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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 4, 2011, 10:47 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1
Default 550d VS D5100 VS A55 ( live view - low light - easy of use )

hi there

i'm totally new both here or using the dSLRs
i'm moving from using point and shoot cuz of the totally unacceptable low light shots.. lacking the image stablizing.. and usable high ISO photos

also i like shooting alot.. so i think i will make use of the new camera

so.. i knw the selected camera has so similar options and abilties.. weak/strong points

so that i hope u tell me the best for my uses and requriements

Uses:
holiday - outings - indoors - lowlight photos
80% for handheld group/single full body pics in the outings with some backgrounds without flash ( 50% of them in low light )

what i care for:
FULL TIME live view - good image stabilizing - high ISO performance - easy of use - some auto smart modes - sharp pics

what i DONT care for:
view finder - anything else

usually i dont do crops at all.. so dont care alot about zooming the the pics or cropping it.. ( i mean i hope the pics dont have appearing noise while i'm not zooming the pic.. )


with my budget i will only use the kit lens and maybe after 6 months or more i will get a 50 mm 1.8 lens


thnx alot and waiting ur opinions
dslr new beginner is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 4, 2011, 1:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Shooting in low light without flash requires slow shutter speeds, large apertures, and/or high ISO settings.

Slow shutter speeds may result in motion blur, from either subject movement or camera shake. There's nothing you can do about subject movement except not let the shutter speed get too slow. For camera shake, the convention is to keep the shutter speed faster than the reciprocal of the focal length times the crop factor. For instance, at a focal length of 30mm, you should keep the shutter speed faster than 1/45 second for the Nikon or Sony, and faster than 1/48 second for the Canon. If you need to use slower shutter speeds, and can safely avoid motion blur due to subject movement, then you need to rely on image stabilization. The kit lenses for the Canon and Nikon are stabilized, and the Sony body is stabilized with any AF lens.

The kit lenses for the cameras you mentioned do not have large apertures, but large aperture lenses are available for them. However, large aperture stabilized lenses for the Canon and Nikon are expensive, and some of them aren't very good. Large aperture lenses for the Sony are less expensive, because they don't need to be stabilized because the Sony body is, and they are also better than the stabilized versions for Canon and Nikon.

High ISO settings can result in image noise, which degrades image quality. DxOMark measures the Signal to Noise ratio of different cameras, and of the three cameras you're considering, the Nikon performs slightly better than the Canon and Sony. (Click on Measurements and then click on SNR 18%.) (If you consider the Sony A580 instead of the A55, the Nikon and Sony perform about equally as well, which is better than the Canon.)

Another factor which is more significant when shooting in low light is the accuracy of the AF systems. dSLRs use two different AF systems, a Phase Detection system and a Contrast Measurement system. The Phase Detection system is more accurate, especially in low light, but the Canon and Nikon can't use their Phase Detection AF systems when using their 'Live View' modes. Only the Sony, by virtue of its "Translucent Mirror Technology", can use its Phase Detection AF system in 'Live View'.

I think the best thing for you to do is skip the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and go straight for a large aperture standard zoom lens. The ones for the Canon and Nikon will be either expensive or not very good (or both.) That makes the Sony A55 with the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II the obvious choice, plus the Sony has the added benefit of being able to use it's Phase Detection AF system while using 'Live View'.

If the combination of the Sony A55 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is more than you wanted to spend initially, then you might consider the Sony A35 instead. It shares many features and capabilities with the more expensive A55, but it can't capture as many sequential images in burst mode, and it's $100 less expensive.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2011, 3:59 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Just a thought - live view. How do you plan to hold the camera - out in front of you like a point and shoot? A dSLR is a bit larger, and heavier, and with a lens, you are probably not going to be able to hold it steady - essentially overwhelming the image stabilization. Result - tired arms, sharp pictures - not.....

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2011, 4:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Yeah. That.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2011, 8:17 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If the combination of the Sony A55 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is more than you wanted to spend initially, then you might consider the Sony A35 instead. It shares many features and capabilities with the more expensive A55, but it can't capture as many sequential images in burst mode, and it's $100 less expensive.
That's an understatement for comparing the differences between these models (can't capture as many sequential images in a burst mode). ;-)

The buffer in the A55 is several times as large. If you're shooting RAW, you'd be limited to a 6 frame buffer with the A35 (when you'd get 18 frames before a slowdown with the A55).

The A55 also has a faster available frame rate, giving you full resolution images at up to 6fps with the aperture varying, or 10fps with the aperture locked. With the A35, the fastest you can get without a cropped image is 5.5fps (if you want 7fps, it crops the photos, and it doesn't have a 10fps mode).

You also get a built in GPS with the A55 (the A35 doesn't have one) so you get location data in a photo's EXIF.

Finally, the A55 has an articulating display, which makes live view more useful (for example, shooting with the camera at waist level, or even at ground level while still being able to compose the shots easily by looking down towards a tilted up LCD).

The display on the A35 is fixed.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2011, 12:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 601
Default

i'd try and find the money for the A55 and the faster lens. i used to have a camera with an articulated display, and that's something i used a lot more than i thought i would, and i really miss having it.
pcake 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 9:13 AM.