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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 23, 2009, 5:27 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Off-topic, but...
  1. I'm not going to upgrade from 6MP to just 10MP, so it would have to be 12MP or better.
  2. I'm not going to "upgrade" from 3 fps to 3.5 fps.
    In this area, Sony seems to be going in the wrong direction. The A200 & A300 could do 3 fps; the A230 & A330 can only do 2.5 fps.
That narrows it down.
If you were a camera manufacturer and only had one main dSLR product to start with (the Sony A100), and then expanded the product line to the A200, A300, A350, A700, and A900; where would you go next?

I'd probably lean towards new entry level models with a small reduction in features with smaller size and weight (like the new A230, A330 and A380), to make room in the lineup for more models at a step above those. If the entry level models are too good, you don't have a reason to move up within a product lineup.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2009, 5:42 PM   #12
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I hope you boys are not stealing this thread
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2009, 5:50 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Default

Im Still None The Wiser Now... LMAO
Hustler68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2009, 7:30 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler68 View Post
Im Still None The Wiser Now... LMAO
Wait a week and nothing will change.

Asking which camera is the best is a bit like asking which car (Mercedes versus BMW, Chevy versus Ford) or woman (Blonde versus Brunette, busty versus petitte) might be best for you.

We all have opinions.





As robbo previously stated:

"
Advantage Canon (XSi aka 450D) -
better image quality especially at high ISO (800 and and above)
faster sustained burst rate
lighter

Advantage Sony A350
Live view
articulating LCD
higher resolution (but which isn't really evident unless you get a good lens (not the kit lens)
more zoom range in kit lens (18-70mm vs 18-55mm in Canon)
in camera optical image stabilization

"
That seems like a fair asessment.

Now we can debate each and every one of these points. Sometimes in great detail.

For example the weight of the cameras. The Canon (without battery) weighs 475 grams (just over 1 lb), while the Sony (without battery) weighs 582 grams (about 1.3 lbs). Is the weight an issue?

To me, the weight is not an issue. What is an issue is balance. Specifically how the camera distributes the weight..... with your typical lens. Adding the battery might affect that balance as well.


How about physical size? Canon is smaller (129x98x62 versus 131x99x74). Is size an issue?

I can tell you the smaller size of the Canon is an issue to me. The thickness (62mm versus 74mm) is the max thickness of the camera, which is also known as the handgrip. Personally the Canon body is just too small for the fit of my hand.

If you notice, I am discussing grams and millimeters. Big Whoopee numbers ..... to some people.

Faster Burst Rate: 3.5fps for the Canon versus 2.5fps for the Sony. Burst Rate is the maximum pictures frames per second. 3.5 sounds fast, until you realize that the cameras at the next performance ($) level are doing 5fps, and more expensive cameras are cranking at even higher rates. Want to shoot Formula One racing for a living? At 2.5 or even 3.5fps these cameras we are discussing will barely work.


For your purposes.... basically general photography. I would dive into the camera that feels best to me. BTW, I recommend the Sony. I am bias.
StevieDgpt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2009, 8:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler68 View Post
Im Still None The Wiser Now... LMAO
Asside from the little detour we took around me, I'd say there's at least some useable info include here.

As for weddings, I say if someone asks you to shoot their wedding, run away as far and as fast as you can.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 1:25 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Asside from the little detour we took around me, I'd say there's at least some useable info include here.

As for weddings, I say if someone asks you to shoot their wedding, run away as far and as fast as you can.
Sometimes you can't run far enough.

Best suggestion? Hand the camera to somebody else, give them directions (aka press this button here) and then change your name and move out of town.
StevieDgpt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 9:50 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks for the replies...

To be honest ive told my friends that although i am no pro photographer (or I have never claimed to be) I would take some photos of their weddings for them but not to expect top notch standards..

As I said with the credit crunch and losing their jobs they dont have a lot of money..

Saying that ive included some photos below of mine and the wifes wedding supposedly done by a pro photographer and to be honest we wasnt very impressed..
I have shrank the photos down a little to 1024 to save a little space but at least you can still see the overall quality of the photos.
This cost me over 600 for 24 photos.

To be honest I think I might be able to do a better job than this.. I mean theres shadows everywhere and the one where we just got married an are standing in the church looks like its nighttime....

Can you all tell me what you think..

Cheers Guys..








Hustler68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 11:39 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

You got ripped off...sorry...

the Hun
rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 11:58 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
You got ripped off...sorry...

the Hun
My Point Exactly..... Do You See Where Im Coming From All???
Hustler68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 11:59 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
You got ripped off...sorry...

the Hun
Unfortunately I have to agree these look very amateur which is a real shame.

I'm charging similar prices and this is the minimum standard I would expect someone else to offer for this sort of cost.





















Now as for you, yes you could probably do similar with the camera you are thinking of but keep in mind that if you are going ahead to practise, practise and practise in many conditions so you can get an in focus, well exposed shot.

Part of me is thinking you are better off going Sony and then putting the saving towards a better lens but still think you would come over budget and I still say you want an external flash. If your photographer had been using an external flash and had rotated the head to bounce it off of the ceiling then you wouldn't have had those harsh shadows. In honesty I expect they did have an external flash however it was fired direct.
Mark1616 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 11:57 AM.