I'm sure you guys get a lot of these, but... Which DSLR is for me? (First timer)

[mattcube64]

Hi guys and gals!

Earlier this month I asked a question on which computer I should get to take me through college, and I was told the Macbook I already have should suit me just fine.

So, with the money I'll be saving anyways, I'd like to spend some of it on something I've wanted to get into for a while, but just never really decided to put some money into - photography. Now, I'm not going to be doing some "Super professional, expect to get paid for this" shots. This is all just for personal enjoyment.

I was originally looking at point and shoot cameras. However, after getting to know what features I wanted, each camera I looked at was more expensive than the last. Eventually, the ones I was settling on were several hundred dollars, anyways. In additon, I want to be able to tinker with settings, and I'm pretty dead-set on getting a DSLR. But which one?

I've done quite a bit of research. And while Cannon and Nikon tend to be recommended accross the board, I have my heart set mostly on the Sony a100. I had a chance to play with this one at Circuit City, and it just felt the best in my hands, and the button placement was great.

However, both the Rebel XT and the D50 can be had for atleast $100 less. By going with the Sony, am I spending money I don't need too, or am I making a stupid mistake by not going with another brand? I mean, the Sony has received some favorable reviews, it just seems like a Canon or Nikon is still more recommended.

I don't really know exactly what I'm asking here, and I'm trying not to be too wordy. However, I tend to trust the opinions here on MR (Hey, you guys talked me into the Macbook, and I'm loving that. ). So, what would you reccomend for a beginning photographer who is taking pics for fun, but might possibly pursue a minor in photojournalism in college to coincide with his major in journalism? Is the Sony a good choice?

Also, for the time being, I'll likely just use the kit lense. I plan on maybe picking up a wide angle lens in the summer, and maybe a zoom lense for Christmas... if that matters...

EDIT: Wow, I just re-read my post, and noticed I didn't throw out the biggest factor: Price. As you can likely tell from my post, $800 is on the high end of the spectrum, but I expect to spend at least $500.

 

[Flowbee]

I would suggest something like the Canon PowerShot Pro S3. It's not a DSLR, but has plenty of manual settings to tinker with. It's got a good lens, 12x optical zoom, and produces really nice images. You can also buy additional wide-angle and zoom lenses for it. It's less than $400 at Amazon.

I just bought the older S2 model, and the difference in photo quality between it and my old point-and-shoot is just amazing. I had been considering a DSLR like you, but have no regrets about going with the S2 instead.

It may be worth looking at before you take the DSLR plunge.

 

[Allstermac]

Nikon D40... i'm partial as I just bought it
As a DSLR newbie I'm lovin it! Takes great photos and is very easy to learn with the on screen menus! Best part...$599 with lens!

 

[EstorilM]

There's already a lot of information floating around this forum about entry-level DSLRs, search the last couple pages especially.

Don't take it the wrong way; it's just tough having to clarify and argue similar points of importance regarding DSLRs in 10 threads at once.

I think a Sony DSLR would be a very bad decision if you're even remotely interested in perusing something along the lines of journalism or photojournalism (I've done a few articles, stories, columns, etc.) There's a lot to be said for cliches and images in journalism and professional photography in general (ie. where people make money with their equipment.) You really won't be taken seriously with a sony strap around your neck - in addition to having a much harder time with lenses, accessories, flash systems, RAW file support for clients / work (yes you can always convert, but my point is that it's good to keep things mainstream.)

I think a D70s would be a good bet for you - it's been out for a while, but it still seems to fit your budget the best as far as I'm concerned. It's not a toy camera by any means, yet at around $600 it's also a good deal. It'll give you professional flexibility without the headaches of jumping into the DSLR world for the first time and not knowing how to get the shot.

 

[Abstract]

There's already a lot of information floating around this forum about entry-level DSLRs, search the last couple pages especially.

Don't take it the wrong way; it's just tough having to clarify and argue similar points of importance regarding DSLRs in 10 threads at once.

Agreed. There are even a few threads on the first page of the Digital Photography forum that would help. However, one more thread won't hurt. That's life on message boards.


If you want the Sony A100 and have read the reviews, then you'll know all the review stuff, differences in performance, etc. Trust me, there's not much difference in terms of quality. There is a difference, especially if you're a picky bastard and zoom in all the way to look at how noisy each photo is, or how sharp everything is, but learning to properly expose a photo will do wonders for photo quality and even dynamic range.

If the Sony A100 is what you want, I say get it. I think you should buy what you want. It doesn't matter what I prefer (Nikon ). You did the research already, after all, so it's not like you're uninformed.

I think a Sony DSLR would be a very bad decision if you're even remotely interested in perusing something along the lines of journalism or photojournalism (I've done a few articles, stories, columns, etc.)........ You really won't be taken seriously with a sony strap around your neck - in addition to having a much harder time with lenses, accessories, flash systems, RAW file support for clients / work (yes you can always convert, but my point is that it's good to keep things mainstream.)

I don't think he's going to care about this at all, which actually includes the stuff about lenses. Enough lenses are available for him right now, and more lenses will continually be released. Plus he can get 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Tamron as Sony/Minolta's mount becomes more popular. They even support Olympus, so surely they'll eventually support Sony whenever they upgrade a lens. Well, that's if they don't support Sony already.

 

[ChrisA]

I've done quite a bit of research. And while Cannon and Nikon tend to be recommended accross the board, I have my heart set mostly on the Sony a100. I had a chance to play with this one at Circuit City, and it just felt the best in my hands, and the button placement was great.

Let's say you buy the Brand-X. Pretty soon you will buy a lens and then another and then a strobe and by then you DSLR body will need to be replaced and you have all these brand-x lenses and the strobe so of course you will buy a newer brand-x body.

So your decision to buy Sony, Nikon or Canon will live with you possibly for a decade or more. Switching brands is expensive and unpleasant. It is worth thinking about.

Every beginner does this -- they think about camera bodies first. That's backwards. Pick the set of lenses youwuld like to own in two and five years. If you want a 70-200 f/2.8 lens you are going to have to pick Canon or Nikon as Sony does not offer any high end optics. So you will be switch brands if/when you ever get serious abut photogrphy. People recommend Nikon and Conan because of the RANGE of options available. Don't worry so much about which entry level DSLR body you get, you will replace it in a few years but you will be tied to the brand for a long time

In my opinion Sony simply lacks a history in cameras we don't even know if they will still be making SLR camera in five years or in 20 years. Canon/Nikon have a 50 or 60 year history

One of the nice things about nikon or canon is that you can buy a film based body. Film still has the edge in image quality and will for many years and possibly will forever. If you are on a budget the older brands haven many used lenses available. You can buy a manual focus "classic" lens like the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 for about $100. Truly world class optics for cheap. By definition, you can't buy a 30 year old classic used lens from a new start-up company. I can but this lens on my DSLR or on a mechanical body and have a system that will work with no battery and it will work at 12,000 feet in the snow (Yes I've battery-less SLRs up mountains in the winter)

Bottom line: Look at the total SYSTEM of bodies and lenses available and the total cost of ALL the parts over the lifetime of the system

All that said, it doesn't really mater what you get. It's the skill, vision and artistic ability of the photographer that is what maters.

 

[ChrisA]

Nikon D40... i'm partial as I just bought it
As a DSLR newbie I'm lovin it! Takes great photos and is very easy to learn with the on screen menus! Best part...$599 with lens!

The D50 is the same price and is much better. The "40" cuts you off from ever using some of the best lenses in the Nikon line. I like my 50mm and my 85mm lenses and the D40 can't use them..

Like I keep saying -- Think about the set of lenses you want to have in a couple years. If you have no interest in non-AFS lenses then the d40 is fine

 

[Abstract]

Like I keep saying -- Think about the set of lenses you want to have in a couple years. If you have no interest in non-AFS lenses then the d40 is fine

Very true, and I wouldn't buy the D40 for the same reason, but this person is in a different situation entirely. Besides, if you think about the lenses you want in a few years, those lenses may be upgraded to AF-S by then. Sony will have more lenses out, as they have Minolta and Zeiss doing this for them, and they have experience.

And besides, he has probably heard a large chunk of what we told him before, but from another board, articles, etc. I don't know....it seems unnecessary to talk him out of buying something he may end up being extremely happy with.

If Nikon and Canon are the only DSLR companies to consider, then sure everybody on the planet should just buy Toyotas for reliability, Lexus for reliability and luxury, and BMW for performance and luxury. Forget everyone else. People shouldn't buy Chryslers or Mercedes because they're the worst American (and yes, German) car companies, yet people still buy them and are happy with their 300Ms and such (nice car). I like that we live in a world where people are willing to "think different."

You can dissect this anyway you want, but if he doesn't end up buying what he wants (a Sony A100), and goes for a Nikon or Canon instead because we're telling him they're better, he'll buy the wrong camera for him.

 

[Abstract]

Pick the set of lenses youwuld like to own in two and five years. If you want a 70-200 f/2.8 lens you are going to have to pick Canon or Nikon as Sony does not offer any high end optics.

While I sort of agree with you, I'm pretty sure Sony has a 70-200 mm f/2.8 available. They even have a 300 mm f/2.8 available, from what I remember.

The D50 is the same price and is much better. The "40" cuts you off from ever using some of the best lenses in the Nikon line. I like my 50mm and my 85mm lenses and the D40 can't use them..

The Sony has an 85 mm f/1.4 as well, from what I remember. Maybe f/1.8.

In my opinion Sony simply lacks a history in cameras we don't even know if they will still be making SLR camera in five years or in 20 years. Canon/Nikon have a 50 or 60 year history

Sony doesn't have a history, but they did buy Minolta. They took the Minolta body in development and improved upon it immensely. Sony also makes CCDs for many companies, including Nikon, and a lot of the CCDs for point and shoots. Then there are the lenses, which Zeiss isn't horrid at.

I'm not a Sony buff at all. I hate the company, and if I were starting out, I'd buy the Nikon D50, D80 (not a D40), Pentax K10D, or maybe a Canon 20D if I miraculously find one new, as I probably couldn't afford the 30D (and after holding it, I wouldn't buy a Digital Rebel XTi/400D or Nikon D40).

There are some good reasons to buy a Sony, but purists never take a good look at these other brands in case they discover something they don't want to find out.....another company is in a good enough position to offer competition in some sense. If you looked at their lens lineup, you'd know about the 70-200 f/2.8.

I can't say the same with Samsung or Panasonic, but Sony's foundation seems better.

 

[bluewire]

I will pass along the advice that I got from a friend. Take a CF card to the store and snap a bunch of pictures of the same thing under different settings. Then take home the photos and scrutinize each camera. Now I know not all cameras take CF but the Sony a100 and the XTI Rebel do at the very least.

Canon is known for their great ISO performance and have great lenses. Me personally, I never really considered the Sony for that reason (tho they did buy Minolta)

I am also a dSLR n00b and the XTI has been terrific, very impressed with it. I too was deciding between a100, 400D XTI, and a d40/50.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page30.asp

Good luck, it sounds like you are on the right track. Don't rely on the camera LCD to see how good your pictures are, take them home and blow them up!

 

[purelithium]

If you are serious about this hobby, or plan on making it a career down the line, one thing you have to keep in mind beyond the body is:

What kind of support is there for lenses? What would be my best route to upgrade to higher quality lenses in the future?

The Sony line of lenses at this time is very limited, and since this is sony's first generation of DSLR's, they are not proven in any way, and could pull out support if they decide it's not in their best interests to keep developing their Alpha cameras.

Nikon and Canon have been developing bodies and lenses for YEARS, and most lenses that used to work on their film bodies will work with the new DSLR's as well.

Bodies come and go, but good glass never goes out of style. Keep that in mind.

 

[compuwar]

Then there are the lenses, which Zeiss isn't horrid at.

The Sony "Zeiss" lenses aren't true Zeiss lenses, they're Zeiss branded, but not manufactured on the same continent as the traditional "Pay lots of money for them because you can't do better optically" Zeiss lenses (one of which is tempting me now they've come out with some F-mount lenses.)

 

[Clix Pix]

If you are considering photojournalism as a minor in college, then you will need to take photography classes, right? I believe PHT 101 still starts out with film: the student learns to develop his or her own film negatives and then to print them in the darkroom. The reason I mention this is that you might need to purchase a 35mm film camera for use in such a class, and therefore you will need lenses for that camera. When purchasing your digital camera and lenses now, going with a manufacturer which has produced a long line of film cameras and lenses in the past you're covered, as then you can use most of those same lenses on your digital camera body. This is something to consider....

 

[compuwar]

Hi guys and gals!

Earlier this month I asked a question on which computer I should get to take me through college, and I was told the Macbook I already have should suit me just fine.

So, with the money I'll be saving anyways, I'd like to spend some of it on something I've wanted to get into for a while, but just never really decided to put some money into - photography. Now, I'm not going to be doing some "Super professional, expect to get paid for this" shots. This is all just for personal enjoyment.

I was originally looking at point and shoot cameras. However, after getting to know what features I wanted, each camera I looked at was more expensive than the last. Eventually, the ones I was settling on were several hundred dollars, anyways. In additon, I want to be able to tinker with settings, and I'm pretty dead-set on getting a DSLR. But which one?

I've done quite a bit of research. And while Cannon and Nikon tend to be recommended accross the board, I have my heart set mostly on the Sony a100. I had a chance to play with this one at Circuit City, and it just felt the best in my hands, and the button placement was great.

However, both the Rebel XT and the D50 can be had for atleast $100 less. By going with the Sony, am I spending money I don't need too, or am I making a stupid mistake by not going with another brand? I mean, the Sony has received some favorable reviews, it just seems like a Canon or Nikon is still more recommended.

I don't really know exactly what I'm asking here, and I'm trying not to be too wordy. However, I tend to trust the opinions here on MR (Hey, you guys talked me into the Macbook, and I'm loving that. ). So, what would you reccomend for a beginning photographer who is taking pics for fun, but might possibly pursue a minor in photojournalism in college to coincide with his major in journalism? Is the Sony a good choice?

Also, for the time being, I'll likely just use the kit lense. I plan on maybe picking up a wide angle lens in the summer, and maybe a zoom lense for Christmas... if that matters...

EDIT: Wow, I just re-read my post, and noticed I didn't throw out the biggest factor: Price. As you can likely tell from my post, $800 is on the high end of the spectrum, but I expect to spend at least $500.

Sony hasn't been doing that well in their home market with the Alpha, which may influence things more than with a western company. The Alpha is their first self-branded DSLR. They seem committed to it, but it's difficult to tell how they'll do in the market, so there's a pretty large unknown that you have to live with if you get the Alpha. Given unit sales, it may also affect which third party lenses become available for it. Most Minolta users seem to have been underwhelmed after the take-over. Because of those things, most folks will recommend Canon or Nikon, and a few will recommend Pentax. We all know "most popular" doesn't mean "best," but we also know that popularity provides availability- the Sony is really a big unknown- that's a risk that might be worth taking for a camera where you'll be taking snapshots with, but it's a different thing entirely if you're looking at using it professionally (and that again changes with the circumstances- if you can ROI a new system, then it's not at all a big deal- if you're struggling to make money then it's the most important thing in the world.) Bodies tend to have about a 5 year lifespan in the DSLR world, lenses last decades, so if you're going to buy good glass, it's important (the person who sold me my Nikon 400mm lens lost $1800 on just that one lens switching systems.)

If you've got a friendly camera store nearby, I'd recommend spending ten to twenty minutes with each body, and see if they'll print some test shots from each camera for you. Then you can decide based upon handling and actual images. Camera stores have the advantage of being able to do prints that a consumer electronics store generally doesn't.

 

[mattcube64]

Wow guys, great responses! Thanks for all the input! There's some great info here, and some viewpoints I hadn't considered.

I'm not gonna lie, I really like the a100. I appreciate the input, abstract, in telling me to get what suits "me" best, first. That's kinda what I have my heart on, and my wallet , but I don't want to end up making a close-minded decision.

I do feel that I have given the D50 and XT a fair shake. However, I had not considered the chance that Sony might pull out of the DSLR race early. I will take that into consideration, for sure. As for not being taken "professionally" for using a Sony, I do believe that would be true. However, if I were to follow such an education/career path, I'd hope that my shots would be good enough to defend me.

I'm still a few weeks off in making. I don't want to just "jump in" and make a haste decision. Whatever I eventually decide on, I'll be sure to wait a few days to make sure that feeling doesn't just pass.

A few more questions. 1) I haven't heard many opinions on how the Rebel XT compares to a D50 or so, what do you guys think? Also, how much of an improvement, IYO, is the XTI compared to the XT?

Also, 2) If I bring my Macbook into the store, (such as CC or BB), and a USB cable, would the associates be against me loading up photos right there? I know someone mentioned buying a CompactFlash card, but I'd prefer to do that AFTER buying a camera.

Thanks!

EDIT: I guess I didn't make this too clear in the post: I'm definitely going to put more consideration into the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel series. I plan on hitting up Circuit City and a Wolf Camera this weekend. If I could afford the D80, I think I'd certainly go for that. So, I'm trying to get a camera as similar to that, for less. Considering more lenses concerns me. It's just... I'm not positive I'll be spending a WHOLE lot on lenses. Also, the mention of needing lenses for a 35mm perked my interest.

 

[compuwar]

A few more questions. 1) I haven't heard many opinions on how the Rebel XT compares to a D50 or so, what do you guys think? Also, how much of an improvement, IYO, is the XTI compared to the XT?

The D50 and Rebel XT are fairly comparable.

Also, 2) If I bring my Macbook into the store, (such as CC or BB), and a USB cable, would the associates be against me loading up photos right there? I know someone mentioned buying a CompactFlash card, but I'd prefer to do that AFTER buying a camera.

They'd have to let you open the shrink-wrap to install the software to do tethered shooting- I don't think the cameras you're looking at show up as generic USB drives, so I doubt you'll get that chance anywhere. A good camera store should have cards available and the ability to print out samples.

 

[bluewire]

A few more questions. 1) I haven't heard many opinions on how the Rebel XT compares to a D50 or so, what do you guys think? Also, how much of an improvement, IYO, is the XTI compared to the XT?

You can't go wrong with either. I went with the XTI because I had a great deal and a special coupon (and a gift card) to a place that sold the XTI but not the d50...but you really can't go wrong with either body. I loved both of them. the XTI is slightly smaller and grip and comfort can be important. I also have read that ISO performance on the Canons are better then Nikons...and I have been very impressed with how my XTI has performed at high ISOs thus far. But the difference between the ISO performance is pretty small and not a deal breaker by any means...maybe only for a real nit picker that blows their images up past 100% or someone making huge huge prints.

If you are taking a photography minor in college...well...you really would have to go nikon or canon imo...the lenses are essentially interchangable from digital to 35mm bodies...it would just make a whole lotta sense.

 

[sjl]

Every beginner does this -- they think about camera bodies first. That's backwards. Pick the set of lenses youwuld like to own in two and five years. If you want a 70-200 f/2.8 lens you are going to have to pick Canon or Nikon as Sony does not offer any high end optics.

Excuse me as I interject. That's simply not true. They have the 70-200mm f/2.8, and a 300mm f/2.8 to boot. Having said that, they don't have the same depth of high end optics that Canon and Nikon have - they don't have any f/2.8 zooms below 70mm (their f/2.8 glass wider than 70mm is all in primes), for example, and they don't go longer than 300mm, except for their 500mm f/8 mirror lens (ie: you have any aperture you want as long as it's f/8.)

For most people, this isn't an issue. But it does mean that you're at the mercy of an as-yet unproven company in the event that you want to upgrade to high quality, fast, and/or long glass. (Yes, Konica-Minolta has a track record. But realistically, that company is dead; it remains to be seen just how committed Sony is to the DSLR market.)

I'd be comfortable suggesting Sony with two caveats: (1) you're absolutely sure that you'll never need a lens that they don't currently offer; and (2) you're comfortable selling all your gear and buying a completely new system in the event that your certainty turns out to be wrong. Wiki has a list of glass currently available for the Sony DSLR.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

mattcube64, take a peak at this thread. I really was in the same exact situation.

 

[Abstract]

Right now, the only good reason anyone has come up with for you to NOT to get a Sony A100 is Clix Pix. If you need to shoot with a film camera for a class, you should consider Nikon, Canon, and Pentax. Pentax DSLRs are great and getting better, although you'll need to go into the menu and adjust the default sharpness setting if you want great performance from something like the K10D (if I remember correctly).

The other good reason I can think of is that Sony's lenses are overpriced right now because of low manufacturing levels. As more people continue to buy Sonys, prices will go down, but it's still annoying right now. But you may only buy 4-5 lenses in your entire lifetime, and you wouldn't purchase everything this month.

Also, there are a LOT of good Sigma and Tamron lenses out there, and their prices are great. Not all of their lenses are available for Sony's/Konica-Minolta mount, but many of them are. I know that my next lens purchase will be for my Nikon D50, and it's supposed to be a fantastic Sigma lens. If you look and "only" see a list of 19 Sony lenses, remember that this EXCLUDES some of the fantastic lenses made by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, many of which are available for Sony owners.

And besides, Canon and Nikon owners don't buy Canon and Nikon lenses exclusively, so all talk about available lenses is sometimes a bit misleading. This is unlike the impression you get in these sorts of discussion. I buy whatever lens is best, regardless of whether it says Nikon or not.

I'd be comfortable suggesting Sony with two caveats: (1) you're absolutely sure that you'll never need a lens that they don't currently offer

True. Sony doesn't have the range of lenses that Nikon and Canon have, but to me, this is like the old "Macs don't have as much software available as Windows does" argument. How much of the software available for a PCs would I have bought? Probably still the 3-4 I have bought for my Mac.

W
I do feel that I have given the D50 and XT a fair shake. However, I had not considered the chance that Sony might pull out of the DSLR race early. I will take that into consideration, for sure. As for not being taken "professionally" for using a Sony, I do believe that would be true....

No pros who use Sony? No kidding....they've been around for less than a year. Sony does have more experience on their team than you'd think, in terms of sensors for DSLR cameras, camera bodies, and lenses.

...However, if I were to follow such an education/career path, I'd hope that my shots would be good enough to defend me.

That's great thinking.

And besides, in 5 years, how do you know that Sony won't be #3 in the DSLR world? Compuwar is right in that we don't know about the future, but I think that Sony will be around, and with how stubborn they are (eg: memory stick), they'll stick with the camera business. There is no strong #3 contender: maybe Sony will be that company. They have had a camera department for ages now, and have just spend money to PURCHASE an entire DSLR company. That makes it easier. People are buying DSLRs at a record pace, and have already looked towards Sony because of their point and shoots. Last summer, Sony had a 20% marketshare in Japan, coming almost entirely at the expense of Canon sales, as their sales dropped by that much that summer. Not sure about right now, 5 months later.


Not every photographer in the world is like you see here. The level to which people nit-pick here isn't normal. Other people aren't as anal about camera specs, or looking at graphs and figures to judge lenses and cameras --- they look at the photos. How do I know this? Because the same 20 people post here daily; because the same 100 people post at DPReview forums on a daily basis (they have a lot of forums for different cameras); because the same 50 people post at Nikonians daily. What about everyone else? They happily shoot with their cameras and judge the cameras from the results they get. Shock and horror! These people may even be Sony and Pentax owners.

What Clix Pix said was true, and lenses are a bit more expensive with Sony right now. Quality of the camera is great, and the photos are determined by your ability. Don't blame the camera if you can't expose properly.

 

[compuwar]

And besides, Canon and Nikon owners don't buy Canon and Nikon lenses exclusively, so all talk about available lenses is sometimes a bit misleading. This is unlike the impression you get in these sorts of discussion. I buy whatever lens is best, regardless of whether it says Nikon or not.

This, of course depends on the lenses you're buying. Outside of Sigma, only the manufacturers themselves offer super-telephotos and Sigma doesn't offer fast lenses past 300mm (Ooh! Unless you count the 800mm f/5.6, which is a reasonably fast lens for 800mm.) I don't think any 3rd parties manufacture tilt/shift lenses. The Sigma 800mm (and I'm only harping on it because it's just made my list of lenses to consider next) has HSM for Sigma, Canon and Nikon mounts, but not for K/M or Pentax. I think you'll find that even the 3rd party selections aren't the same when you're not dealing with Canon or Nikon.

True. Sony doesn't have the range of lenses that Nikon and Canon have, but to me, this is like the old "Macs don't have as much software available as Windows does" argument. How much of the software available for a PCs would I have bought? Probably still the 3-4 I have bought for my Mac.

Yes, but the reason this is used as an argument is that lots of people who come here asking are thinking about doing something professional with photography in the future, but they don't yet know what kind of photography they'll be doing. That means they don't have any way to evaluate which lenses they'll need yet- so it's only fair to warn them that the third choice (be it Pentax or Sony) is going to potentially limit what they'll be able to do. Now it may be that they'll just go out and grab a 400D and T/S lens if they need to do the occasional architecture shot, but if they decide they simply want to do architecture most of the time, they'd have been better off going with Canon up front.

Personally, I switched to a Mac because of software availability- I haven't regularly used Windows since the 3.11 days. The GIMP just wasn't doing it for me as I started to sell more of my work, and I needed Photoshop- so I went with one of the two players where the software was available

No pros who use Sony? No kidding....they've been around for less than a year. Sony does have more experience on their team than you'd think, in terms of sensors for DSLR cameras, camera bodies, and lenses.

They bought a dying company that couldn't survive on the market by itself. They may be able to revive it because they have more capital and wider consumer level product lines, but they may not. Only time will tell. Given the relatively short body lifetime of digital cameras, it's a real concern that you may end up with an orphan.

And besides, in 5 years, how do you know that Sony won't be #3 in the DSLR world? Compuwar is right in that we don't know about the future, but I think that Sony will be around, and with how stubborn they are (eg: memory stick), they'll stick with the camera business. There is no

Well, Fuji, Pentax and Sigma are all hoping Sony won't be #3- but since there's no way to tell I'll point to another Sony technology example: People who bought home Betamax VCRs.

strong #3 contender: maybe Sony will be that company. They have had a camera department for ages now, and have just spend money to PURCHASE an entire DSLR company. That makes it easier. People are buying DSLRs at a record pace, and have already looked towards Sony

I doubt it cost them all that much- just like medium format camera vendors, the market is looking to consolidate or get rid of the outliers.

because of their point and shoots. Last summer, Sony had a 20% marketshare in Japan, coming almost entirely at the expense of Canon sales, as their sales dropped by that much that summer. Not sure about right now, 5 months later.

Last results I saw posted on DP Review had them dropping DSLR sales pretty badly. Mostly due to nothing new- which seems to drive the Japanese camera market more heavily than most others. Given the relatively low sales, it'll be interesting to see if they can emulate the quick product cycles that Canon and Nikon seem to be on at the moment and which seem to be pretty much mandated in their home market to get any share at all.

Personally, I thought their older strategy of selling camcorders that did stills was a better long-term strategy for them. It went to their strengths in a portion of the imaging market where they're a real dominant player. The P&S market is likely to become a commodity market long-term with the cell phone camera getting to the "almost good enough" stage. It may be though that they see that as more of a threat to video sales long-term.

Interesting times for sure.

 

[sjl]

True. Sony doesn't have the range of lenses that Nikon and Canon have, but to me, this is like the old "Macs don't have as much software available as Windows does" argument. How much of the software available for a PCs would I have bought? Probably still the 3-4 I have bought for my Mac.

It is, and it isn't. For people who are reasonably happy with their point-and-shoots, but who are going to a DSLR because they want more control, Sony's current lineup is fine. For those who are seriously considering going professional down the road, it isn't. The lack of a good f/2.8 zoom below 70mm is a serious deficiency for somebody who wants to go to a high amateur level, for example. And yes, I could definitely see myself getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L down the road, especially if Canon releases an IS version.

The ultimate test is, as has been said, the quality of the photos. In that respect, the alpha 100 is a good camera. I just think that it would be more compelling if Sony were to release a broader range of lenses. What they have is a good start, but they need to build on it; time will tell.

 

[Abstract]

This, of course depends on the lenses you're buying. Outside of Sigma, only the manufacturers themselves offer super-telephotos and Sigma doesn't offer fast lenses past 300mm (Ooh! Unless you count the 800mm f/5.6, which is a reasonably fast lens for 800mm.)

Well lets look at what he's using this camera for: Fun, and possibly photojournalism. I'm going to play the odds here and say that he's not going to need an 800 mm lens. Since it's safe to say that 99.99% of DSLR owners don't have an 800 mm lens to shoot with for fun and are still ok.

I don't think any 3rd parties manufacture tilt/shift lenses.

Lucky he's not studying architecture.

The Sigma 800mm (and I'm only harping on it because it's just made my list of lenses to consider next) has HSM for Sigma, Canon and Nikon mounts, but not for K/M or Pentax. I think you'll find that even the 3rd party selections aren't the same when you're not dealing with Canon or Nikon.

True, but so many lenses are available for them. I just checked out the huge Sony DSLR forum forum at DPReview, and they have lots of threads on 3rd party lenses. I haven't read them all, but I'd start there if I was really interested. People buy Sigma 24-70 mm lenses, Tamron 28-75 mm lenses, etc. How many people have come here to ask about the same lenses for Nikon and Canon DSLRs? The large majority of photographers are not looking for 800 mm lenses. Even then, they can still get this 800 mm f/5.6 lens from Sigma for their Sony DSLR, but without HSM (although it would be nice to have).

HERE is a thread of a person who shot his son playing video games shooting at 180 mm (using his 70-200 mm f/2.8) at ISO 1600 and a shutter speed of 1/13th of a second!! The built-in shake reduction must have worked, as 1/13th of a second handheld is phenomenal.

He shot in RAW, so noise was less of an issue than if he let the camera do the processing. Surprising, since the only major complaint about
noise was that the Sony A100 was higher noise levels than in the Canon 30D and Nikon D80. I'm sure these tests were done when shooting in JPEG.

Yes, but the reason this is used as an argument is that lots of people who come here asking are thinking about doing something professional with photography in the future, but they don't yet know what kind of photography they'll be doing.

True, and that's why I don't understand people give the "choose your lenses, not the camera body" explanation all the time when it's not applicable all the time.

They bought a dying company that couldn't survive on the market by itself. They may be able to revive it because they have more capital and wider consumer level product lines, but they may not. Only time will tell. Given the relatively short body lifetime of digital cameras, it's a real concern that you may end up with an orphan.

True, but what I meant was that Sony isn't starting from scratch. They have invested money, and if they were truly starting the DSLR game from the bottom, it'd be impossible for them to have survived even for 9 months. But with the purchase of KM, they start from behind Nikon and Canon, but not too badly.

Well, Fuji, Pentax and Sigma are all hoping Sony won't be #3- but since there's no way to tell I'll point to another Sony technology example: People who bought home Betamax VCRs.

Fuji and Sigma can't be #3. Olympus can't either. Sorry, but it's true. Pentax can, and that's who Sony will have to compete directly against for the next few years.

Sony's strategy is everything right now. If they only have one DSLR, it looks bad. I think that if they took the Nikon approach and went from the starter DSLR owner, and worked upwards, that may work. Imagine a DSLR that competes with the D40, is only a bit pricier, but has anti-shake built-in? Sony can do that, and they should. They probably make the sensor in the D40 (like they do with the Nikon D200), and they already have the anti-shake/image stabilization.


or get rid of the outliers.

Last results I saw posted on DP Review had them dropping DSLR sales pretty badly.

These aren't sales numbers, but look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp

Outside of Canon and Nikon DSLRs, which are expected to take a large percentage of DSLR interest, Sony's DSLR is the only one on the list, not any Pentax or Olympus. Where's Pentax? They just released the K10D and K100D, and they're not even in the Top 20?

Sony also only has 1 model. Once they have 2 or 3, there's a chance they'll have more than one DSLR in the top 20.

 

[compuwar]

These aren't sales numbers, but look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp

Outside of Canon and Nikon DSLRs, which are expected to take a large percentage of DSLR interest, Sony's DSLR is the only one on the list, not any Pentax or Olympus. Where's Pentax? They just released the K10D and K100D, and they're not even in the Top 20?

Sony also only has 1 model. Once they have 2 or 3, there's a chance they'll have more than one DSLR in the top 20.

Last week's Japanese retail sales numbers:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...=http://kakaku.com/ranking/itemview/dezi1.htm

The Sony came in 15th, outpaced no less than three times by the D40 (Body, Kit and 2 lens kit.) The Pentax cameras are selling very well in Japan at the moment, and the K10 comes in at #1 last week. Fuji was #8, and they only offer one DSLR body. I think this has been true for most of the last couple of months.

Fully half of the products that outsold the Alpha cost more than it did, and 1/3rd were kits with lenses.

Now, Fuji has only one model and is doing pretty well as of last week, but it's a newer model and I'd bet real money that they'll be way down or off the list in a month or two.

Looks to me like Pentax is likely to be #3 in the Japanese market for at least the next year.

Now, as I said before, the Japanese market isn't similar to most others, but it does have a huge influence on Japanese brands. At this point, I wouldn't bet on Sony-- I wouldn't count them out, they've got huge resoruces-- but I wouldn't bet on them.

 

[compuwar]

Well lets look at what he's using this camera for: Fun, and possibly photojournalism. I'm going to play the odds here and say that he's not going to need an 800 mm lens. Since it's safe to say that 99.99% of DSLR owners don't have an 800 mm lens to shoot with for fun and are still ok.

Many of us started photography for fun and "possibly $foo." My first SLR was a Yashika FX-D. Seen any Contax/Yashika mount lenses recently?

My second SLR was a Nikon 8008s, I've still got at least one lens I used on that camera body today, along with a flash that's still used occasionally (it's not as nice as the SB-800 so it's kind of in backup mode now.)

If I'd started out with a Nikon, I wouldn't have had to re-fund everything from scratch.

YMMV