Digi SLR for slr beginner?

BUFF said:
that's actually a slight mis-translation of something that a Sony manager said last year & it's not as black & white as that.
They achieved in 2008 what they had targetted for with Alpha & the imaging division is 1 of their core divisions.


possibly but it ignores the fact that they have been investing so that there are several new lenses imminent - any pause would affect what is due to market in 2,3 or 4 years time not 2009.
& remember that Sony (& Pentax & Oly) only have to produce 1/2 as many lenses as they don't have to develop IS & non-IS versions as Canon & Nikon do.
Sony's lens range for your average user is pretty well sorted e.g. there are more lenses available for Sony users that function fully than for Nikon D40/D40X/D60 users.
Similarly, the top end is starting to fill out nicely for pros- where Sony are weak is in the middle with things like constant f4 zooms for enthusiasts/semi-pros.
Thom will admit that exotics that Sony currently lack like PC lenses & 600/4s ship in miniscule nos.
Click to expand...

"Sony (& Pentax & Oly) only have to produce 1/2 as many lenses as they don't have to develop IS & non-IS versions as Canon & Nikon do.""
This is rubbish. Nikon and Canon choose to add IS/VR to a lens if they feel the lens needs it or not, its not a different lens, just the same lens with an active element. In fact I don't know of a single lens Nikon released in a VR and Non VR version concurrently. The NON VR lenses are just older lenses.

"e.g. there are more lenses available for Sony users that function fully than for Nikon D40/D40X/D60 users." Thi is also rubbish, you can use lens going back to the 60s with Nikon bodies. Nikon is at the forefront of backwards compatibility, more so than Canon. The lower bodies wont support metering and so on, but the lens themselves will still function perfectly. If you want a 1970s lens or exotic Zeiss prime then you would want a better body for the metering, like the D300.
 
The only problem I have with Canon & Nikon lenses is that you have to buy the image stabilisation system every time you buy a lens if that's what you want. That, and the really great lenses come with really great price tags... The lower end stuff is no better, and often inferior, to comparable products from Tamron/Sigma/Tokina.

To be honest, even though I'm a Nikon owner, I don't understand the obsession with the Canon & Nikon brands for most non-enthusiast/Pro users.

For most people outside of this forum, they will buy a body, and maybe two or three lenses, and that's it. They won't go out and buy the entire lens range, and even though they might dream about owning one, they probably won't buy a 500/600mm VR/IS prime or similar either as they're just SO expensive, and very specialist.

Once you let your ego get over that one, and accept that you will only ever buy what you need, there is no rational reason why an average DSLR user wouldn't get on just fine with Pentax/Sony/Olympus etc etc. All of those do more than enough lenses to satisfy most people, and you won't have to keep spending extra for image stabilisation, because it will be on the body already.

Saying you should buy a Canon or Nikon just because they have a fantasticly broad range of lenses, the vast majority of which you will not buy, is just daft advice in my opinion.

When you actually sit down and look at the lens range of both companies, take off the high end super-telephoto prime lenses, the perspective control lenses, the fish eyes and run of the mill consumer zooms, what have you got left?

Just about the same range of lenses as Sigma/Tamron/Pentax. Don't forget also that Pentax cameras can use every K mount lens ever made, which is a huge range, and they're cheap...

I don't understand why so many photographers champion their brand of DSLR either. I'll be honest and say I don't give a fig what brand of camera you buy, but I do care about people buying the right system for them, and being encouraged to be so myopic that they look no further than Canon/Nikon is just wrong.

You don't know what you're missing sometimes... :)
 
But its not about the exotic telephoto primes, its about the lenses that an amateur may look to buy into depending on what style takes their fancy. Its things like having a choice of a fast normal zoom suitable for cropped sensors (17-55 2.8), AND for full frame (24-70). Or having a f/4 or an f/2.8 version of a zoom. The 1.8 and 1.4 (and especially) with canon, 1.2 version. I know amateurs who will own say, a 5mk1 with a 2nd hand 85mm 1.2L for weddings and one other prime. Not a huge amount of money, the guy is a student and the lenses paid for themselves.

the fact that Tamron/Tokina/Sigma also make good lenses, and as a priority will come out on Nikon and Canon first, just reinforces the lens choice. Not only are these 3rd party lenses cheaper, sometimes they are even better than the official nikon or canon lenses...


As I said earlier in this thread, any entry level camera is good enough and has enough lenses and gives good photos. Thereby a first DSLR should be based on feel more than anything. If someone can't find a Canon or Nikon entry level body that works with them they probably don't want an SLR and would need a bridge camera. Thereby, when it doesn't really matter what camera someone buys then there is no reason not to get a Nikon or Canon. You would need very specific reasons, perhaps you have a load of Minolta lenses, or you do weddings and portraits and so a Fuji sensor is best.

One thing is for sure, in 2 years time there will be a lot less companies making DSLRs, and I wouldn't want to own a system that is no longer supported. At the moment it is hard to say who will still be around apart form nikon and Canon (and probably Sony). Fuji is already basically gone. Sigma will stop soon. The whole 4/3rds consortium have shot themselves in the foot with their micro 4/3rds idea. No one has a convincing system or market share. The market is no growing, it is now static.


I will re-iterate: the bottom line is all available DSLRs take good photos within their design parameters, AND photography is not about the equipment but about being out their and taking photos.
 
The only problem I have with Canon & Nikon lenses is that you have to buy the image stabilisation system every time you buy a lens if that's what you want. That, and the really great lenses come with really great price tags... The lower end stuff is no better, and often inferior, to comparable products from Tamron/Sigma/Tokina.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to address this separately as it arises a lot. There are important reasons why neither Nikon or Canon have chosen sensor IS for their cameras. They both have the means, they already have solution in P&S cameras. If they wanted to they would, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Not least is the fact that lens IS will show you in the viewfinder what the lens is perceiving, which is fundamental to SLR philosophy. From a practical point this helps with framing tremendously. This also ensures more consistent and faster metering and focus. It is also a myth that it is expensive to include IS/VR in lenses. Its not, its cheap. go buy a 18-55VR/IS lens to see how much quality you get for so little price. When a new exotic prime is released, the VR version costs the same as the non VR older version (look at Nikon 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4.0, 600 4.0) In fact looking at the cheapest prices through a rpice grabber website show the VR versions to be cheaper.

IS/VR/OS is also massively overrated for anyone who actually cares about IQ. A tripod will give better results. Faster glass will give better results. Higher ISO will give better results. IS is great for P&S camera. IS does absolutely nothing to slow subject motion. IS is not as good as a tripod...
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
I just wanted to address this separately as it arises a lot. There are important reasons why neither Nikon or Canon have chosen sensor IS for their cameras. They both have the means, they already have solution in P&S cameras. If they wanted to they would, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Not least is the fact that lens IS will show you in the viewfinder what the lens is perceiving, which is fundamental to SLR philosophy. From a practical point this helps with framing tremendously. This also ensures more consistent and faster metering and focus. It is also a myth that it is expensive to include IS/VR in lenses. Its not, its cheap. go buy a 18-55VR/IS lens to see how much quality you get for so little price. When a new exotic prime is released, the VR version costs the same as the non VR older version (look at Nikon 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4.0, 600 4.0) In fact looking at the cheapest prices through a rpice grabber website show the VR versions to be cheaper.

IS/VR/OS is also massively overrated for anyone who actually cares about IQ. A tripod will give better results. Faster glass will give better results. Higher ISO will give better results. IS is great for P&S camera. IS does absolutely nothing to slow subject motion. IS is not as good as a tripod...
Click to expand...

I wasn't having a go at you personally DP! I know you said that any DSLR will take great pictures given a semi competent operator, so we agree there. You've chosen to weigh in on the lens side of things though, so I'll just add my 2p!! :)

I don't think it's right to use exotic primes with VR to show that they are no more expensive than non VR lenses. They are a tiny percentage of sales. It's also logical that without the VR system, lenses would be cheaper to produce than they are currently. If lenses have got cheaper over time, then again logic says they could be even cheaper without the VR/IS/OS/VC gubbins!

I'm fully aware of what IS can and can't do, and agree that it has limitations. But, the fact remains that for the average user, and one without expensive large aperture lenses and using their kit lens, without high ISO capable bodies, and without a decent tripod, IS/OS/VR/VC lenses/bodies do give them more 'keepers' than non stabilised lenses in most of their shooting situations. Remember, I'm talking about your average DSLR user here, taking pics of the kids, or the odd landscape, or at a family wedding.

Interestingly, why do you say IS is good for point and shoot cameras, but not DSLR's? Aren't most DSLR's used by most people for point and shoot type shots anyway? Is this just another example of DSLR snobbery? It can always be turned off, but to say it has no use for anybody who cares about IQ is going a bit far! :)

I'm not familiar with your experience with other systems apart from Nikon, but I've used Pentax DSLR's for the last 3 years and shot 30+ weddings and numerous other events as the paid professional. The in body stabilisation is just as effective as anything that I've experienced with Nikon, and I'm not sure what you mean by your suggestion that in camera systems somehow interfere with the viewfinder/metering/AF - they don't. I'm sure the systems go about things in different ways, but practically it means nothing.

Canon and Nikon make great cameras, I'm not arguing with that, but then so do other manufacturers, and I'm not convinced by any of the arguments that say you should only choose the big two.
 
D.P. said:
"Sony (& Pentax & Oly) only have to produce 1/2 as many lenses as they don't have to develop IS & non-IS versions as Canon & Nikon do.""
This is rubbish. Nikon and Canon choose to add IS/VR to a lens if they feel the lens needs it or not, its not a different lens, just the same lens with an active element.
Click to expand...
Canon certainly duplicate

In fact I don't know of a single lens Nikon released in a VR and Non VR version concurrently. The NON VR lenses are just older lenses.
Click to expand...
then they are different lenses ... :p

"e.g. there are more lenses available for Sony users that function fully than for Nikon D40/D40X/D60 users." Thi is also rubbish, you can use lens going back to the 60s with Nikon bodies. Nikon is at the forefront of backwards compatibility, more so than Canon. The lower bodies wont support metering and so on, but the lens themselves will still function perfectly.
Click to expand...
The non EF-S lenses won't autofocus etc. on a D40/D40X/D60.
Heck, if you are happy with that then probably Pentax take the biscuit for backwards compatability & even Minolta MC/MD lenses (not to mention M42) will work with an adapter on a Sony Alpha.

D.P. said:
Not least is the fact that lens IS will show you in the viewfinder what the lens is perceiving, which is fundamental to SLR philosophy. From a practical point this helps with framing tremendously. This also ensures more consistent and faster metering and focus.
Click to expand...
There are pros & cons to both in-lens & in-body IS - some of them can actually be argued both ways including this 1 as a fair no. of people seem to experience something similar to seasickness with a stabilised viewfinder.
I've never had a problem even with a 500mm lens hand held on an in-body IS.

There can be parking issues with in-lens which is why you quite often see the non-IS versions of e.g. Canons being mentioned as sharper than the IS versions (though of course if you need the IS it's kind of moot).
Obviously in-body IS systems don't suffer from this.
 
Last edited:
Pentax K200D isn't a bad camera at all for people getting started.

Has built in stabilizer and is well sealed. Good for people on the go and those that don't use tripods all the time.

Also not as big as the Canon and Nikons. Not a bad lense selection either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom