Figured I would post here rather than start a new thread but.....
I just got the Sony Alpha A230 last night and I didn't see anyone mention it in this thread. Any reason behind that? Looks like the lenses are freakin' expensive as hell, but all I want is a wide angle and a decent telephoto lens. It came with the 18-55mm. It was only $450 and the Rebel XS was $550 so I had to be a cheap bastard
I think overall Canon/Nikon give you a little better image quality, and have a much wider range of lenses to choose from, so that is the reason most people go with them. Sony has some really cool tho, in-body image stabilization, while nikon/canon you have to buy special IS lenses. I'm sure that sony will be a very nice camera.
I think overall Canon/Nikon give you a little better image quality, and have a much wider range of lenses to choose from, so that is the reason most people go with them. Sony has some really cool tho, in-body image stabilization, while nikon/canon you have to buy special IS lenses. I'm sure that sony will be a very nice camera.
The Image Stabilization was what really sold it for me. I'm shaky as hell (all the damn coffee :P) I realize I'm going to lose some quality from it at slower shutters speeds, but if I really need to take those kind of shots, I'll get a tripod haha.
The Image Stabilization was what really sold it for me. I'm shaky as hell (all the damn coffee :P) I realize I'm going to lose some quality from it at slower shutters speeds, but if I really need to take those kind of shots, I'll get a tripod haha.
Yeah if i would have wanted to spend a little more and get a new camera, that sony would have warranted serious consideration. I ended up with a canon XT(350d) + accessories + 18-55mm kit lens + 50mm F1.8 prime lens for $400, which was my max budget
I have really shaky hands as well, but its turned out to be less of an issue. Its sucks with my ultra-compact P&S, as it has terrible iso performance(over 200 is unusable) and is pretty uncomfortable to hold/way too light to get a sturdy grip on it. On my 350, the weight/feel of it make it much easier to get a sturdy grip, the noise performance is much better, ISO 100-800 is great-good, and iso 1600 is still usable. Couple that with the fast F1.8 50mm, and you've got a really good solution to the low light/anti shake problem.
Reading reviews it looked like the canon had a little better iso performance than that sony, but your sony is still going to be miles ahead of a P&S.
Reading reviews it looked like the canon had a little better iso performance than that sony, but your sony is still going to be miles ahead of a P&S.
Yeah i looked at the reviews and some comparison shots and they looked decent up to about 1600. I mainly want to shoot scenery and texture references so I hopefully won't have to use that high of an ISO (I say that now but once I really learn the ropes, I probably will ).
I'll wait until this second round of snow hits tomorrow night and I'll take some shots of the Amish country!
So after much thought, i've been looking at lots and lots of older 24mm, 28mm, 35mm nikon, vivitar, etc lenses in nikon mounts, m42 mounts, all around the $40-60 range or so, and then + $10-20 for adapters. I was pretty set on spending my birthday cash on this sort of setup, and really trying to learn to master one of these old lenses, i even got a cheap-o split image focus screen off ebay to help the process(which is cool, albeit harder than i thought it would be to get food results).
Anyway, after all this thinking and research into lens types, different mounts, different converters, it really appeared that there would be a good chance i would still just end up with something that didn't work, or i was too stupid to use, and just really isnt the grand value i had dreamt it up to be in my head. My wife became the voice of reason here and pretty much told me i should just get what i want, which was the EF 28mm 2.8, i thought that it would be trouble to get it for under $200, but i found one and won it today for $145 shipped! I'm super pumped, i think that is a pretty damn good deal, and am excited to get nasty with it....
My girlfriend got herself a 550D while I was in San Francisco, and I've been playing with it over the past week. I'd like to get a couple of nice lenses soon, but for now the kit lens that came with it (EF 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS) is proving to be surprisingly effective. A bonus (arguable?) is that it has pretty nice bokeh. Going to the zoo tomorrow, though, so I'll definitely be wishing I had a telephoto.
One question, though: is it possible to shoot RAW at a lower resolution than the 18MP of the sensor? The image quality is surprisingly clean at lower ISOs, and still somewhat workable at 3200 and 6400, but I honestly don't need the full 18MP, and at 25mb a pop for the RAW files, it gets a bit overwhelming.
Just wanted to bump this old thread up to say thanks to all the previous posters. I haven't had a chance to read through all 7 pages yet but it helped me decide which DSLR to buy. I'm a complete photography noob and I only want it to take nicer photos of the kids with. The husband and I hope it will cure me from wanting to hire an expensive pro to take their photos, haha. They grow so fast, if I could afford it, I'd have a photog come twice a year!
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to Ben Mathis in particular. I ended up buying a refurb 30D direct from Canon and a 30D kit w/ 18-55mm lens. Can't decide which to open! I plan to keep the other one unopened and re-sell it. I am waiting on my 50mm prime to arrive from ebay so the Kit is calling me so that I can use it right away! The difference was $100 for the kit w/ lens.
I've a couple purchase opportunities in my area. I can get a Canon 20D with stock lens kit for $330 or a 350D with stock lens with an extra battery and 10GBs worth of CF cards for $300. Actually there are a couple other 350Ds with stock lenses available all hovering between $280-300.
They seem pretty comparable to me, but it looks like the 20D has a larger sensor at 22.5x15 vs 22.2x14.8? Is that going to make much of a difference?
Replies
I think overall Canon/Nikon give you a little better image quality, and have a much wider range of lenses to choose from, so that is the reason most people go with them. Sony has some really cool tho, in-body image stabilization, while nikon/canon you have to buy special IS lenses. I'm sure that sony will be a very nice camera.
The Image Stabilization was what really sold it for me. I'm shaky as hell (all the damn coffee :P) I realize I'm going to lose some quality from it at slower shutters speeds, but if I really need to take those kind of shots, I'll get a tripod haha.
Yeah if i would have wanted to spend a little more and get a new camera, that sony would have warranted serious consideration. I ended up with a canon XT(350d) + accessories + 18-55mm kit lens + 50mm F1.8 prime lens for $400, which was my max budget
I have really shaky hands as well, but its turned out to be less of an issue. Its sucks with my ultra-compact P&S, as it has terrible iso performance(over 200 is unusable) and is pretty uncomfortable to hold/way too light to get a sturdy grip on it. On my 350, the weight/feel of it make it much easier to get a sturdy grip, the noise performance is much better, ISO 100-800 is great-good, and iso 1600 is still usable. Couple that with the fast F1.8 50mm, and you've got a really good solution to the low light/anti shake problem.
Reading reviews it looked like the canon had a little better iso performance than that sony, but your sony is still going to be miles ahead of a P&S.
Yeah i looked at the reviews and some comparison shots and they looked decent up to about 1600. I mainly want to shoot scenery and texture references so I hopefully won't have to use that high of an ISO (I say that now but once I really learn the ropes, I probably will
I'll wait until this second round of snow hits tomorrow night and I'll take some shots of the Amish country!
Anyway, after all this thinking and research into lens types, different mounts, different converters, it really appeared that there would be a good chance i would still just end up with something that didn't work, or i was too stupid to use, and just really isnt the grand value i had dreamt it up to be in my head. My wife became the voice of reason here and pretty much told me i should just get what i want, which was the EF 28mm 2.8, i thought that it would be trouble to get it for under $200, but i found one and won it today for $145 shipped! I'm super pumped, i think that is a pretty damn good deal, and am excited to get nasty with it....
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
Alot of mf nikkor lenses outperform the newer af ones, and if you can swallow manual focusing then they're great to use
My girlfriend got herself a 550D while I was in San Francisco, and I've been playing with it over the past week. I'd like to get a couple of nice lenses soon, but for now the kit lens that came with it (EF 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS) is proving to be surprisingly effective. A bonus (arguable?) is that it has pretty nice bokeh. Going to the zoo tomorrow, though, so I'll definitely be wishing I had a telephoto.
One question, though: is it possible to shoot RAW at a lower resolution than the 18MP of the sensor? The image quality is surprisingly clean at lower ISOs, and still somewhat workable at 3200 and 6400, but I honestly don't need the full 18MP, and at 25mb a pop for the RAW files, it gets a bit overwhelming.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to Ben Mathis in particular. I ended up buying a refurb 30D direct from Canon and a 30D kit w/ 18-55mm lens. Can't decide which to open! I plan to keep the other one unopened and re-sell it. I am waiting on my 50mm prime to arrive from ebay so the Kit is calling me so that I can use it right away! The difference was $100 for the kit w/ lens.
I've a couple purchase opportunities in my area. I can get a Canon 20D with stock lens kit for $330 or a 350D with stock lens with an extra battery and 10GBs worth of CF cards for $300. Actually there are a couple other 350Ds with stock lenses available all hovering between $280-300.
They seem pretty comparable to me, but it looks like the 20D has a larger sensor at 22.5x15 vs 22.2x14.8? Is that going to make much of a difference?