Thinking of getting a A200 DSLR, Couple of questions

Pug · 22 Jul 2009 at 09:46

photoshop said:
I always thought for great DoF you use the highest F number?

for a deeper/larger depth of field you use a larger F number/narrower apertaure, for shallow dof you use a wider aperture/smaller fnumber.

photoshop · 22 Jul 2009 at 12:49

Raikiri said:
Me, anyone shooting in low light without a flash really. I had to for a few natural light macros the other day and often do shooting bands. Wedding photogs is another good example, sports in over cast situations, same with wildlife at higher focal lengths where a fast shutter is required.

D.P. said:
With My new D90 I've been shooting at ISO 1600 happily with excellent results for hand held low light work.

Anyone who has ever tried to shoot sports, dancing, gigs, indoors, or indeed lots of things where a higher shutter speed is needed in low light conditions.

Why not use a fast lens - F/1.4 - F/2.8 for these situations?

khimbar · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:41

I've been looking at exactly the same camera. Just seen one for £249 in a local shop.

Can anyone convince me not to buy this on the way home? I'm very, very tempted.

BUFF · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:55

D.P. said:
Although the sensor in the D300 and A700 are similar, they are not identical and the supporting circuitry, amplifiers, channel read outs etc are different and these are responsible for noise as much as the sensor itself. Noise comparisons with the RAW files still show the D300 to have superior noise handling, and the D90 to be better again.

I'll agree (indeed I already did) that the D90 is fractionally better than the A700 & D300 but firmware improvements have brought the A700 upto D300 levels.

This is similarly shown with the A900 against the D3x. A similar Nikon designed sensor fabbed by Sony but Nikon's own sensor for the D3x has proprietary enhancements and better support circuitry. This makes the A900 have dire noise levels which make the camera more or less useless at anything above base iso, while the D3x has excellent noise levels up to moderate sensitivities

It's not a Nikon designed sensor in the D3X , it's either a variant of the Sony sensor or simply the cream of the crop (the D3/D700 sensor does appear to be unique). The A900 doesn't have dire noise levels for what it's optimised for (landscape & studio) - it's perfectly usable upto 800 ISO, many people are more than happy at 1600 & apparently if you downsample it to D3/D700 levels it's better again albeit still not quite as good as the D3/D700. On the other hand Sonys have more accurate colour & more detail at lower ISOs. As I'm sure that you are aware it's all a balancing act & you can't have everything with current tech which is why the D700, 5D MkII & A900 all offer different things & therefore appeal to different people with diferent needs.
Similarly why a lot of people don't think that the 50D has any better IQ than the 40D although it has better high ISO - they traded detail for that ability.

Raikiri · 22 Jul 2009 at 14:06

photoshop said:
Why not use a fast lens - F/1.4 - F/2.8 for these situations?

Because all of those situations require both a fast lens and high ISO, also... Have you seen the prices for a 200mm f2 lens?

For the macro I was using an f2.8 lens but guess what, the DOF was too shallow as may be the case in many situations. For bands I was using either an f1.8 prime or f2.8 zoom, I still needed ISO 1600.

BUFF said:
I can't give you a personal example because a) it's not the sort of stuff that I do & b) I know that my pp skills are very weak
However, there should be plenty of threads covering it with examples if you search at www.dyxum.com, www.photoclubalpha.com & dpreview.
Just to show you the differences that the choice of RAW converter can make http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

Cheers, interesting read

I still think the other cameras perform slightly better at high ISO though. And I'm not having a go at the Sonys, I said that's their only slight downside which is pretty high praise, no?

D.P. · 22 Jul 2009 at 15:08

photoshop said:
Why not use a fast lens - F/1.4 - F/2.8 for these situations?

1) You would have to own such a lens, which is not cheap
2) You may need the DoF of a smaller aperture - at 1.4 -2.8 everything the Dof is razor thin and exceedingly difficult to get the focus correct and is not possible when photographing a 3d object like a human head.
3) The focal plain of many lenses at wide apertures is very curved meaning even when shooting flat subjects the edges will be out of focus.
4) With the shallow DoF moving bjects are hard to get focussed properly at wide apertures
5) Lenses are often soft wide open
6) a 1.4-2.8 aperture may still not be enough for low light shooting
7) Such wide apertures are not available on super telephotos. A 600mm will drop you to f/4 max and if hand held (maybe the 500 f/4 is more realistic for handhold use) the shutter speed will need to be very high, even on a bright day this is hard to achieve.
8) A slower lens shot with high ISO may be hand holdable (400 5.6 lens), but a fast lens with low ISO settings wont be (400 2.8) due to weight.

pumaz · 22 Jul 2009 at 19:52

Just an update.

I ordered a A200 yesterday for £259.99 and got confirmation it will be delivered tomorrow

I also ordered "understanding exposure". I just need a bag now i'm thinking of either the Sony Alpha Bag or a Lowepro, both around £30 each, Don't know which is best.

I'm going to have a play and learn more about it before i start splashing out on lenses (unless a bargain pops up). I've also bought a Lumix DMC TZ7 for my holiday as i needed Video and a small P&S as my Ixus 700 isn't quite cutting it anymore.

manic111 · 22 Jul 2009 at 20:26

pumaz said:
Just an update.

I ordered a A200 yesterday for £259.99 and got confirmation it will be delivered tomorrow

I also ordered "understanding exposure". I just need a bag now i'm thinking of either the Sony Alpha Bag or a Lowepro, both around £30 each, Don't know which is best.

I'm going to have a play and learn more about it before i start splashing out on lenses (unless a bargain pops up). I've also bought a Lumix DMC TZ7 for my holiday as i needed Video and a small P&S as my Ixus 700 isn't quite cutting it anymore.

Let me know how it goes with it; I'm currently deciding between the A200, or the Pentax KM...

BUFF · 23 Jul 2009 at 02:58

Raikiri said:
Cheers, interesting read I still think the other cameras perform slightly better at high ISO though. And I'm not having a go at the Sonys, I said that's their only slight downside which is pretty high praise, no?

I'm not arguing that the D90 is slightly better than the A700 nor that the A2xx, A3xx aren't as good as the A700.
but the A700 will match the D300 - here's a post that popped up today http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32467081

I still think that Sony have a different corporate take & prefer more detail & at the ISOs that most people will use most of the time rather than aiming for the highest ISO performance at the cost of smoothing detail.
It'll be interesting to see how the next 3 rumoured Alphas (A500, A550, A850) perform & what features they have (there is a rumour of a high ISO FF body but I think that's wishful thinking).
Unless it's a major upgrade rather than an evolution I'm planning to sit this round out as I'm happy with the A700 atm.

Pug · 23 Jul 2009 at 09:33

pumaz said:
I just need a bag now i'm thinking of either the Sony Alpha Bag or a Lowepro, both around £30 each, Don't know which is best.

I bought a Crumpler Pretty Boy 4000XL for about £30 from the high-street phtography shop. Pleased with it, plenty of room for my A200 + kit lens + 70-300 zoom. Also, doesnt looklike a camera bag.

That said LowePro are good too!