I think that was his point
No i was not comparing it was my first thought when looking at the Sony shots.
£200 - Can I really get started with this?
- Thread starter Hxc
- Start date
No i was not comparing it was my first thought when looking at the Sony shots.
whatever you intended it did come across as once you'd seen the d40 pics you felt the Sony cameras were poor.
I'd counter by saying if you based your disdain for a Sony system after looking at 3 heavily processed photos then tbh, your opinion isnt worth that much.
And comparing with the D40 shots above, how can you show me which system is better?
I'd counter by saying if you based your disdain for a Sony system after looking at 3 heavily processed photos then tbh, your opinion isnt worth that much.
And comparing with the D40 shots above, how can you show me which system is better?
You could yes, which was actually the point of sykes post. Posting example shots like have been, particularly HDR and other ones that have been processed doesn't show anything.
The only way to accurately compare the two is to take the same, controlled shot at various settings with the equivilet lens and see which comes out best.
Then there are other factors like handling, build, af speed, focus accuracy, iso performance, colour rendition... most importantly the person behind the camera.
OP, look at what system offers the most choice in terms of lenses, accessories etc. and go and try the cameras yourself.
Last edited:
I'd agree, but equally as much from the nikon/canon love-fest tbh. People stick up for the Sony range more than others (fanboys?) because they get written off based on a lack of knowledge/understanding - when infact they are a perfectly viable option.
A200 won the 2008 TIPA awards for entry level
The Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM won best Expert lens. Hardly crap.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,897
- Location
- South East
You been on the coffee again Jay
Remember what we said buddy, if it gets too much then close the browser
Some of the Sony shots actually don't look that bad tbh though what the OP needs to bare in mind is if he is prepared to stick with the Sony in the future or perhaps he may want to expand further into photography. Now I know little about the Sony but as we all know Canons equipment levels are bloody good and in the long term will see him good for whatever photographic genre' he wants to go into further, As I am sure the Nikons are too.
Well I will continue to disagree. A look for Sony/Minolta fit on the "warehouse" site shows the 2 300mm f2.8 (fine), and a 500mm reflex lens which will not be in a pro-category. I can't see any reference to the 600mm f4 which suggests to me its not a mainstream lens.
Anyway this is all just my opinion. The question was asked why would you need to replace all your gear if you got more serious about photography, and I offered an explanation. More competition in the camera marketplace is a good thing, and could help to drive prices down which benefits everyone. However at the moment I do not believe that Sony has the depth of accessory choice when compared to the big two, which has got to be a factor for consideration when deciding which system to buy into.
its a Minolta lens, hence not new hence not on the site. People suggesting Nikon/Canon used bodies would likely have no issue buying used lenses? One on the bay for example, though i am sure specialist camera shops will have them in the UK, in stock.
http://www.marcuskarlsen.com/PhotoBag/Minolta_600_f4.htm
I wouldn't call anybodies' 600/4 a mainstream lens ...
having said that Sony are getting ready to release a 500/4 (& several other lenses).
Yes, Sony's current lens range isn't quite as large as either Canon or Nikon's but for 99% of people it's more than enough. On the other hand show me a Canon or Nikon stabilised 24-70/2.8 or 85/1.4 or ...
If you know that you need something specialist like an MP-E 65mm then you buy the lens first & the body to suit the lens.
The last two were not heavily processed at all. The other ones, I posted because for some reason it seems that the way to show a camera is L337 is to post silly looking HDR images.
Well I got the A200. I really like it.
I'm a complete amature at all this but I've just been taking lots of shots and having a fiddle. One of my favorites so far is this, shame the bloody curtain had to get in the way! (it's heavily cropped, too)
I know it's not great but I am having fun
I'm a complete amature at all this but I've just been taking lots of shots and having a fiddle. One of my favorites so far is this, shame the bloody curtain had to get in the way! (it's heavily cropped, too)
I know it's not great but I am having fun
Last edited:
What the OP needs if he wishes to expand into photography further are the following lens:
- Minolta/Sony 50mm F1.4 or F/1.7 - Portraits
- Sigma 10/20mm - Ultra Wide Angle Shots
- Minolta 24-105mm or Sony 16-105mm - general walkabout lens
(There is also the Sigma 17-70mm which is highly sought after.)
- A zoom lens by the likes of Tamron/Sigma/Sony
These are available readily/easily and cover all basis for the beginner!
So the argument that lenses for Sony camera's are not readily available or a lack of need to stop!
If you want to go highend after that (if you wnat to take photography seriusly, if you have the funds) then you can get the top quality Sony G range or the Carl Ceiz lenses. You wouldnt have to sell up and start again.
- Minolta/Sony 50mm F1.4 or F/1.7 - Portraits
- Sigma 10/20mm - Ultra Wide Angle Shots
- Minolta 24-105mm or Sony 16-105mm - general walkabout lens
(There is also the Sigma 17-70mm which is highly sought after.)
- A zoom lens by the likes of Tamron/Sigma/Sony
These are available readily/easily and cover all basis for the beginner!
So the argument that lenses for Sony camera's are not readily available or a lack of need to stop!
If you want to go highend after that (if you wnat to take photography seriusly, if you have the funds) then you can get the top quality Sony G range or the Carl Ceiz lenses. You wouldnt have to sell up and start again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
What about other fantastic wide angle lenses like the tokina 11-16 f2.8 and 12-24? What about a 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.8, what about the 50mm f1.8 costing nearly twice as much as the Canon or Nikon equivilents.
The 135mm f2.8 costing more than the 135mm f2 L and the zeiss f1.8 being twice as much and so on.
What about having nothing between the consumer range 70-300g and the pro 70-200 f2.8?
What about the lack of choice with long primes apart from sourcing older models?
What about the higher cost associated with Zeiss lenses?
Yes there are some advantages to a Sony, like being able to use older minolta lenses without an adapter. That's great. But you make out like there are no issues whatsoever.
Bit late now, he's got the A200.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
Wrong choice IMO.
Ah well. Can't please em all.
I'll stick to my 40D + 17-55 USM IS combo...
These are all irrelevant for the casual user. And a casual user should have no problem getting lenses they desire depending on what range they want.. Hes not buying a budget starter DSLR to stick on expensives lenses is he, no.
I think you guys are missing the point. The OP is a casual user and thus the Sony A200 and the lenses available will cause him no problems for what he wants to shoot.
There are no issues whatsoever for the OP. Hes a casual user and for that he can pick up a range of lenses.
Last edited:
HXC, have a good read of the manual, it gives you some nice tips like setting to portrait mode making sure you focus on the subjects nearest 'eye' and it blurs the background, etc. Glad you're pleased with it
Photoshop, These are the lenses I want. I already have the standard 18-70mm kit lens which I use for walkabout.
I would like:
Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
Minolta 28mm Prime AF F2.8
What are your thoughts?
Photoshop, These are the lenses I want. I already have the standard 18-70mm kit lens which I use for walkabout.
I would like:
Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
Minolta 28mm Prime AF F2.8
What are your thoughts?