Dave (Pierces)

[danya83]

Ok, I am FINALLY done researching cameras (I think). I have been researching since late april!!!

 

I have it narrowed down to:

Nikon D40/D40x (any real difference that *I* will feel [as a beginner])

Sony Alpha (10.2)

Cannon Rebel XT

 

In YOUR opinion do you know any pros or cons?

[pierces]

Ok, I am FINALLY done researching cameras (I think). I have been researching since late april!!!

 

I have it narrowed down to:

Nikon D40/D40x (any real difference that *I* will feel [as a beginner])

Sony Alpha (10.2)

Cannon Rebel XT

 

In YOUR opinion do you know any pros or cons?

 

Out of the three in that price range, the Alpha is probably the winner. In the D40/x, Nikon removed the in-body focusing motor, so it won't autofocus with most Nikon lenses (only the newer ones with motors in them). This also limits you 3rd-party choices, since only a few lenses from Sigma and others have the motor onboard for Nikon. The XT is a good camera, but the Alpha is better compared feature-wise to the 10MP XTi.

 

Sony is old in the digital camera business, but new in the DSLR market. Their acquisition of Minolta technology when Minolta closed their camera operations last year has given them a leg up in the game and they are aggressively adding pro-level lenses and will release a couple of new, more advanced bodies in the next 6 months or so. The kit lens that comes bundled with the body is generally well rated as well. I think there is now a bundle that includes the excellent 18-200mm zoom. The Alpha has been out for about a year and the prices are about as low as they will get until it's replacement is announced, so it's a good time to pick one up.

 

Truth is, none of those cameras is a bad choice. Canon has the top spot in DSLR sales for a good reason. They make excellent cameras and market heavily to the pro market (which puts their name on the shelves at a lot of stores!) Their lens and accessory selection is very extensive. Nikon is second in sales and also has a long history of quality and pro usage. Sony, while new to DSLRs, has been making pro (broadcast) video cameras since there have been pro video cameras. They also make most of the sensors used in most makes of digital cameras (including almost all of Nikon's DSLRs), so they aren't new to the technology. They moved into third place with the release of the one model and have stated their intention to be a player in the game.

 

I have been a Minolta user forever and shoot with a Maxxum 7D. If I hadn't had the 7D, I probably would have bought an Alpha when it came out. As it was, my camera was and is still working and doing what I wanted it to do, so I couldn't justify buying one at the time. I am now awaiting Sony's release of their "enthusiast" level which will be a more direct upgrade to the 7D.

 

That's my opinion and some reasoning behind it. As I said, you will do well with any of the three brands. My final suggestion would be to go to a store and hold each one, play with the controls and see which one "feels" best.

 

Good luck!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[danya83]

Out of the three in that price range, the Alpha is probably the winner. In the D40/x, Nikon removed the in-body focusing motor, so it won't autofocus with most Nikon lenses (only the newer ones with motors in them). This also limits you 3rd-party choices, since only a few lenses from Sigma and others have the motor onboard for Nikon. The XT is a good camera, but the Alpha is better compared feature-wise to the 10MP XTi.

 

Sony is old in the digital camera business, but new in the DSLR market. Their acquisition of Minolta technology when Minolta closed their camera operations last year has given them a leg up in the game and they are aggressively adding pro-level lenses and will release a couple of new, more advanced bodies in the next 6 months or so. The kit lens that comes bundled with the body is generally well rated as well. I think there is now a bundle that includes the excellent 18-200mm zoom. The Alpha has been out for about a year and the prices are about as low as they will get until it's replacement is announced, so it's a good time to pick one up.

 

Truth is, none of those cameras is a bad choice. Canon has the top spot in DSLR sales for a good reason. They make excellent cameras and market heavily to the pro market (which puts their name on the shelves at a lot of stores!) Their lens and accessory selection is very extensive. Nikon is second in sales and also has a long history of quality and pro usage. Sony, while new to DSLRs, has been making pro (broadcast) video cameras since there have been pro video cameras. They also make most of the sensors used in most makes of digital cameras (including almost all of Nikon's DSLRs), so they aren't new to the technology. They moved into third place with the release of the one model and have stated their intention to be a player in the game.

 

I have been a Minolta user forever and shoot with a Maxxum 7D. If I hadn't had the 7D, I probably would have bought an Alpha when it came out. As it was, my camera was and is still working and doing what I wanted it to do, so I couldn't justify buying one at the time. I am now awaiting Sony's release of their "enthusiast" level which will be a more direct upgrade to the 7D.

 

That's my opinion and some reasoning behind it. As I said, you will do well with any of the three brands. My final suggestion would be to go to a store and hold each one, play with the controls and see which one "feels" best.

 

Good luck!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

 

 

Thanks Dave, I have been in the stores "playing" with them all....I think the sales people are beginning to not like me! LOL. Your opinions are great, I'll let you know which I end up with. I am heavily leaning towards the Sony....so we will see!

[grizzy]

Good info from Dave...here's my take.

 

I assume you've learned on a point and shoot and are looking to take your pictures to the next level. If this is true then I'd buy an XT BODY only(perhaps second hand off of photography-on-the.net or fredmiranda.com) and spend some money on a quality lens...it's what's going to make your pictures "pop".

I'd strongly advise against most kit lenses as if you want to get serious you'll be upgrading from it quickly.

 

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon but the ammount of lenses (including 3rd party choices) and better ISO performance made me select Canon. Don't get hung up on the mega pixels...it's mainly about the glass (lens).

 

Chris

[grizzy]

Good info from Dave...here's my take.

 

I assume you've learned on a point and shoot and are looking to take your pictures to the next level. If this is true then I'd buy an XT BODY only(perhaps second hand off of photography-on-the.net or fredmiranda.com) and spend some money on a quality lens...it's what's going to make your pictures "pop".

I'd strongly advise against most kit lenses as if you want to get serious you'll be upgrading from it quickly.

 

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon but the ammount of lenses (including 3rd party choices) and better ISO performance made me select Canon. Don't get hung up on the mega pixels...it's mainly about the glass (lens).

 

Chris

[Aplmac]

.. I'd buy an XT BODY only(perhaps second hand) and spend some money on a quality lens...it's what's going to make your pictures "pop".

I'd strongly advise against most kit lenses.

 

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon

Don't get hung up on the mega pixels...it's mainly about the glass (lens).

Chris is right: it's all about the glass/lenses/optics!

 

The camera your lens is attached to

is merely a glorified mecahnical darkroom of sorts,

whereas your picture(quality) is made by the lens.

 

Spend your money on glass,

not on whizbang features on a camera body.

 

Next question to everyone out there.

How long has Sony been in the optics business?

Longer than Nikon? or Asahi? or Canon?

 

What lenses does the Sony use? (I have no idea!)

If Sony uses someone else's optics, go with Sony.

If they do their own optics, they're probably 'not bad' but....

 

Lens first: camera second.

[pierces]

Chris is right: it's all about the glass/lenses/optics!

 

Agreed

 

 

What lenses does the Sony use? (I have no idea!)

If Sony uses someone else's optics, go with Sony.

If they do their own optics, they're probably 'not bad' but....

 

 

They have a long-term relationship with Zeiss, who have been making lenses for "a while". They also retained full access to Minolta's lens manufacturing which has produced exceptional lenses for as long as Nikkor and longer than Canon (early Canon rangefinders used Nikkor lenses). Minolta pro "G" lenses are being re-released under Sony's brand as well as the Sony ZA Zeiss lenses. Minolta's lens manufacturing was good enough for Leica's R-series SLRs and has found a new life with Sony. (Makes me glad since I use A-mount lenses!) I wouldn't worry about Sony glass.

 

Lens first: camera second.

 

Uh, sure...ok. I guess you could look through the lens or start campfires with it until you get the camera....:D

 

All this means to me is that there is more competition which ultimately give all of u better products at better prices. More money left to travel!

 

HAppy shooting!

 

Dave

[Aplmac]

 

They have a long-term relationship with Zeiss, who have been making lenses for "a while". They also retained full access to Minolta's lens manufacturing which has produced exceptional lenses for as long as Nikkor and longer than Canon (early Canon rangefinders used Nikkor lenses).

You have only to mention Zeiss and I immediately genuflect!

 

The Hasselblad SWC I owned in a past life had Carl Zeiss optics,

as do all Hassel's,I believe

(Rolleiflex used Schneider optics, I think).

 

The Germans also do excellent optics....the Wizards of Wetzlar not excluded.

 

PANASONIC digi-cams use Leica glass,

and I've always thought I might one day buy one of them,

for the glass - not so much the camera.

A friend of mine has a lower-end Panasonic point-and-shoot with a Leica lens

and pics I've seen taken with that camera are noticeably sharp/sharpER than normal.

[pierces]

You have only to mention Zeiss and I immediately genuflect!

 

The Hasselblad SWC I owned in a past life had Carl Zeiss optics,

as do all Hassel's,I believe

(Rolleiflex used Schneider optics, I think).

 

The Germans also do excellent optics....the Wizards of Wetzlar not excluded.

 

There have been some grumblings that the Zeiss glass used by Sony (and some now available for Nikon) aren't made by Zeiss, only branded by them. The truth is, Zeiss has been manufacturing lenses all over the place for years but has retained total control over QC. They don't brand anything that isn't up to their established standards. The same goes for the Leica and Minolta/Rokkor partnership I mentioned earlier and the current Leica/Kyocera hook-up now.

 

Another plus that has fallen from the tree when digital started shaking it is that digital sensors capture the full potential resolution of a lens on a single plane rather than the slight blending of the multiple layers of film (Sigma Foveon excluded). This has made it necessary for manufacturers to increase the overall quality of lenses in general since optical flaws are more apparent. My favorite 24-50mm f4 Rokkor that I used on my film Maxxums is left in the dust by my new 28-75 f2.8 Konica-Minolta lens and my 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG from Sigma produces sharpness that I could only dream of back in the 80s.

 

The following picture was taken against the sunset at one of my son's football games with the Sigma. The students in the picture are standing on the top row of the opposite stands 100 yards away. The second pic is a 100% crop. Notice the girl's hair?. I had the camera on a monopod, but didn't use mirror lockup or any other fancy steadying.

 

 

100% crop

 

 

This is a 3rd party lens.

 

As I said...with competition, everybody wins!

 

Dave

[danya83]

So, I told you I would update. I went with the Sony Alpha....I am in love. I have only had it ON for under 2 hours, and I already have 300 pics. I am reading and playing around with it. I haven't quit figured how to change JUST A, it keeps changing the WB or the Shutter speed on me too. I'll figure it out in time. I didn't get any lenses other than "stock" that came with it. They didn't have many to choose from, and I wanted a good one up to 300 or 400mm....They didn't have any for that...only up to 200. Sooo, I can' wait. Gives me time to learn anyhow. thanks for all your help. I'll post some pics, even though they aren't from a cruise....YET [5 more weeks!!!!]

[pierces]

So, I told you I would update. I went with the Sony Alpha....I am in love. I have only had it ON for under 2 hours, and I already have 300 pics. I am reading and playing around with it. I haven't quit figured how to change JUST A, it keeps changing the WB or the Shutter speed on me too. I'll figure it out in time. I didn't get any lenses other than "stock" that came with it. They didn't have many to choose from, and I wanted a good one up to 300 or 400mm....They didn't have any for that...only up to 200. Sooo, I can' wait. Gives me time to learn anyhow. thanks for all your help. I'll post some pics, even though they aren't from a cruise....YET [5 more weeks!!!!]

 

 

Good luck with you new Alpha!

 

Sony's supposed to release an update to Minolta's 80 or 100-400mm APO zoom this fall. maybe it will be what you're looking for?

 

I'll keep you posted on the new Alpha TBA in September (??)...I may end up with one if half the rumors are true!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[danya83]

Good luck with you new Alpha!

 

Sony's supposed to release an update to Minolta's 80 or 100-400mm APO zoom this fall. maybe it will be what you're looking for?

 

I'll keep you posted on the new Alpha TBA in September (??)...I may end up with one if half the rumors are true!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

 

 

Cool thanks.

 

BTW....your photos are amazing! I hope to get that type of look and feel in my photos. How long have you been at it?

[pierces]

BTW....your photos are amazing! I hope to get that type of look and feel in my photos.

 

Thank you!

 

How long have you been at it?

 

Would you believe...40 years?

 

LOL! Man, that sounds like a long time when I read it! I'm happy to say I was only 10 when I started!;)

 

Here's a link to an intro article on my website that gives a little history on that and why I went digital after all that time:

http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/Welcome.htm

 

BTW, some of the other posters spoke of getting "good glass"...and they were right. Do some research and post some questions before you spend money on lenses. The Sony kit lens is actually quite good, so don't fret that you made a bad choice. In the kit it only cost you about $100 and at that price, it's a GREAT lens!

 

There is, however, a real difference between a $250 lens and a $1000 lens. I was shocked by the difference in clarity and fine resolution (even at 6MP) between my old 70-210mm f3.5-f4.5 and my 70-200mm f2.8! For budgetary reasons, you may want to pick up a 70-300mm Sony zoom for the long shots (which, again is quite good for a kit lens and there's no shame in owning one), but be aware that you may want to replace them later with higher-end optics.

 

Honestly, my "cheap" lenses served me well for years as my system grew and only in the last few years have I been able to justify buying the "good stuff". I'm glad I spent the money, but I shot a lot of pictures and had a lot of fun with the old stuff too!

 

Another tip...when you buy a flash, hold out for the $150 between the HVL-F56AM over the HVL-F36AM...it's worth the difference! I have both the Minolta versions and wish I has two 56s instead.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[danya83]

Thank you!

 

 

 

Would you believe...40 years?

 

LOL! Man, that sounds like a long time when I read it! I'm happy to say I was only 10 when I started!;)

 

Here's a link to an intro article on my website that gives a little history on that and why I went digital after all that time:

http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/Welcome.htm

 

BTW, some of the other posters spoke of getting "good glass"...and they were right. Do some research and post some questions before you spend money on lenses. The Sony kit lens is actually quite good, so don't fret that you made a bad choice. In the kit it only cost you about $100 and at that price, it's a GREAT lens!

 

There is, however, a real difference between a $250 lens and a $1000 lens. I was shocked by the difference in clarity and fine resolution (even at 6MP) between my old 70-210mm f3.5-f4.5 and my 70-200mm f2.8! For budgetary reasons, you may want to pick up a 70-300mm Sony zoom for the long shots (which, again is quite good for a kit lens and there's no shame in owning one), but be aware that you may want to replace them later with higher-end optics.

 

Honestly, my "cheap" lenses served me well for years as my system grew and only in the last few years have I been able to justify buying the "good stuff". I'm glad I spent the money, but I shot a lot of pictures and had a lot of fun with the old stuff too!

 

Another tip...when you buy a flash, hold out for the $150 between the HVL-F56AM over the HVL-F36AM...it's worth the difference! I have both the Minolta versions and wish I has two 56s instead.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

 

thanks for all the info. My son is 4 and you wouldn't believe the photos he is taking. He started out with the little fisher price kids camera and is now using my "old" Nikon coolpix 3200. He is a great photographer in the works. So he will be like you I am sure saying that he has been at it forever pretty much! LOL