Thinking of getting a A200 DSLR, Couple of questions

[pumaz]

I really like taking pictures of landscapes etc. but would also like to get into portraits and weddings for friends and family eventualy but i've never owned a SLR so i really need some help.

After some research i've decided to go with a Sony A200 as it seems to offer best value for money as well as being easy to use. Am i right?

I can get the Camera for £260 inc. Kit lense, I realise this lense won't be up to much so i'm looking for a general usage lense. I'm off to Turkey in a couple of weeks and would also like to take the camera with me.

I have a budget of £500 to buy a Camera plus anything else i'll need. Like i said i would like to take half decent landscape shots, Portraits and i would like to mess about with Macro as well if possible. Any help and advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Derek W]

search for the user 'photoshop', think thats all i need to say really. He uses a sony and his shots are pretty damn good. Hes also added a wide angle lens to his collection for his landscape stuff.

If youve got a budget of 500quid and want to spend it all now, then a tripod could be advisable and a circular polariser filter.

 

[capriboy1978]

apologies for short reply, v.busy this morning..

I have a a100, bought it from DSG when lauched as they fubar'd the price and me being me had them over a barrell for it. Needless to say I paid what they advertised for

The stock lenses are ok to get going with but I would recommend upgrading to a good lense that fits your specific needs as soon as money or your other half if applcable, allows it.

I was fortunate that Jessops closed ALL the stores in my vicnty bar one a few years ago. Closing deals were 70% off all lenses. I cleaned them out of a lot of gear, sold plenty on fleabay and have set myself up with all the lenses I need for now for a net price of only about £100.

Day to day I use either a konica minolta 17 - 35mm and also a Tamron apehrical 28 - 105mm. I did buy the sonby 75 - 300mm lense from DSG as the price was right but other than testing have never used it.

I would definately recommend Sony DSLR's but also it's a good idea to test/compare for yourself against the relevant cannon etc just to be sure. I did with the a100 and was sure it was for me, DSG balls up was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Namistai]

With your budget and aspirations, I'd stick with the Sony and kit lens but complement it with a decent bag, tripod, and some memory cards. Try a Redsnapper tripod for around £75 (http://www.aldine.co.uk/redsnapper/tripod-3wayhead-combo.html) which you can also choose a different head for if required. Then by the time you've bought a couple of memory cards, maybe a spare battery, and a decent bag your budget will be largely used - but you'll have the basic kit to build on later with new lenses etc.

You might be surprised at how good the kit lens will be for a first time DSLR buyer Sure, it's not going to give the same image quality as a much more expensive lens, but for learning the ropes you'll be able to get some great shots

Nami

PS if you're careful with how much you spend on the extras, you could maybe afford to get a second hand Minolta 50mm prime lens - great for portraits etc Msg me in trust and I can link you a good place to look (would rather not link here as it may be considered a competitor).

 

[friddela]

I've just bought my first DSLR which happens to be an a200. To tell you the truth, I love it! At first I was just going around shooting in Auto but obviously the results weren't up to much. Anyway, I bought 'Understanding Exposure', fantastic book and gets straight to the point. Within an hour of reading through the book I was shooting in Manual and I love the results. If you've never used a DSLR before and don't understand aperture, ISO and shutter speed it is a must in my opinion.

The a200 is a great first camera.

 

[photoshop]

As Derek W mentioned, i have the Sony A200.

Its my 1st DSLR and its a great bit of kit. Really simple and easy to use. I knew nothing about cameras and photography when i bought it but i've been taking some descent pictures. You can check out the pics i've been taking with it at my flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38642726@N06/

The 18/70mm kit lens is pretty damn good aswell. I know some people slate it for not being as good as 3rd party ones but i rather like it as i've had some good results with it. I still use it as a general walk-about lens. With the right settings you can get some great results! I wouldn't think of replacing it just yet!

You mention you would like to shoot landscapes and for that i would suggest a Sigma 10/20mm f/4-5.6 lens. They retail around £400.
It is pretty much the choice of landscape photographers as it offers ultra wide angles.
I have one and shoot all my landscape stuff with it.

For portraits you want to be looking at a 2nd hand Minolta 50mm F1.4 or f/1.7
The f1.4 is the "nifty fifty" as it gives very pleasant bokeh! I have one and love shooting creative shots with it. Its ideal for portrait work. I think you can pick one up 2nd hand for around £150ish.

For macro stuff you want a Tamron 90mm f/2.8. Its a 1:1 lens. They retail for around £350. I dont have one but i know people who do and they love it. The results are pretty damn good also.

Thats basically all you need. I would also get a tripod (Manfrotto) and a bag to carry your gear in (Low Pro). Also look at getting 2x4GB CF cards and may be an extra battery.

I understand that all this is above your budget of £500 so I would suggest buying stuff in stages.


I'm upgrading to a Sony A700 DSLR today so my A200 will be made redundant so I will be selling it. Contact me if your interested in buying it as it would save you some £££

 

[pumaz]

Thanks for all the help guys, Went to my local shop today and they had no stock and after an online check nor does any shop in my area but they are available for home delivery.

So basicly to cover my interests i'm looking at 3 lenses for around £900 which i can't really afford atm so I'm thinking of getting an extra battery, bag, tripod and book (understanding exposure) I already have an 8GB extreme CF card, hopefully that will be ok.

I'm hoping the kit lense will be good enough for my holiday to olu deniz where there is some fantastic scenery. I think the first lense i'll be saving up for is the Sigma 10/20mm f/4-5.6 lens as i love landscape photography. Then i want to get in to wedding photography just to make a bit of pocket money really. I have lots of friends, family and work mates who would happily pay £100 to £200 for some half decent wedding photo's and this would pay for those other lenses

I know i have a long way to go though but i do want to learn and have fun!

 

[photoshop]

The kit lens is more than adequate!

The Sigma 10/20mm is a good lens at f8 to f11 and sometimes even f16. Its rubbish wide open at f22.

For me, with this lens its been hit and miss so i always take the same shot at a few apertures to be on the safe side.

Another alternative is the Tamron 10-24mm f3.5. Its £20 cheaper aswell.

 

[PhillyDee]

I also have one as my first dslr. I like using it, gives excellent shots, nice and crisp and clear (to me anyway!) once I eventually use it properly I intend to get a nosepiece to connect to my telescope and a zoom lens. Perhaps a macro lens for ultra closeup shots. But thats a while away as I have a lot of other hobbies which need money! (Astronomy bneing the biggy, I need to find £350 to upgrade the focusser on my 'scope)

 

[Raikiri]

Its rubbish wide open at f22.

F22 is the complete opposite to wide open

Being an UWA lens designed primarily for landscapes sharpness wide open isn't really as issue as in most situations, you'll want to achieve maximum DOF at around f/11 by focussing on the hyperfocal point.

Edit: Moving up to the A700? Good choice, for £550 they're excellent bodies. High ISO performance is still a little lacking though.

 

[photoshop]

F22 is the complete opposite to wide open

Being an UWA lens designed primarily for landscaped sharpness wide open isn't really as issue as in most situations, you'll want to achieve maximum DOF at around f/11 by focussing on the hyperfocal point.

Edit: Moving up to the A700? Good choice, for £550 they're excellent bodies. High ISO performance is still a little lacking though.

Sorry I mean stopped down. It still confuses me that. Smallest F number is wide open and biggest F number is fully stopped down. I always thought for great DoF you use the highest F number? Thats what i've read in the "Understanding Exposure" book. I realise that isn't always the case.
I still haven't fully understood hyperfocal points. Never know what length at the front of the lens cap to use for great DoF so really on AF.

I bought the Sony A700 on Saturday after flogging my A200. Its a good camera which will be soon complimented with the Sony 50mm F1.4

 

[D.P.]

The kit lens is more than adequate!

The Sigma 10/20mm is a good lens at f8 to f11 and sometimes even f16. Its rubbish wide open at f22.

For me, with this lens its been hit and miss so i always take the same shot at a few apertures to be on the safe side.

Another alternative is the Tamron 10-24mm f3.5. Its £20 cheaper aswell.

Every lens on the planet will be terrible at F/22 as you have gone well beyond the diffraction limit of the lens Stick to f/11 or wider (F8 etc).

 

[BUFF]

Another alternative is the Tamron 10-24mm f3.5. Its £20 cheaper aswell.

the older Tamron 11-18mm seems to still be better going by the reviews that I've seen of the 10-24mm.

Edit: Moving up to the A700? Good choice, for £550 they're excellent bodies. High ISO performance is still a little lacking though.

compared to what? A D700/D3 yes, but it'll match a D300.
At it's feature/price point I doubt that you'll better it.

 

[Raikiri]

compared to what? A D700/D3 yes, but it'll match a D300.
At it's feature/price point I doubt that you'll better it.

No it doesn't, while there is little chroma noise as standard the noise reduction makes the image really quite blurry and not very detailed. It's a very good camera and that's one of its few limitations.

If you turn the NR off the image is nice and sharp but this happens:

A700 ISO1600

D300 ISO1600

D90 which comes in at about £80 more than the A700

Loads of chroma noise, probably the worst of the mid range DSLRs (D300/40D/50D/E3 etc.) but at its price it's still excellent.

 

[photoshop]

Who shoots at ISO1600?

 

[BUFF]

No it doesn't,

with firmware V4 it does.

while there is little chroma noise as standard the noise reduction makes the image really quite blurry and not very detailed. It's a very good camera and that's one of its few limitations.

If you turn the NR off the image is nice and sharp but this happens:

A700 ISO1600

D300 ISO1600

D90 which comes in at about £80 more than the A700

Loads of chroma noise, probably the worst of the mid range DSLRs (D300/40D/50D/E3 etc.) but at its price it's still excellent.

were those shots done with firmware V4? - apparently, yes.

were those shots done with settings other than the straight out of the box ones? apparently not

were they out of the camera jpgs (bear in mind that the jpg settings are different between manufacturers - they used the 40Ds top quality setting but only the 2nd top on the A700 ) or converted from RAW? - apparently, from jpg - this is the problem as everybody knows that Sony's jpg engine is poor at higher ISOs. shoot RAW & pp problem solved

If converted from RAW using what converters etc. - there is no doubt that different converters treat different manufacturers cameras differently - even DPReview seem to have realised this in a recent Olympus review where they didn't use ACR & PS ... as above it appears that they aren't from RAW.

There's also another thing - there is a disparity between how Sony & Nikon treat ISO ratings http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/06/does-the-alpha-700-really-do-iso-12800/

Yes, the D90 is fractionally better than an A700/D300 at high ISO (I would expect it to be as it a newer body) but imo it falls down in other areas compared to 40D/50D/A700/D300.
A properly processed RAW from a properly setup A700 with V4 will match that from a D300.

Who shoots at ISO1600?

a very small % of people will use it regularly, the vast majority of people only in extremis.

 

[Raikiri]

Who shoots at ISO1600?

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.

Could you post an example BUFF? I would be genuinely interested to see how it performs shooting RAW and processed.

 

[BUFF]

Could you post an example BUFF? I would be genuinely interested to see how it performs shooting RAW and processed.

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/

 

[D.P.]

Who shoots at ISO1600?

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.

 

[D.P.]

with firmware V4 it does.

were those shots done with firmware V4? - apparently, yes.

were those shots done with settings other than the straight out of the box ones? apparently not

were they out of the camera jpgs (bear in mind that the jpg settings are different between manufacturers - they used the 40Ds top quality setting but only the 2nd top on the A700 ) or converted from RAW? - apparently, from jpg - this is the problem as everybody knows that Sony's jpg engine is poor at higher ISOs. shoot RAW & pp problem solved

If converted from RAW using what converters etc. - there is no doubt that different converters treat different manufacturers cameras differently - even DPReview seem to have realised this in a recent Olympus review where they didn't use ACR & PS ... as above it appears that they aren't from RAW.

There's also another thing - there is a disparity between how Sony & Nikon treat ISO ratings http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/06/does-the-alpha-700-really-do-iso-12800/

Yes, the D90 is fractionally better than an A700/D300 at high ISO (I would expect it to be as it a newer body) but imo it falls down in other areas compared to 40D/50D/A700/D300.
A properly processed RAW from a properly setup A700 with V4 will match that from a D300.


a very small % of people will use it regularly, the vast majority of people only in extremis.

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.
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 - about a stop below the D3 which still makes it one of the least noisy sensor around.

Of course, there is a bit of price difference between the A900 and the D3x