MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sony Pro SLR for christmas. Any better at that price?  (Read 9998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hali

« on: October 27, 2008, 13:25 »
0
I am getting a new SLR for Christmas. I saw the Sony Pro model last weekend and really like it. But at that price, the salesmen at the other stores are saying I could get a Nikon or Canon which are far better. What's your opinion?
If I could get a 10 -12 MP SLR for stock , at save some money for better lenses,
I would rethink for sure. Let me know what you people think. Thx


« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2008, 13:36 »
0
The sony cameras get good reviews.  They took over minolta, so they have some history.  I don't think nikon and canon are the only way to go.  The sony cameras might have more noise at higher iso but that can be controlled with good exposure or using noise reduction software.

This is a great site to compare cameras http://www.dpreview.com/

grp_photo

« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2008, 14:00 »
0
If you liked it go for it! :)
All brands produce nowadays fantastic cameras with excellent image output. It's more a choice between different ergonomics than anything else nowadays.  Don't listen to the people which try to convince you to a special brand. Make your own choice the camera you personally liked most is simply the best choice.
The technical differences are marginal Sony has built-in Antishake as an advantage over Canon and Nikon as an example.

« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2008, 14:08 »
0
What do you plan on using it for?

IMO, the most important thing about a setup are the lenses.  I would advise making sure that at least one quality lens fits within your budget.  I would rather get a less expensive camera and a quality lens, than the other way around.

hali

« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2008, 15:01 »
0
thx sharpshot, grp and geo,
well, i really like the way the Sony felt in my hand, and the viewfinder and monitor are clear, crisp and bright. i tried it in the shopping centre where the light was not the brightest, yet they were crisp.
i talked to a salesman who sells nikon, canon, pentax,etc... and he mumbled off a whole set of technical stuff without answering my questions about fringes .
it was all over my head with his reading off all the tech data on a page of comparision.
what do i plan to use it for? for commercial work, and stock esp alamy .
i am fine with my current 8MP SLR for micro, but having to upsize for alamy takes a lot of work. i do get some perfect images with the right exposure and sweet spot aperture setting, and they upsize for alamy without a hitch.
but it's not as easy as if i were shooting for micro. my camera is fine for 7MP
for going up to 5000px i can see a loss of detail.

then i read the comparisions on the net, and they keep saying the sony fringes badly. but aren't the sensor of the canon and nikon prone to fringes too?

keep coming with your expert opinion,  please!!! your first hand experience would help too.

« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2008, 15:04 »
0
Doesn't Sony make the sensors for Nikon? Am I wrong?

hali

« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2008, 15:09 »
0
Doesn't Sony make the sensors for Nikon? Am I wrong?


ya Pixart, i googled this and found where i thought i read it..
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091701nikond2xsony.asp

« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2008, 15:26 »
0
If you end up with a toss up between the Pentax or Sony, certainly go with the Sony. I bought the K200d for my move into digital and the fringing is awful, I'm wasting so much time tidying up noise etc on my pictures. Plus pentax glass isn't cheap even with second hand old lenses, whereas Minolta lenses are a lot easier to pick up at the moment though with Sony's new 26?mp camera I can see them becoming more expensive. While I adore pentax glass, I have a Minolta collection with a lovely old SLR that I use when I'm shooting for fun and the quality is still fantastic. The other advantage with the Sony is the liveview which I so badly miss when I'm trying to set up macro shots.

« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2008, 15:50 »
0
I can't tell about Sony, but my experience with two film SLRs by Minolta was excellent.  They had a great metering system and I seldom needed to manually adjust exposure or compensate for it.  My lenses were however not good, but they weren't Minolta anyway, and it was my fault to save on glass (though it wasn't an issue before I starting scanning at high res).

Regards,
Adelaide

grp_photo

« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2008, 16:26 »
0
If you end up with a toss up between the Pentax or Sony, certainly go with the Sony. I bought the K200d for my move into digital and the fringing is awful, I'm wasting so much time tidying up noise etc on my pictures. Plus pentax glass isn't cheap even with second hand old lenses, whereas Minolta lenses are a lot easier to pick up at the moment though with Sony's new 26?mp camera I can see them becoming more expensive. While I adore pentax glass, I have a Minolta collection with a lovely old SLR that I use when I'm shooting for fun and the quality is still fantastic. The other advantage with the Sony is the liveview which I so badly miss when I'm trying to set up macro shots.
I have several Pentax DSLRs (though not the k200D i have the k20d and older ones) i never had a problem with fringing and noise. For stock you better don't use HighIso regardless of brand (i have the Canon 5D too and never used it above 400iso for stock).

« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2008, 18:20 »
0
What I hear from users, is that the A900 is a fantastic camera. Resolution and colours are second to none. Add to that the quality of the Zeiss ZA lenses, and it's a system that it's hard to beat for stock photography.

hali

« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2008, 18:33 »
0
What I hear from users, is that the A900 is a fantastic camera. Resolution and colours are second to none. Add to that the quality of the Zeiss ZA lenses, and it's a system that it's hard to beat for stock photography.

thx einochi, adelaide,grp, epixx.
epixx, yes, it was the Zeiss that first prompted me to take a serious look at the Sony.
i just love the weight of it. it held like the old Nikon F and the body is solid.
i think it 's worth the bang for the bucks.
plus the liveview and anti shake.. which i don't see much use for now, perharps because i
don't know about these features but it could be useful once i get the Sony in my hand,
i suppose.
as for shooting at higher ISO, i don't usually shoot any higher than 200 for work.
but for fun stuff, holidays,etc.. i sometimes go to 400, and in odd cases 800.
but i could keep the older 8MP SLR for the fun stuff, and use the Sony only for stock and pro work, as i don't think i could trade the old one , as Sony don't take trade ins.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 18:35 by hali »

« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2008, 18:42 »
0
I own the Sony A350 and love it!  I think Sony has some advantages over Canon and Nikon; particularly with full compatibility to the legacy Minolta AF mount lenses of which there are many good quality ones to choose from and are well priced on places like Ebay.  Also be sure to check out
 www.dyxum.com
which is main Minolta/ Sony user forum and has many excellent reviews on Minolta AF mount and Sony  lenses.  The A900 also has an APS-C lens setting where non full-frame lenses can be used with the A900.
If you still want to get into Sony but don't want to plunk down the coin for an A900, I'd recommend the 14.2MP A350 instead.

« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2008, 20:49 »
0
I'm looking at it too, but will probably wait a couple more months. You'll want good lenses to really get the benefit of the a900, and the sony lenses are expensive, imo unless you are going to throw a few thousand into lenses, by the a700 or a350 and put the extra into lenses.


« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2008, 06:43 »
0
Whatever the price it will be a whole lot better in January.

hali

« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2008, 09:12 »
0
excellent idea , all, thx.
clearview and jimi, yes i am hoping it will be better priced in a few months.
i've asked, and most retailers say the pro stuff don't seem to move down as much as the big items like tv, computers,etc.
but let's hope the plunge in the stock market and fall (no pun intended) bad business results will scare enough retailers to drop prices.
i am even thinking of maybe even just getting the 12MP and spend the money on good lenses, rather than the more expensive top of the line which comes with stock lenses. not even sure if the stock lense is the Zeiss. if so, the money spent would be a good long term investment (not micro stock wise, but for gallery prints and my other photo assignments).
« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 09:14 by hali »

hali

« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2008, 13:30 »
0
OT
something for all of you who have been so helpful.
here's what my horoscope said:
"Nothing is wrong with trying to keep more of your money, but have you figured out what exactly you are keeping it for? Rainy days are one thing, but you should spend some time today thinking about your next big thing -- your next investment, or that big ticket purchase. It's never too early to start researching your options and figuring out the best approach. If you're just saving for the sake of saving, you could become too stingy."

 ;D ;D ;D


« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2008, 14:37 »
0
Hali, the A900 has no liveview, just a system that lets you take a shot, keeps it in local memory where you can change some parameters and see the result on the fly, then take the real shot.

I have an A200 with a CZ lens, i totally love it being my first camera. But I'd be very worried to get an A900 for actualy work cause it's hard to find stuff like lenses, flashes, accessories for Sony and I hear support is not that good. So be careful in your choice.

« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2008, 15:28 »
0

« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2008, 18:44 »
0
A900 vs H3 vs AFD III at Dyxum. If you ever considered digital MF:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37858&PID=405602#405602

« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2008, 02:30 »
0
I'm starting to seriously regret my choice to not buy the a350 now, Sony seems to be doing an excellent job with their cameras. I'm actually considering changing while I still have only a tiny selection of Pentax equipment, at least then I'd not have a huge case filled with Minolta lenses and cokin stuff going to waste.

hali

« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2008, 14:46 »
0
wow, this is frigging awesome, how many good ppl there is on this forum who is ready to help with advice. thx all.
i want to make one thing clear. yes, i like the Sony, but it's not decided yet.
if i can spend less and get an equal with the old named brands, hey, i am even happier.  so fire away, with an alternative model.
the less money i spend for my christmas present the better. the only thing is that
it does the job as well as the Sony Pro SLR.
if you save me a bundle , i will be very happy. it would go to my other favourite past-time ... draught  ale and wine !
 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2008, 14:56 »
0
OT
something for all of you who have been so helpful.
here's what my horoscope said:
"Nothing is wrong with trying to keep more of your money, but have you figured out what exactly you are keeping it for? Rainy days are one thing, but you should spend some time today thinking about your next big thing -- your next investment, or that big ticket purchase. It's never too early to start researching your options and figuring out the best approach. If you're just saving for the sake of saving, you could become too stingy."

 ;D ;D ;D

to be the richest man the graveyard :):)



« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2008, 15:15 »
0
The Alpha 900 seem to be a good camera, but after now the Canon 5D Mk II came out, I would prefer the 5d, it is cheaper and it seem to be an amazing camera. With canon you also have more choice in lenses I believe.

For the same price of the sony alpa 900 you get the 5d body + for example the new amazing Sigma 50 1.4 lens (which seems better than canons 1.4).

Or take the Canon 50D with a good prime like the 50 mm Sigma and add the 70-200L 2.8 Lens for approximately the same price as the alpha 900 body alone and with that you have excellent equipment.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 15:19 by Freezingpictures »

« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2008, 20:15 »
0
I would not be paying full price for a Sony at the moment. Check the news on them. They have experienced a 72% drop in profit. They will be doing almost anything soon to sell something.

hali

« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2008, 19:06 »
0
freezingpic, good idea. i will look into canon too.
litifeta, another good reason to wait a bit more.
clearview, i didn't catch the joke at first..
but now i do. funny ! ;D

« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2008, 19:31 »
0
The Alpha 900 seem to be a good camera, but after now the Canon 5D Mk II came out, I would prefer the 5d, it is cheaper and it seem to be an amazing camera. With canon you also have more choice in lenses I believe.

For the same price of the sony alpa 900 you get the 5d body + for example the new amazing Sigma 50 1.4 lens (which seems better than canons 1.4).

Or take the Canon 50D with a good prime like the 50 mm Sigma and add the 70-200L 2.8 Lens for approximately the same price as the alpha 900 body alone and with that you have excellent equipment.

It's not so much a question of the number of lenses, but if they can actually resolve the huge number of pixels of these cameras. dpreview's test of the 50D shows that this is becoming a problem. The Zeiss lenses for the Sony on the other hand, have apparently been designed with the A900 in mind. If I could afford to switch, I would have done that now. The A900 with Zeiss 24-70/2.8, Zeiss 135/1.8, Sony 70-300 G and a macro would cover what I need.

The more photos I see from that camera, the more impressed I get.


hali

« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2008, 20:57 »
0
A900 vs H3 vs AFD III at Dyxum. If you ever considered digital MF:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37858&PID=405602#405602


epixx, i am speechless. they compare medium format with the Sony.
at first i thought this is crazy, but like you said, the more you see from that camera, the more impressed you get.  maybe the test is not complete, but what you see there is quite impressive.
like how do you compare a lambo to a porsche to a fiat ?
does the extra money give you a lot more ?
thanks for the link and your comments.

« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2008, 22:55 »
0
I guess you have to ask yourself what you want to use your DSLR of choice for.  Personally, I think the A900 with 24MP is overkill unless you plan on doing some harsh cropping or making alot of poster prints.
I bought the A350, which was 700 bucks body only at the time so I had extra cash to begin building a lens system.
So far I still have yet to purchase any Sony brand lenses since there are so many excellent quality and affordable legacy FF lenses available which work wonderfully on the A350.  I also love the live view system of the A350 and find it quite freeing to be able to make images at angles and points of view that would otherwise be very difficult without a flip-out live view screen.
At 14.2MP, it's more than adequate for "XL" size on Istock and involves only a slight bit of upsizing if you submit to Alamy.
Just think of the extra 2,000 bucks you can spend on lenses as opposed to getting the A900.

« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2008, 23:04 »
0
I'll buy the a900; not so much that I want (but I do) but because I have been waiting for ten yen years to "get my lenses back". I have a Minolta 700si (film) and a Konica Minolta 7D (6MP digital) I have absolutely refused to buy another SLR until I get full frame. (I do like my G9 though!) The lenses I'll get back will be a 20mm, a 24-85 and an APO 100-300. I'd buy an a900 today but . . . three more months won't kill me and I expect it to save me hundreds of dollars (Canadian dollars) over today's "early adopter" price. Sony have been making a900 noise for over a year now, it's a shame that global consumer confidence is in the tank and they announced reduced expectations for '09, it just means the a900's in the channel will have to be reduced in price to keep Sony shareholders happy. No one makes money with inventory on the shelf.

hali

« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2008, 10:42 »
0
don, eppic, eppix,  and everyone here,
keep talking. i am learning a lot from all of you,
and for sure, this is getting more and more informative and helpful
to decide on my new camera to get. and lenses too.

that is why i like this forum so much. there are some of you who are truly
willing to share your knowledge and i find this attitude not only very professional,
but very impressive.

« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2008, 15:37 »
0
Hali,

Take a look at this thread over on the Dyxum forum:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13972

It's a great discussion about recommended lenses that are inexpensive yet are of excellent image quality.
A good way to get the best bang for your buck lens-wise.

« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2008, 00:50 »
0
I guess you have to ask yourself what you want to use your DSLR of choice for.  Personally, I think the A900 with 24MP is overkill unless you plan on doing some harsh cropping or making alot of poster prints.
I bought the A350, which was 700 bucks body only at the time so I had extra cash to begin building a lens system.
So far I still have yet to purchase any Sony brand lenses since there are so many excellent quality and affordable legacy FF lenses available which work wonderfully on the A350.  I also love the live view system of the A350 and find it quite freeing to be able to make images at angles and points of view that would otherwise be very difficult without a flip-out live view screen.
At 14.2MP, it's more than adequate for "XL" size on Istock and involves only a slight bit of upsizing if you submit to Alamy.
Just think of the extra 2,000 bucks you can spend on lenses as opposed to getting the A900.

It's always a question what you're going to use the camera for, and lenses vs expensive body is a dilemma. Still, you can't really compare the body, and particularly not the viewfinder, of the A350 with the A900. They are completely different animals. The only realistic alternative for me, within the Sony range, would be the A700, but then I use my cameras for a living. I would assume that an A900 would last at least twice as long as an A350. That also puts the price difference in another perspective.

As for the 24 megapixels: when doing stock photography, there are never too many of them. With the A900, it's possible to crop for Alamy if needed, or reduce size if the image is too noisy or lacks detail.

« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2008, 16:22 »
0
I would agree with the viewfinder difference between the 350 and the 900.  Pentax makes a 1.2x viewfinder magnifier that works with the 350 to give a viewfinder similar to that of the A700 and costs around 40 bucks.  I have yet to get one of those.
Personally I bought the A350 as a transitional camera as I waited and saved for a FF.  If sony comes out with something more like a 16mp ff dslr then I'd be all over that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3219 Views
Last post October 24, 2007, 08:37
by Void
17 Replies
9069 Views
Last post July 13, 2009, 15:03
by Squat
7 Replies
6492 Views
Last post September 03, 2010, 17:54
by cascoly
12 Replies
7459 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 00:40
by red
10 Replies
8072 Views
Last post August 04, 2013, 17:31
by bspudd

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors