Author Topic: Sony Pro SLR for christmas. Any better at that price? (Read 10097 times)

hali · « **on:** October 27, 2008, 13:25 »

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2008, 13:36 »

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 »

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.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2008, 14:08 »

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 »

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2008, 15:04 »

Doesn't Sony make the sensors for Nikon? Am I wrong?

hali · « **Reply #6 on:** October 27, 2008, 15:09 »

Quote from: Pixart on October 27, 2008, 15:04

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

BrokenPhotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** October 27, 2008, 15:26 »

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** October 27, 2008, 15:50 »

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 »

Quote from: Einochi on October 27, 2008, 15:26

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).

epixx · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2008, 18:20 »

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 »

Quote from: epixx on October 27, 2008, 18:20

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.

eppic · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2008, 18:42 »

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.

Phil · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2008, 20:49 »

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.

Jimi King · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2008, 06:43 »

Whatever the price it will be a whole lot better in January.

hali · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2008, 09:12 »

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).

hali · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2008, 13:30 »

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."

Fran · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2008, 14:37 »

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2008, 15:28 »

Will be interesting to see if this is true.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/community/op-editorial-blog/red-announcing-d-slr.html

epixx · « **Reply #19 on:** October 28, 2008, 18:44 »

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

BrokenPhotographer · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2008, 02:30 »

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 »

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 !

Phil · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2008, 14:56 »

Quote from: hali on October 28, 2008, 13:30

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."

to be the richest man the graveyard

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2008, 15:15 »

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.

litifeta · « **Reply #24 on:** October 29, 2008, 20:15 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sony Pro SLR for christmas. Any better at that price? (Read 10097 times)

hali

sharpshot

grp_photo

GeoPappas

hali

Pixart

hali

BrokenPhotographer

madelaide

grp_photo

epixx

hali

eppic

Phil

Jimi King

hali

hali

Fran

sharpshot

epixx

BrokenPhotographer

hali

Phil

Freezingpictures

litifeta

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors