New sony?

[superted666]

Camera Choice

okay this is sort of the second post ive made on this i admit but i went to look at the Rebel XT and i was impressed however it felt a bit small.

I tried a d70s and was more impressed however its only 6mp and there is a new version coming out (at a higher price?)

So i came to the sony, i was advised to get it by one 'expert' but i think the they were secretly a sony specialist.

What do you think to the a100? better than the rebel and the d70?

 

[sjl]

So i came to the sony, i was advised to get it by one 'expert' but i think the they were secretly a sony specialist.

What do you think to the a100? better than the rebel and the d70?

First impression, based on very limited information on the net, and no handling of my own: the body looks good. However, there's very little information about the lens lineup; the focal length range covers the basic needs, and there are suggestions that they should also have some decent high-end lenses. However, the lens lineup doesn't have the same depth as Canon or Nikon - yet.

So have a look at the lenses that Sony says are available (or will be available), and consider: would you be happy with only those options, or is it lacking in an area you might need later on? I'd also suggest waiting for lens reviews to make sure that they do live up to what the specs suggest they should do. Glass is just as important as, if not more so than, the body you put it on.

 

[jared_kipe]

If you can wait, I think you should wait for the D80. If the specs I've seen are final, I bet its going to be one hell of a little camera.

That said, the Rebel XT is the my current pick for a sub $1000 dSLR.

 

[superted666]

I Didnt realise the D80 was around the corner, any ideas on a eta?

 

[jared_kipe]

I Didnt realise the D80 was around the corner, any ideas on a eta?

Should be announced August 9th, but there are already rumors as to its specs. All we know for certain is 10.2MP. I'm not sure it will make it under $1000, we'll see.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm

 

[beavo451]

On the Nikon website, there is a teaser that some new dSLR is going to be announced on August 9th. There is strong speculation that it is going to be the D80. Rumor is that it is a D70s with 10 MP sensor, 4.5 fps (?), and SD card memory (?).

The D70 being "only" 6MP is not a real problem, unless you intend to print huge (20"x30") regularly.

 

[jared_kipe]

The D70 being "only" 6MP is not a real problem, unless you intend to print huge (20"x30") regularly.

People say stuff like this all the time, but I have never seen a print anywhere near that big from any DSLR.

 

[netdog]

I am amazed how much attention people pay to the megapixel rating, yet how little many tend to pay to the glass that they choose to shoot through. I would rather have a 6MP with really great lenses than a 10MP camera with a poorly chosen lenses.

Honestly, I am very okay with the sensor in my Canon 10D.

 

[maxi]

Yeah, the only "real" difference you'll see on the 10.2 over 6MP pics on regular photography will be bigger file sizes.

Remember that MP don't grow linearly, in order to double the size of the image, you have to multiply the number of total pixels by four. So a camera with double the resolution of the D70 is not one with 12MP but with 24MP.
So as you see the diff between 10 and 6 is not really that big. Unless, as it was said before, you need it for cropping or huge prints.

I'd rather shoot at 6mp in raw that compress a 10mp image.

 

[andiwm2003]

Yeah, the only "real" difference you'll see on the 10.2 over 6MP pics on regular photography will be bigger file sizes.

Remember that MP don't grow linearly, in order to double the size of the image, you have to multiply the number of total pixels by four. So a camera with double the resolution of the D70 is not one with 12MP but with 24MP.
So as you see the diff between 10 and 6 is not really that big. Unless, as it was said before, you need it for cropping or huge prints.

I'd rather shoot at 6mp in raw that compress a 10mp image.

peopel keep saying that 6MP is just as good as 10MP.

i disagree. when you compose your pics in the camera and print them as they are it may be true.

but at least i do lots of cropping and magnifying after the fact. also when you like to play around in photoshop and change your pictures a lot then more mega pixel is simply better. and there is a huge difference if you have 6MP and you can crop only a bit or if you have 10MP and you can crop 40% of the area away and you still have enough resolution to copy/paste picture elements into a new pic and you can scale it to fit. or applying a filter often gives different results depending on resolution. more pixel let you simply play more with your pics.

the real question is if you lose the advantage of more mega pixel due to the often higher noise.

at least for the sony a100 at low iso and daylight shots i prefer the higher resolution.

the overall package of the sony is great in my experience: 10MP, image stabilisation, sensor dust removal, dynamic range optimization for under $1000.
i like the feel and handling but that you have to try before you buy. the build quality seems good to me.

my recommendation:
if you shoot a lot at night/low light get a 8MP canon. there is nothing better.

if you are a beginner then the sony is a good all around package for the price.

but wait first for the nikon. it may be the better package depending on the price.


p.s.: as mentioned before think about how serious you are about photography. because eventually you will want good lenses. and they will be between $500 and $1500. they will exceed the price of the body easily. and with your body you lock yourself to one company.

 

[beavo451]

People say stuff like this all the time, but I have never seen a print anywhere near that big from any DSLR.

You are welcome to visit my apartment. I have a 20"x30" print on my wall from a my 4 MP D2H. It looks great! A 6, 8, 10, 12, or anything more will look better, although you may need to put them side by side to tell the difference.

but at least i do lots of cropping and magnifying after the fact.

IMO, if you do so much cropping in post, you need to revisit the basics of composition and framing with your viewfinder.

 

[Grimace]

You are welcome to visit my apartment. I have a 20"x30" print on my wall from a my 4 MP D2H. It looks great! A 6, 8, 10, 12, or anything more will look better, although you may need to put them side by side to tell the difference.



IMO, if you do so much cropping in post, you need to revisit the basics of composition and framing with your viewfinder.

Easy beavo451, there are lots of reasons why people do creative cropping after the shoot. It's always easier to crop something after the fact than miss out on the edges because you were in too close.

 

[andiwm2003]

..........................IMO, if you do so much cropping in post, you need to revisit the basics of composition and framing with your viewfinder.

well i need to learn the basics first before i can even revisit them

the point i wanted to make is that i don't shoot pics to get a printout. i like to have huge pics that you can watch on a computer and then zoom around just for fun. e.g. zoom into a macro shot of a dragon fly.

secondly i like to play around with photoshop and for e.g. place my brther including family on the surface of moon or silly stuff like that.

in both cases megapixel simply help. the purpose of photography for amteurs has expanded a lot beyond print outs.

anyway, as many have stated here correctly: if you are only after printouts then 6MP may be enough. secondly never sacrifice quality (noise) or budget (for good lenses) just to get a few more megapixels. but if you can get more pixel, take them

it's just that a reverse megapixel myth seems to be out there: if you want more megapixel then you are not a good photographer. and if you have more megapixel then your camera must be for some reason too noisy to use.

both is only partially true and if one gives advice for purchases one should tell the people they should first think about what they want to shoot and then buy the system that fits their need.

 

[beavo451]

well i need to learn the basics first before i can even revisit them

secondly i like to play around with photoshop and for e.g. place my brther including family on the surface of moon or silly stuff like that.

Fair enough.

anyway, as many have stated here correctly: if you are only after printouts then 6MP may be enough. secondly never sacrifice quality (noise) or budget (for good lenses) just to get a few more megapixels. but if you can get more pixel, take them

it's just that a reverse megapixel myth seems to be out there: if you want more megapixel then you are not a good photographer. and if you have more megapixel then your camera must be for some reason too noisy to use.

both is only partially true and if one gives advice for purchases one should tell the people they should first think about what they want to shoot and then buy the system that fits their need.

In addition to the above, make sure your computer can handle however many MP your camera is. Huge files can be a pain to store, open, and process.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Fair enough.



In addition to the above, make sure your computer can handle however many MP your camera is. Huge files can be a pain to store, open, and process.

Very true. When I shoot in RAW on my D70s and open the photo in photoshop, one layer is around 35 megs. If you have a 6 layer file of that, you're looking at 200 megs for one photo. Imagine 10 megapixels instead of 6.

 

[aafuss1]

A100-Sony DSLR with Konica style mount and technologies (as they bought KM's camera unit).

 

[jared_kipe]

You are welcome to visit my apartment. I have a 20"x30" print on my wall from a my 4 MP D2H. It looks great! A 6, 8, 10, 12, or anything more will look better, although you may need to put them side by side to tell the difference.

Thats it? I have a 105"x68" print from my 30D on my wall. Its rasterized, but its still pretty impressive. But its black and white.

I did up a color picture and you can tell from the PDF that it would be gorgeous, but when I went to have it printer and Kinkos tells me 89¢ a page, I quickly did the math and realised thats almost $100 and decided to go pick a photo with luminance contrast (for B&W) instead of color contrast. I think the rasterbator program could be improved if when it does black and white it can use a few tones of grey. I think it would improve the resolution by quite a bit.

 

[Grimace]

Thats it? I have a 105"x68" print from my 30D on my wall. Its rasterized, but its still pretty impressive. But its black and white.

I did up a color picture and you can tell from the PDF that it would be gorgeous, but when I went to have it printer and Kinkos tells me 89¢ a page, I quickly did the math and realised thats almost $100 and decided to go pick a photo with luminance contrast (for B&W) instead of color contrast. I think the rasterbator program could be improved if when it does black and white it can use a few tones of grey. I think it would improve the resolution by quite a bit.

Can you clarify what you're talking about here? I'm not following you in the second paragraph about doing up a color photo and "89c a page"?

 

[beavo451]

Thats it? I have a 105"x68" print from my 30D on my wall. Its rasterized, but its still pretty impressive. But its black and white.

I did up a color picture and you can tell from the PDF that it would be gorgeous, but when I went to have it printer and Kinkos tells me 89¢ a page, I quickly did the math and realised thats almost $100 and decided to go pick a photo with luminance contrast (for B&W) instead of color contrast. I think the rasterbator program could be improved if when it does black and white it can use a few tones of grey. I think it would improve the resolution by quite a bit.

Okay so why did you say this?

People say stuff like this all the time, but I have never seen a print anywhere near that big from any DSLR.

Contradictory statements.

 

[balamw]

Can you clarify what you're talking about here? I'm not following you in the second paragraph about doing up a color photo and "89c a page"?

http://homokaasu.org/rasterbator/ might help explain. His print is probably made up of 40 separate 11x17 prints.

B

 

[jared_kipe]

Its made up of 80 US Letter size prints that look like black dots up close. My statements were not contradictory, I've never made an actual print over A4.

Rasterized images have much less resolution than the images that are used to create them. I went to Kinkos to print off 80 pages of color document and decided it was too much, so I went back home to find a black and white image so it would be a lot cheaper. But color rasterized images look much much more like photos than the black and white kind.

What I'm saying is that I didn't, and I don't think most people do, buy DSLRS with the intent to print 30"x20". But people talk about the "ability" to make those prints all the time. I just don't see it happening.

 

[beavo451]

What I'm saying is that I didn't, and I don't think most people do, buy DSLRS with the intent to print 30"x20". But people talk about the "ability" to make those prints all the time. I just don't see it happening.

Okay, but you obviously did print larger than that (rasterized or not). I have printed that large. If the camera didn't have the "ability" to do that, then why do I see them printed that large? Studios and wedding photographers routinely print that large or bigger using dSLRs or MF cameras. I fully intend to make prints that large or larger now as well as when I buy a higher MP camera.

I'm missing your point.

 

[jared_kipe]

Okay, but you obviously did print larger than that (rasterized or not). I have printed that large. If the camera didn't have the "ability" to do that, then why do I see them printed that large? Studios and wedding photographers routinely print that large or bigger using dSLRs or MF cameras. I fully intend to make prints that large or larger now as well as when I buy a higher MP camera.

I'm missing your point.

I don't consider my wall to be a print. It has a little less than 6 dots per inch, so it would have looked pretty much the same had the source image been 640x480 or .3MP

I think it looks pretty good. So if you consider this a print, then you don't need even 1MP. It all depends on how you like your dpi on your prints.

 

[beavo451]

I don't consider my wall to be a print.

Thats it? I have a 105"x68" print from my 30D on my wall.

Why is it only at 6 dpi (resulting in, as you put it, a .3MP image) when you have an 8MP image? I don't understand what is wrong with having a higher MP count camera for printing a larger picture or using the print size as a justification for MP count. What is your point?

 

[jared_kipe]

Why is it only at 6 dpi (resulting in, as you put it, a .3MP image) when you have an 8MP image? I don't understand what is wrong with having a higher MP count camera for printing a larger picture or using the print size as a justification for MP count. What is your point?

It was a joke, hence the smily face. I wish the rastorbator did do higher dpi, its not my fault. I guess maybe it is a "look".

As for bigger print size being justification for higher MP cameras, I say thats fine. I just think that bigger-print-size-ability is a catch phrase, just like MP is in the first place. Its almost transference, since now we are not allowed to say get the 5mp camera over the 4mp camera beacuse we're giving in to the MP myth. Now people say, get the 10mp camera over the 8mp camera because you can print larger with it.

Bottom line, the difference between an 8mp and 10mp print at 30" wide is only 12dpi (129 vs 117 so ~10% difference) and purists could argue that those DPI's are not serious prints anyway.

Why was I here in the first place? Simply to point out that Nikon is finally addressing their slump in the low end dSLR market. Which is a good thing.

EDIT: Oh I just saw something that is relevant to our miscommunication. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-160820776386465403 @ time index 3:31