I have finally settled on getting a sony a700 slr - any reasons not to get it.

[Abstract]

Well, it is true that Nikon uses the same sensor as Sony (well at least in the D3x) but see the image comparison, Sony noise at higher ISO is the worst of the bunch, all blotchy, lose of details, high level of chromatic and luminance noise. So even if Sony uses the same sensor as Nikon, their image quality still suck at higher ISO so there must be something else. Like how the camera process the image?

All those tests are taken using the default settings, and who buys such an advanced camera to use everything at default settings? If you adjust the noise reduction setting on an A700 using the newest (or a recent) firmware, the noise looks good. Just because the default settings aren't perfect, does not mean it's a bad camera. Far from it. It just means you need to adjust the NR setting to get a great output. Advanced DSLRs are all about customisability, and having settings to get the output that you're looking for.

On the default setting, the D300 produces horrible skin tones. There must be over 50 threads at DPReview's forums just on how horrible the default settings are, and how "consumer friendly" the colours and saturation levels are. Does my camera suck? No. Using what other photographers have noticed, I created 4 presets to give me exactly what I want in 4 different shooting situations, and none of them are remotely close to the default.

So yes, my D300 produces excellent JPEGs, and so does the A700.

Another point to be taken is ergonomics, most ppl end up bragging Nikon is better then Canon or Canon better then Sony partly come from their experience in ergonomics, I frankly cannot be on Sony side even its true that their camera offers value for money cause I HATE its ergonomics, so that totally rules thing out. I'm okay with Nikon and Canon ergonomics. (well I guess I don't need to tell that I hate Sony high ISO performance too)

Sony's ergonomics are great. In fact, it's one thing Minolta, and now Sony, was really famous for. This is particularly true of the Minolta 7D.

What's funny is you brought up Sony's ergonomics as not being good, because if there's one company that is NOT known for their ergonomics, it's Canon. Some people will say it's bad, while others will say it's not as bad as people say it is, and that you get used to whatever camera you choose regardless of the brand. Ever read any reviews who say Canon's ergonomics are one of the best? I haven't, and reviewers are people who try and review every DSLR.

Also, frankly speaking, most 3rd party lenses is not as good as the lenses produced by the camera body manufacturer and I kept hearing horror stories about 3rd party lenses always have problems here and there and need to be returned, there are good 3rd party lenses out there just we must keep an eye about the problems we might face I guess.

First, that sounds like you have no idea about 3rd party lenses whatsoever. You 'heard'? There are lots of Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses that are as good or better than Canon lenses. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[wheelhot]

What's funny is the fact that you brought up Sony's ergonomics as not being good, because if there's one company that is NOT known for their ergonomics, it's Canon. Some people will say it's bad, while others will say it's not as bad as people say it is, and that you get used to whatever camera you choose regardless of the brand. Ever read any reviews who say Canon's ergonomics are one of the best? I haven't, and these are people who have tried and reviewed every camera.

Yeah I know Canon ergonomics is not good but hey, I mentioned in my posts a lot of time stating, I cannot stand Sony dSLR ergonomics, so must you repeat the same thing again?

Nikon ergonomics is still the best of the bunch so if you want to make this into a Sony vs Canon thing, we both lose in this one.

First, that sounds like you have no idea about 3rd party lenses whatsoever. You 'heard'? There are lots of Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses that are as good or better than Canon lenses. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Oo, nope. I stand by with my claims, Tokina are very good and I respect them but there are more Sigma and Tamron offering that gives technical problems then Canon lenses and if we are talking bout EF-S mounts, then I will look for 3rd party cause Canon attempt at EF-S mounts is fairly pathetic, but if we are talking EF mounts, then mostly Canons and sometime 3rd party. I rarely hear a person end up having to return copies of a lens cause each copy give different performance (different sharpness and etc.) with a lens made by the manufacturer, but this seem pretty common w/ 3rd party lenses.

 

[Abstract]

I mentioned in my posts a lot of time stating, I cannot stand Sony dSLR ergonomics, so must you repeat the same thing again?

You brought it up.

Nikon ergonomics is still the best of the bunch so if you want to make this into a Sony vs Canon thing, we both lose in this one.

No, I wasn't trying to turn this into a Sony vs Canon thing. I'm a Nikon user. I just didn't want to hear anything that I thought wasn't true. If someone is going to tell one side of the story, surely another person should tell the other side, and that is Sony's ergonomics are pretty well-known for being good. Perhaps the OP may actually find that she hates it as well. I can't guarantee anything. However, in this case, it's best to play the odds, and chances are good that a person will enjoy the A700's ergonomics.

I rarely hear a person end up having to return copies of a lens cause each copy give different performance (different sharpness and etc.) with a lens made by the manufacturer, but this seem pretty common w/ 3rd party lenses.

I think it depends on the type of lense you're talking about rather than the manufacturer. They're all pretty good at making lenses, and they're made using mostly the same processes. The exception is Tokina. Very well known for CA problems, and it shows up on every lens review. I do own a Tokina 12-24 mm though. Not a bad lens.

The only issue with 3rd party lenses is that a lens that works on one Canon (for example) may not work on another model, or a newer model that's released in the future. It'll definitely "work", but perhaps there is miscommunication of settings between the camera and the lens, which may cause issues related to exposure or focusing. In that case, Sigma/Tamron/Tokina will just re-chip your lens, and probably clean and re-calibrate it so that it works even better than before.

This isn't common though. The large large majority will work just fine on every model.

 

[cooloregon]

Not exactly true, I've seen many people who gives this reason and end up not being that interested that much into photography or ended up not using it cause they feel it is too much for them. Really pissed me off when they just leave their 50D in the cabinet to rot

Well, it is true that Nikon uses the same sensor as Sony (well at least in the D3x) but see the image comparison, Sony noise at higher ISO is the worst of the bunch, all blotchy, lose of details, high level of chromatic and luminance noise. So even if Sony uses the same sensor as Nikon, their image quality still suck at higher ISO so there must be something else. Like how the camera process the image?

Also, frankly speaking, most 3rd party lenses is not as good as the lenses produced by the camera body manufacturer and I kept hearing horror stories about 3rd party lenses always have problems here and there and need to be returned, there are good 3rd party lenses out there just we must keep an eye about the problems we might face I guess.

Another point to be taken is ergonomics, most ppl end up bragging Nikon is better then Canon or Canon better then Sony partly come from their experience in ergonomics, I frankly cannot be on Sony side even its true that their camera offers value for money cause I HATE its ergonomics, so that totally rules thing out. I'm okay with Nikon and Canon ergonomics. (well I guess I don't need to tell that I hate Sony high ISO performance too)

Now to answer the OP question, if you want to use a 18-200 lens, I must say for you to get a Nikon D90 with that lens instead cause if I'm not mistaken, Canon 18-200 is not as good as Nikkor 18-200.

Well I gotta be frank, when I look at Canon lenses, I only care bout their L lens and their primes, the only EF-S lens I have an eye for is the 17-55 f/2.8 and another wideangle zoom (don't know much bout wide angles cause I rarely need to shoot at wideangle). The cheapest L you can get is 70-200 f/4, the constant aperture is what make this lens great (maybe will interest you cause you mentioned long distance shots) though, if you do own a 70-200 f/4 maybe you will need to get a cheaper body like the Rebel XS or XSi which are fine camera bodies also (the small grip usually will make people not to like the Rebel series, so be sure to try it out before owning it).

I think if you're going to spent over $1000 on a dslr camera and then find that you're not "interested" then maybe you should start with a $100 dig. camera made by everyone and start from there. No matter what camera you choose, it all come down to the photographer to make the shot. Good luck on your purchase I hope you all the best.

 

[Cliff3]

Well, it is true that Nikon uses the same sensor as Sony (well at least in the D3x)

Where did that bit of disinformation come from?

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, I guess I should mention that a person should try out the dSLR to see if the ergonomics suits them. Cuz I just can't stand Sony ergonomics so I wont own a Sony dSLR but it seems like you mention, Abstract that you can live Sony ergonomics, so that's okay too. In the end, it all depends on the hand of a person.

Okay, I made a mistake, but Sony manufactures Nikon sensor and it is not certain if it is the same exact sensor, more info can be found here and here

I think if you're going to spent over $1000 on a dslr camera and then find that you're not "interested" then maybe you should start with a $100 dig. camera made by everyone and start from there. No matter what camera you choose, it all come down to the photographer to make the shot. Good luck on your purchase I hope you all the best.

Huh? purchase? I already own a dSLR. . . , and yea its all up to the photographer to make the shot, but I will follow what people say, buy it once, buy it right. But, you know what, I'm not joking when I mention there are people who spend a whole lot of money on a camera and end up not using it cause they find it cumbersome to bring around, I guess this happen when a person got too much money to spend.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

But, you know what, I'm not joking when I mention there are people who spend a whole lot of money on a camera and end up not using it cause they find it cumbersome to bring around, I guess this happen when a person got too much money to spend.

That's a pet peeve of mine. A friend of mine knows another friend (with deep pockets, apparently) who bought a 40D, 17-40L and 70-200L (not sure if it was the f/2.8 or f/4) on a whim. And he used it in the green square mode, while complaining he couldn't take any shots indoors.

It was shocking and a bit frustrating, to say the least.

 

[macgrl]

Which ever camera I get I intend to get full use out of it. I am looking forward to learning new thinks and taking my photography to the next level for me

 

[wheelhot]

Which ever camera I get I intend to get full use out of it. I am looking forward to learning new thinks and taking my photography to the next level for me

All the best

 

[Cliff3]

This is getting way off topic, but...

Okay, I made a mistake, but Sony manufactures Nikon sensor and it is not certain if it is the same exact sensor, more info can be found here and here.

There's the inevitable "is it a Sony or Nikon sensor" question thing that arises from another new sensor announcement. But it especially rises this time as the primary difference between a D3 and a D3x is the sensor, and Sony has a similar-sized sensor in a camera that's US$5000 less expensive. I think there's a clear assumption by many that if it is a Sony sensor, then either the A900 is a bargain or the D3x is overpriced.

In actuality, the origin of the sensor is, like virtually all Nikon sensors, more complex. There's a story going around Japan, for instance, that one of Sony's newer fabs was partially leased to another company making CMOS sensors. There aren't many companies making CMOS sensors that need a state-of-the-art fab on lease, so the rumor has it that Nikon is the leasee. Given that the steppers in the plant probably came from Nikon Precision and things get messy real quick. There have also been rumors around for some time that Nikon was either specifying or applying their own "toppings" (that would be microlenses and Bayer filtration), even when they were using a Sony generated sensor. To say that there is a lot of entwinement between Sony Semiconductor and Nikon Imaging is understatement. Personally, I like the way Nikon puts it: "unique." The D3x sensor is unique to the D3x, though it may share some underpinnings with other sensors.

So it seems clear to me that the D3x sensor isn't the A900 sensor. There are some obvious differences that can be gleaned from the specs and without access to technical data sheets. At the same time, there are too many coincidences for the D3x sensor not to be based on the Sony sensel (the light sensing area of the photosite). It also seems clear that the low-pass filter is handled differently in the Nikon version. So all those thinking that the A900 and D3x should be the "same" for raw files are probably going to be proven wrong. And for JPEG files, the EXPEED and BIONZ image processing ASICs are certainly going to produce different results.

 

[wheelhot]

I'll admit my mistake and apologize for any inconvenience, but I honestly read before bout something that Sony and Nikon uses the same sensor, maybe its only for D60?

 

[mdo574]

Nikon

Nikon D90 all the way baby..................

 

[macgrl]

Unless I am mistaken the canon 40d has been out for a couple of years. Should this concern me?

 

[Grimace]

Unless I am mistaken the canon 40d has been out for a couple of years. Should this concern me?

No, film cameras from the 1980s still take phenomenal photos. The 40D is a great camera -- and it was then too -- and it will be 4 years from now. Also, bodies come and go - don't worry about them so much. Your glass is almost more important.

 

[macgrl]

Thanks grimace. Would you say it is the best for the money?

 

[wheelhot]

Yup, owning a couple of good glasses is better then having a great body with only a single good glass. Besides the 40D is still good even when 50D came out which makes Canon having a hard time selling 50D so its replacement people guessing will be something huge so that 40/50D owner will make the leap to get it but for now, 40D is definitely value for money

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Look at glass, not the body. Bodies are nice but you'll be replacing it in a few years, the lenses will stick with you for decades.

And don't read too much into Canon L's being a ton better than anyone elses lenses. Each make has their own stunners and their own duds. Minolta made some fabulous lenses (they mount to Sony). Look at what you see yourself shootig through, then look for who makes the most highly regarded lens in that length/aperture. Make your decision based upon that.

You should know that the A700 has been out as long as the 40D, the 50D was rushed in shortly after the 40D and I really don't know why. Perhaps because it was very underwhelming compared to the Nikon D300.

SLC

 

[macgrl]

I am now thinking that the 40d is a better camera than the a700 with superior canon lenses to pick from

 

[gkarris]

Nikon D90 all the way baby..................

No way, Canon waaaaaaaay before Nikon. Actually, Olympus before Nikon as well. (Sorry, Nikon pics seem sort of "flat" to me - unless taken with the much more expensive glass).

Unless I am mistaken the canon 40d has been out for a couple of years. Should this concern me?

I bought a used 20D in great condition for $300.... Intensely AWESOME camera! Can't beat that!

I am now thinking that the 40d is a better camera than the a700 with superior canon lenses to pick from

I do like the Sony's, but Canon makes great cameras, from their cheapest P&S to their SLR's.

Adorama has the 40D body refurbished for $699!

http://www.adorama.com/

Get that Credit Card out!

 

[cube]

Yeah, that price is hard to beat for a camera in this category.

 

[Edge100]

I wouldn't go quite that far.

The EOS mount is 22 years old. Nikon F-Mount has been around since 1959! These aren't going anywhere.

The lifespan of a properly-cared-for piece of glass is much, much longer than an SLR body.

 

[toxic]

I am now thinking that the 40d is a better camera than the a700 with superior canon lenses to pick from

i dunno about superior, but there are more. you also have access to a wide selection of MF lenses, provided you can get an adapter for it - Contax, Leica, Nikkor, M42, Pentax K, Exakta...

Unless I am mistaken the canon 40d has been out for a couple of years. Should this concern me?

the 50D is just an incremental upgrade over the 40D, same way the 30D was to the 20D. the next "big thing" will be the 60D, especially since the 50D failed spectacularly compared to its predecessors. not that it's a bad camera.

The lifespan of a properly-cared-for piece of glass is much, much longer than an SLR body.

well, yeah, but i don't think most people keep the same lens for decades.

 

[cube]

Check out the ebay Cameta store. They recently sold a used K10D with their own one year warranty for $399.

 

[Grimace]

The 40D is a great option for you. It's not "old" technology and you can get some great glass for it. There may even be kits around with the 24-105mm f/4L lens, which is a great walk-around lens. Or, a 40D plus a 50mm f/1.8 ($75!) -- primes will give you amazing flexibility in the kinds of photos (and lighting) you can take, as long as you are willing to move your feet around a bit.

 

[macgrl]

thanks grimace The Canon eos 40d it is then