| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2006 02:42:50 AM · #1 |
...to spend on a new camera/equipment, what would YOU buy?
I've sold my 300d + kit lens so I'm totally starting over!
At first I was going to get the 20d, but then I played with that sexy thang of a 30d and decided it was definatly worth the couple hundred more.
For glass, I was thinking that tamron 28-75 f2.8 everyone loves.
I could go with that plan. But am I worth the 30d (or even the 20d)? I've only been doing photography about a year, and that's a hefty nice camera for a newbie. Maybe I'm getting too greedy? Should I get an XT and invest the rest in accessories (ie tripod, polarizers, lighting stuff)?
OR does anyone know that new Sony Alpha sucks for sure? It seems pretty darn good for under $1000. The alpha lenses are a bit more, but does anyone know what KM lenses would work as well? I've been happy with Sony's video products, but have no idea what they are like in the still photography area.
I'm totally open to any ideas anyone has! Remember the budget is around $1700.
I'll be glad to leave comments for help. :) Thanks!
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:46:23 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by NightShy:
...to spend on a new camera/equipment, what would YOU buy? |
The new Sony Alpha with built-in anti-shake on the sensor! 10mp sensor with dust removal. And check out the 3 Zeiss lens :) The body is only $999 so you'd have an extra $700 for really good lens!
update: you asked about compatibility on KM lens. Well from DPReview, it states that the Alpha would be compatible with Minolta A-type bayonet mount lens.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:48:12. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:49:12 AM · #3 |
For $1700? Hmm...
Probably an Olympus E-1 + 14-54mm lens ($800-ish)...
...and then a Konica Minolta 7D + 28-75/2.8 ($900-ish)
I like having variety and more toys to play with :) |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:05:09 AM · #4 |
The new Alpha Sony is one heck of a camera, and well worth it the KM lenses are excellent glass, the new Zeiss lens will knock the spots off any "l" glass.
I'm seriously looking at the Zeiss 85mm f2.8. for my wee beastie
Ithink this offering from Sony will knock a hole in the 4/3rd system
There are 20 odd lens in the new line up plus any KM lens are useable
i'd look at it plus the KM 28/75 F2.8
just my2c worth
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 03:08:57.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:19:04 AM · #5 |
The new Sony does sound very tempting, especially with Zeiss glass available. IMO, Minolta has always made good equipment and so has Sony, so the two merged together should be great.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:19:39 AM · #6 |
Holy crap, I stop checking DPreview for a couple of weeks and look what I miss!!!
I would guess that the Sony Alpha is going to be a long, long way away from 'SUCK'.
If it's only 1000 bucks, that's pretty serious!
I would consider it more than seriously. Check your options in the second hand market. Regardless, now with the upheavals in the Konica Minolta world, there still might be some killer buys...
Oh and I've got a few words for you:
Konica Minolta 50mm f/1.7 with anti-shake and 10 Megapixels.
Sonofa **** |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:24:13 AM · #7 |
Maybe I'm the only one that doubts the Alpha, I just don't believe that Sony is gonna be able to compete with Canon and Nikon.
How bout this solution: ?
[B&H Prices]
Rebel XT Kit w/ 18-55 lens $749 (-$100 rebate)
Canon 70-200L f/4 lens $584 (-$40 rebate)
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens $379 (-$30 rebate)
Subtotal $1,712
minus rebates $ 170
TOTAL $1,542
You'd have a good body, a decent lens covering fairly wide angle in the kit lens, and two excellent lenses covering 28-200mm. You could use the rebate money to pay taxes or buy extras or whatever when you get it back...
Dave
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:36:51 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by NightShy:
...to spend on a new camera/equipment, what would YOU buy? |
The new Sony Alpha with built-in anti-shake on the sensor! 10mp sensor with dust removal. And check out the 3 Zeiss lens :) The body is only $999 so you'd have an extra $700 for really good lens!
update: you asked about compatibility on KM lens. Well from DPReview, it states that the Alpha would be compatible with Minolta A-type bayonet mount lens. |
I second that. Looks to be a nice camera by specs.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:41:25 AM · #9 |
correction, the Sony A100 is only $900 for the body,
the price $999 I stated was with kit lens.
It does look pretty sweet in specs right now - hope to see the sample pics on DPreview soon. But I read from the site, it appears they are using the same one on the D200, but using a better hardware image-rendering chip. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:52:46 AM · #10 |
Nikon d70s
Tokina 12-24 4.0
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 70-300 2.8 apo or Sigma 105mm macro
Something like that, I like fast lenses. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:10:20 AM · #11 |
If I was starting from scratch, I would get:
Canon Rebel XT $600
Tamron 28-75 $350
Canon 70-300IS $550
Filters, tripod, camera bag $200
Then I would be saving for the Tokina 12-24.
My thinking is Canon & Nikon are camera, Sony is walkmans:) |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:59:06 AM · #12 |
Nightshy, I just went from the 300D to the 30D last week. And I've spent the week wondering what I could have done with last year's pictures if I had this year's camera. The best way to compare it:
like changing from an escort to a mustang
like move up to first class after riding coach
like taking off your sunglasses at night
like driving the autobahn after being stuck in LA traffic
And on. Anyway, there is a huge difference. Now my camera is ready when I am. I can adjust things so precisely - metering, ISO, WB, that my 300D now seems like trying to run a 3-legged race all the time. And the huge difference in noise is amazing. I didn't think I could use everything in the camera - didn't think I needed it. I was wrong.
The great thing? I sent in images for my latest assignment for the paper. My editor wrote back - these shots are amazing! I'm sold.
Choose what's best for you. But don't think you aren't qualified for a better camera - you are a great photographer.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:17:44 AM · #13 |
today
nikon 200mm AF-ED micro
;) |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:50:33 AM · #14 |
i'll definetly do with Count's proposition
Rebel XT Kit w/ 18-55 lens $749 (-$100 rebate)
Canon 70-200L f/4 lens $584 (-$40 rebate)
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens $379 (-$30 rebate)
peace,
goran
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 11:02:27 AM · #15 |
Seriously, the A100 is going to have equal or better overall imaging quality than the Nikon D200.
The D200 uses a Sony sensor, but the Sony cam will have all the cutting edge 'in-house' advantages...
Even if they mess it up with bad algorithms (still possible, it is sony after all), most serious shooters will be shooting with their settings all at 0 anyways, so it will all work out to being basically the same, plus minor hardware advantages...
It looks like they are working really hard on this one... I was impressed that they didn't restrict it to Sony memory media; a sure sign that they are doing some things to make the camera better.
The only real advantages in my eye to the D200 over the A100 are the high FPS settings, and.... uhhhhh.... ok that's about it.
The A100 is not the 350XT. It's fairly in between the 350 and the 30D. And to be honest, it's a lot closer to the 30D than the 350.
Outside of FPS on the D200, I think Nikon is going to be sweating over this one a lot.
A100 + 50mm f/1.7 by KM (if you can still find one) + Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, + 28-75 Tamron +11-18 Sony...
Put that up against the 350XT + 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Tamron 28-75 and Canon 10-22 and you will see some pretty similar cost numbers... but the A100 does it all with AS. I bet that you will get pictures more easily in more situations with the A100 though...
Yeah, it's true that Canon has the 70-200 f/4, which is really cheap and really sharp, but in use, that's a LONG, far cry from the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with 3.5 stops of AS, shooting hand-held at full zoom at 300mm equiv. Really.
Oh yeah, forgot... Aquapreta... if Canon and Nikon are cameras, but Sony is walkmans, think about this:
Sony makes most of Canon's CCD sensors.
Sony makes all of Canon's LCD screens.
Sony makes all of Nikons CCD sensors (they have a CMOS in the D2X).
Looks like Canon is cameras, inside and out, and Nikon is cameras, mostly on the outside, but Sony is cameras on the inside, and now on the outside too... That's why I personally tend to favor Canon over Nikon/Sony, but Sony over Nikon. And don't forget, the A100 was made in the same factories and by most of the same people who worked on the KM stuff, it's just a Sony name on KM gear (which itself was already half Sony).
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 11:07:24. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 12:49:03 PM · #16 |
I love my 30D. I'd marry it, if I could. Though, I reckon I've married Canon.
As for the Alpha.... It definitely looks like Sony is coming out of the corner swinging. But, I won't ever buy a Sony ANYTHING ever again, and if I can talk someone else into NOT buying Sony, I will. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:04:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I love my 30D. I'd marry it, if I could. Though, I reckon I've married Canon.
As for the Alpha.... It definitely looks like Sony is coming out of the corner swinging. But, I won't ever buy a Sony ANYTHING ever again, and if I can talk someone else into NOT buying Sony, I will. |
It's funny to hear someone else say this about Sony. After my experiences with them, I too will NEVER buy anything they make EVER again. For all the hype they get, I'll come right out and say it - IMO, they make CRAP products.
I know that when I go to upgrade (soon I hope!), I'll go stright to a Canon 30D. I don't even have to think about it, it's a given.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:08:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Oh yeah, forgot... Aquapreta... if Canon and Nikon are cameras, but Sony is walkmans, think about this:
Sony makes most of Canon's CCD sensors.
Sony makes all of Canon's LCD screens.
Sony makes all of Nikons CCD sensors (they have a CMOS in the D2X).
Looks like Canon is cameras, inside and out, and Nikon is cameras, mostly on the outside, but Sony is cameras on the inside, and now on the outside too... That's why I personally tend to favor Canon over Nikon/Sony, but Sony over Nikon. And don't forget, the A100 was made in the same factories and by most of the same people who worked on the KM stuff, it's just a Sony name on KM gear (which itself was already half Sony). |
I'm pretty certain Canon makes their own LCD-screens. That's how they're expanding into the new television market with their new techniques. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:13:42 PM · #19 |
Here's a side by side of the canon 20D, D30, 350XT, and the new sony alpha. The only thing about the Sony....it's brand new and their first DSLR...I would be leary of that...but then I'm leary of buying anything brand spankin' new until there are some reviews and I can make my own judgement...plus you have the folks in here with their opinions.
Here's the link:
Side by Side review of Cameras |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 01:45:44 PM · #20 |
Canon makes their own dSLR sensors - CMOS sensors (lower noise) than CCD that everyone else uses.
I'd be very tempted by that new Sony. one comment said they saw no ISO button on the body and changing ISO via the menu sucks.
a 30D, a 20D or even a used 20D ($800ish). the 20D is a good camera.
Lenses are abit easier: a tamron 17-50 2.8 SP and look for a used tamron 70-210 2.8 LD ($400 ish)
allow room for a flash at some point, tripod (good one) and CF card(s) and at elast one spare battery
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:42:47 PM · #21 |
Thanks everyone for your great input!
That sony is looking better and better, but I'm wondering why people have such a bad taste in their mouth for sony? Their video stuff is a huge cut above the rest in my opinion. What's wrong with their other still photography products?
I'd probably wait until there are better image reviews, and maybe til I could play with one before I'd buy it.
I think if I stick with canon, I'll do what Dakota says and go to the 30d. I like it more than the XT and just because I think I don't deserve it doesn't mean I still can't afford it with the money I worked hard for :)
If anyone else has any suggestions, I'd love to hear it. Especially what you think about the Sony.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:47:50 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by NightShy:
That sony is looking better and better, but I'm wondering why people have such a bad taste in their mouth for sony? Their video stuff is a huge cut above the rest in my opinion. What's wrong with their other still photography products?
|
Harboring biases is fun, I guess, as ignorant as it is. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 02:56:37 PM · #23 |
My biggest complaint with the XT was the small grip. If that feels comfortable to you, then the XT may be plenty of camera, and a HUGE upgrade from the 300D. In that case, I'd probably go with Aguapreta's recommendation (trading a bit of image quality for longer zoom, IS and a less massive lens).
If you have a specific need (or want) for features specific to the 30D (more speed, ISO3200, large LCD, spot meter, etc.), then I doubt you'd ever regret going with the bigger, badder camera- ESPECIALLY with the Tamron lens.
The Sony camera may turn out to be great, but it's relatively unproven and the lens/accessory selection is much more limited. The Sony R1 (while very good) didn't quite live up to the hype IMO. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:31:33 PM · #24 |
| Canon Rebel XT (body only) at beachcamera.com is just $664, and then I think there's a $100 rebate from Canon. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:06:18 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
My biggest complaint with the XT was the small grip. If that feels comfortable to you, then the XT may be plenty of camera, and a HUGE upgrade from the 300D.
If you have a specific need (or want) for features specific to the 30D (more speed, ISO3200, large LCD, spot meter, etc.), then I doubt you'd ever regret going with the bigger, badder camera- ESPECIALLY with the Tamron lens.
The Sony camera may turn out to be great, but it's relatively unproven and the lens/accessory selection is much more limited. The Sony R1 (while very good) didn't quite live up to the hype IMO. |
I have some pretty darn small hands, so the XT might be a better fit. But, the evil guy at the camera store let me play with the 30d and, wow, that screen is huge. I also love the wheel. But let's be honest, I'm not amazing and I hardly know how to use a camera so maybe the XT would be better even if that's not what I REALLY want.
That leads back to the Sony. If that ends up proving itself to be what it's cracked up to be, I'd be kicking myself that I got a different camera for a more expensive price.
Hmmm, anyone else have advice?
|
|
