Hey 1X

Recently i bought a Sony dSLR a200, i'm very pleased and it's my first camera at all :P ..my question is, have i been dumb to buy sony? personally i was attracted by the low price and in-body IS.. what is your opinion?

-Benthin

In my world there are only Canon & Nikon, but that is also insular from me -
I'm sure you bought a very good camera - Sony usually don't sells bad things :)

But all in all mostly lenses are much more important then the camera itself,
don't know much about which lenses are on the market for Sony.

Finally you'll have a point to "make a choice for life", cause if you begin to buy more lenses there is hardly a way to change back, or you have enough money -
I did my choice to Canon, and I had sometimes moments where I thought I'd better had bought Nikon, but finally I'm happy.....as soon as I got my long awaited 7D :)

Hi,


well Sony provides some of the best lenses by cooperating with Carl Zeiss. The 24-70 2.8 and the 16-35 2.8 are really great but also expensive. Also the Sony 70-200 2.8 SSM is one of the best lenses in this range and can compete with the Canon and Nikon equivalents. The Carl Zeiss 85 1.4 and 135 2.8 are beautiful portrait primes. But in the middle price range Sony has not so many choices to offer. They work on it, but there you have less choices compared to a Nikon or Canon system. But here you have a very good alternative in buying old Minolta AF lenses, which are fully compatible. This can be for example the very nice 85mm 1.4, the Minolta 50mm 1.7 or 1.4, Minolta 100mm Macro 2.8 and so on. And all this is stabilized by the body built-in Antishake.

The real handicap of the Sony system is the AF, which can compete in the low priced models, but you can't get a body with a high tech AF for sports and action photography. And if you search for a high iso capable model like Canon 5D or Nikon D700 you will not find a body from Sony so far. On the other hand they develop a lot of new stuff for the system and invest quite a lot energy to built a complete system.

Concerning the usability of the camera itself, I find Sony superior to any other camera I had in my hands so far.

To talk about the A200. I think, this is the best value for the low price you can get. So looking at this camera you have made a good choice in my eyes. Sven is right, when saying, that this can get a decision for life. But this has not happened with buying the Sony A200. This will happen, if you buy several 2000 EUR lens for Sony later. So I would suggest to relax, enjoy this camera and try to get the best out of it. If you then think about a major upgrade, you can still make a decision to move to another system then based on your experience as a photographer.

One hint for a first low price prime lens upgrade: Buy a used Minolta 50mm 1.7. Here in Germany you get good ones for 90-100 EUR and image und built quality is superb. Sharpness and bokeh experience will be a blast compared to the usual kit lenses.

And here is an example, that you can create fantastic images with a Sony system: http://1x.com/v2/#member/17110/

/Stephan

yeh if you're comfortable with it, that should be enough. what's that quote, again? "cameras dont make good pictures, photographers do."

Actually, Sony Alpha 900 has a full-frame sensor...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/

Hi Robert,


I know. I am a more or less convinced user of the Sony system for some years now. :) There is the A900 and the now also the additional A850 with a perfect price/quality ratio. And both of these cameras offer a very high resolution with a lot of detail information. But they both do not perform that well in ISO1600 and above as the competitors 5D and D700. You can squeeze good results in high ISO with some intelligent post processing and very exact exposure out of them, but they are some step behind their competitors.

This has no impact on the A200 but if you consider to invest a lot of money in such a system, you should know that current obstacle of the system. But I am also sure, that this will change in the future.

/Stephan

Thank you for taking the time everyone :) it's very appreciated..

Thank you Stephan for the advice on the lens there, i have actually looked at that one and also the beercan, which i have heard a lot about.

The photo forest is hard to find your way through, but i think i came out at the sony side thanks to you guys :P

-Benthin

i bought olympus cameras and have a few lenses. i have decided to switch systems and go with the Nikon d700. i want to buy a full frame camera because i like the field of view (and a few other things). if the camera suits your needs then it is right for you. the olympus has been a great camera for me but for what i am doing it is not what i need anymore.

You bougth a very good camera,you get the whole minolta (2nd hand) range lenses as well.
Sony right now in No3, and ´for the little time they have been arround in this market, they are doing very good.
I

Totally agree

I´ve been a A900 user for almost 2 years and, at least for landscape it´s very very good. I use too Carl Zeiss lenses (16-35mm, 24-70mm and 135mm). I´m new here so hope we meet together soon :)
If you want to see the A900 work you can click in my personal website: www.alonsodr.com

Thanks and hugs, friends

Most people tend to look down on you when you wear th Sony logo on your neckstrap instead of "5DII, D300" etc. The seem to think that only Canon and Nikon can make camera's who can shoot pictures... How wrong and shortsighted can some people be?

I use my A300 a lot, made pics that ended up in pro-photograpers books/magazines, make pics for sites, flyers etc. All this with a "simple" A300. I recently got an order for a log time shoot after seeing my work. They could have gone with the guy with the Nikon, they could have gone to the guy shooting the Canon... But they chose me.. Why? Perhaps because they find the endresult more pleasing than that of my counterparts, not because wich brand of neckstrap i wear.

Sony makes exelent camera's, en some verry nice glass. The Sony/Minolta G series are perfect, Carl Zeiss, hell, even the old Beercan's can provide verry nice pictures with exelent colors. And then there is the third party glassworks from Sigma and Tamron. I think that Sigma nowadays has a verry high quality line of lenses avalible for a verry sharp price. All that crap about back and front focus is in the past, build quality is verry good, and the glass and coatings are up to par wit the most of them out there.

If you know the limitations of the Sony in order of AF speed and high ISO performance you've got nothing to worry about. And the new line from the A500 got the high ISO under control a lot better. Iff rumors are true then this month they are going to introduce 4 new models with high FPS mor MP and better ISO performance. Can't wait hehe

I like my Sony, and am not selling it. Waiting for the new A700+ or new A900+ model, and then we'll see :)

Here are two sites of pro's that shoot Sony. Don't let annyone tell you a Sony can't take good pic's, it can, if you can ;)

http://briansmith.com/
http://www.studionb.com/

And mine, humble as i am haha ;)
www.remcovandesanden.nl

interesting article about sony. to whom it may concern :) cheers mauro

[http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/07/sony-question.html

And Drinking_eye, what is your point? What is your opinion about it rather than linking a site with a smilie?

Remco,

Thank you for mentioning my work!

Cheers!

Brian Smith

I own 5D MKII....have nothing against people with Sony, Nikon or other Brands....it has nothing to do with the Brand...
Do not really see what is the point of this post:-)

Thank you for making such great pics that inspire many Sony fans ( and people at Dyxum forum ) to be all they can be :)

you can totally find on A900. sony is the most expensive gear among others. the colors are generated from the original gear also sony

I think Sony is a brand you have to take seriously. They are actually the ones making the sensors for Nikon.
Sony is a large company, seriously into broadcast video. Until recently only into compacts when it comes to still photography.
They seem to have caught the interest of still photo now. They use some Zeiss optics, they know how to make sensors, they might start to worry the big two's. And Nikon is not really big compared to Canon and Sony. So watch out!

Owners of the Panasonic LX5, such as myself, must remain humble in this discussion, but it's a great little camera. And I'm never tempted to buy additional lenses. Its little Leica lens [24mm f2 to 105mm f3.3 (equivalent)] has to serve, but does so admirably.

My friend the humble monarch!!

King, sometime ago i´m curious about little compact cameras and because you talk a lot in LX series, i read a lot about it. Other day a member of 1X ask me if it´s good ideia buy one of these Leica compacts and i tell him to buy a LX5, because is same thing with same lenses. He buy it and is very happy now.

But as maybe i´m intersted in buy one, i ask to see original non manipulated files from LX5 and i see LX5 alghoritm to reduce noise produces strange artifacts in medium and low light areas. Don´t know if that happens also in raw files.

What do you think about ?

I keep in-camera noise reduction to a minimum and work in RAW for critical work. But I haven't noticed anything.

My friend Clyde Beamer would be the better person to ask for advice on this.

Overall I find the LX5 raw files somewhat less noisy than the LX3 was. Compared to my D90, they are still a bit more noisy unless I get either above 400 iso, then the LX5 might a slight advantage but I wouldn't use either above 800 unless I just really wanted the shot. The 2.0 lens helps a lot to avoid higher iso's. I have a preset in Lightroom for importing from LX5 that helps a lot with the small amount of noise I see. I notice the noise more in the mid's not so much in the shadows.

BTW, King, pretty sure any in-camera noise reduction is only applied to the jpeg's. I don't believe it affects the raw files at all.

I wanted to buy that one, but it is just too small for my hands. Ended up with a G12 instead

It´s what i want to know, Clyde.
But what i noted in original jpegs i see it´s strange "tubular" artifacts. I try to put here later.

Yes, that's what I meant to say.

The noise from the LX5 and the LX3 before it is a bit different than the 2 Nikon sensors and the earlier Olympus I had. Not sure what you mean by tabular. I would call it round. I will post a 100% crop of a bit of something that shows what I'm referring to when I get to work.

Here's 2 links to a crop of an image from yesterday. Camera LX5, ISO 200 1/640 sec.

This one has no Lightroom sharpening or noise reduction:

http://www.clydebeamer.com/public/LX5_NoNoiseREDUCTION.jpg

This one has my saved LX5 import setting for sharpening and noise reduction:

http://www.clydebeamer.com/public/LX5_LRNoiseREDUCTION.jpg

Io ho cominciato con una alpha 100 poi ho preso la 700 e adesso sono felice possessore di Alpha 900 Ho diversi obbiettivi e sono molto soddisfatto di Sony sto' aspettando anche io che esca con un modello di ammiraglia piu' recente visto che la 900 ha piu' di 3 anni e si sa la tecnologia in tutto questo tempo fa passi da gigante. Sono fiducioso nel marchio e convinto che ci stupira. ciao Marco

hello clyde,

i am just curious - nothing bad meant, why the LX5 does so much color & normal noise at iso 200 only?

greetings
marc

Here is the wonderful example and certainly not hesitate with your purchase!

Noise I have in my Nikon D300, I never use my noise suppressor, because I think that many pixels into each other blendI keep my ISO as low as possible.
Photograph therefore not automatic, you have everything in your hands.

Between Parentheses Alfonso, you have a beautiful site, and really fast!

Could have to do with the tiny size of the sensor, dunno...contact Panasonic support is you want a more technical explanation...I suppose.

2) Bear in mind that on DX sensors (to my knowledge, this includes all Sony DSLR's except A900 and A850), the 50mm f/1.7 is 35mm-equivalent to a 75mm. 

It is not Sony at all,it is a Minolta,I do not know if any member have told you that ,it is the revised version of Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D,the mere in camera IS system worths its price.

well i know - only 1/1.63" size - same as my F200EXR Fuji. but your images are lovely.

greetings
marc

it is a well known fact that Sony have bout Konica Minolta at the year 2005 ,including all,inventions and engineers company.
the Sony then have introduced its first DSLR ever the A100,which is in no way but a Maxxum 7D ,with 10megas of resolution,all the design are very semilar but two buttons,where Sony have changed their places.
and I am sure of that at some 100%,I have owned both ,the Maxxum 7D ,and the Alfa 100.
And that is why all the Sony cameras have Minolta mount lenses .
I have find this about the alfa 100.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/

maybe he's just too young with 17, can hardly know the good minolta times. ;) i once had a dimage 7i, but
it's size was too big for a bridge on its time, so changed within a couple days for the C-5050z.

I have recently added to my old Minolta kit. I still have the SRT-101 & 50mm f1.7 that I had in college days in the '70's. I now also have a SRT-201 w/ 50mm f1.4 MC that works better than the old one which has gone a little twitchy in the meter area lately. I've also added a few other lenses including a 135mm f2.8, a 28mm f2.5 and my latest a 300mm f4.5 all MC's.

I still love shooting with that kit. It's just a bit heavy for hiking around. Those lenses are FULL of glass!!

Hey Saad,

Yes ,that is very clear and evident ,but you have to look at it this way,Sony have not developed DSLR by its own,when it wanted to do one ,it can not start from zero,otherwise it will lag behind all in ages,that is why it bought KM,and it took a very good camera to adds on,so all the Sony cameras whether  100 or the later on all are built over a very good camera,The Maxxum,and all are very good indeed,it is only their NOISE issue that make the photographers runs away from them ,those who a rack of Minolta's lenses have upgraded to Sony alpha series,the great thing about them is the in camera IS system ,and Sony have added a dynamic range booster ,plus their low prices they are really something you could compare to other fine brands,The best of them that I have used and I could compare to Nikon D300 is Alpha 350.