear. So, perhaps he'll notice this thread and comment. But, if memory serves, he uses mostly Center Point AF for his birding (which is much faster according to tests I've seen).
Jim is correct... as I shoot mostly with the center point (with the additional help from the 9 surrounding AF points in dynamic mode)

IMO any camera will be faster to AF if you already have an AF point pre-selected for it to work from. This make sense else the cameras will have to spend extra time to determine which of the 45 or 51 AF points to use first, and then do it's AF from theses camera's selected AF point(s) onward... i.e. 1-step vs two-steps

From my experience with both it's practically impossible to tell which one camera system is faster than one another since no one can shoot the same moving subject twice. The surrounding background and its EV-value at the time also play a big part in how fast an AF work in real-life. I highly doubt anyone can tell the difference between 0.23 vs 0.42s and theses fractional seconds are only something that can be instrumentated

-> Theses images are the closest I can get to comparing two systems at about the same time and with the same subject, and if I don't put up the EXIF I doubt anyone can tell them which camera system they came from: :-):lol::-)



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2008, 7:20 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default

thanks to everyone for their input.
I thought the Canon 40d 28-135 was a good deal. The 40d itelf cost about 1150, so I was seeing the 28-135 as $210. Maybe I could sell it?

But then again it's my first dslr and I don't know if a 30/40d is more than I need. I thought the canon xti 400d was too small for me, BUT I held one with the canon grip and felt like a XXD model. It such a better and diff feel to it. Maybe I should go with the XTI plus grip. Or is having the 30/40d better if I don't want to upgrade soon. I was thinking of pairing whatever I get with the tamron 24-70mm 2.8. Any suggestions?

Thanx
tapout13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 4:16 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Firstly.

Buy the cheap 18-55 kit lens and use it for a few weeks or months before deciding on another lens.

You seem unsure what focal length range you want. 28-135? 24-70? And yet you say you love street photography. Neither of those ranges is suitable IMO - too long. The 18-55 is perfectly able to give good shots at a very low price until you get a feeling for the focal lengths you want. Most shops will give you something back on the 18-55 if you are trading up.

Secondly.

Go for the 40D - the camera is much more versatile and it sounds to me like you might need that versatility with your wide range of photographic interests.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 10:01 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I agree with peripatetic

The new 16-50 f/2.8 is what replacing the old 24-70 f/2.8 on full-frame
-> On a D300 this lens is super fast as it only rotates a very small arc... when focused
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 7:35 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Hi,
I was thinking of buying the body only.
I have a 28-80mm from my canon rebel 2000. and I was thinking of gettin the 50m /1.8

NHL is that new lens from Tonika?
tapout13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2008, 3:39 AM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

tapout

You've probably not got to grips with the 1.6 "crop factor" yet.

Your old 28-80 (which I had too once upon a time) will give the same field of view as a 45-128mm lens on your 35mm film camera. There is a very large difference at the wide angle end between 28 and 45mm. Just try it out on your current camera. Set it to 45mm and see if you could live with that as your widest angle lens. Notice that with the crop factor taken into account 28-80/1.6 => 18-50. The 18-55 is the equivalent lens to what you have now on your 35mm film camera.

Also in my experience the 18-55 kit Canon kit lens was far superior to the 28-80 kit lens that came with the old film cameras. This will probably surprise you because you have no doubt read millions of internet "experts" who proclaim that the 18-55 kit lens is rubbish. On the contrary, it is very good value for money as a starter lens when you consider how little it adds to the cost of the camera. Certainly on my 20D the 18-55 was better than my 28-80 at every overlapping focal length. The 28-80 never particularly disappointed me when shooting film, but on digital its shortcomings were very obvious. If you can get the new 18-55 IS lens then you may find it's good enough to never need to trade up.

Also the 50mm with crop factor is equivalent to 50*1.6 = 80mm on your film camera. It's not a "standard" lens when used with a crop camera, it's a short telephoto. Some people like that equivalent focal length for portraits. (I don't myself.) If you are looking for a fast "standard" lens on the Canon crop cameras you might consider the 35mm f2 or the 28mm f1.8.

Anyway - I strongly recommend you spend a little time looking at the lens review sites over at:

http://slrgear.com (my favourite - be sure to click on the charts to get an interactive blur graph)

Also check out http://photozone.de


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2008, 12:09 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Default

Last week I tried (bought) both entry Nikons, the D40X and D40. While both were nice cameras and I took some great pictures. The 3-point AF was not very good or consistent and the D40X had some physical issues that sprang from being a display model and I returned them both and got a Sony A200.

So far I like the camera, quick AF, solid feel and body based image stabilizer. Metering seems to be good so far. One bonus, the D40/x only offered RAW+basic jpeg where the sony saves a full quality jpeg. Tamron has some nice full range lenses available and the canon/nikon/sony-minolta mounts are the same price. So far I'm happy, but will probably trade up for the a300 or a350. I do a fair amount of macro shots and the liveview is almost essential, otherwise I would just use my older canon S3 IS.

djand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2008, 12:11 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

congratulations! Sounds like you found your camera
JohnG 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 9:47 PM.