Thinking of upgrading cameras...Nikon??

[djb5118]

nikon and canon are the two biggest dSLR manufacturers. the sales numbers give evidence of their superiority over other brands.


hey but, if you want a sony, get a sony

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by djb5118

the sales numbers give evidence of their superiority over other brands.

so because something sells more it's automatically better? that makes no sense at all. GM sells more cars than Ferrari, is GM better then?

my point was that people often jump right to Canon and Nikon without doing any research on other cameras out there. truth is, the real measure of a picture the person behind the camera, not the camera itself, it's merely a tool.

question for you, if Nikon is so much better, than please explain why they are known to use Sony image sensors in most of their cameras?

again, i don't think i was dogging Canon or Nikon cameras in my post, i was just pointing out that you can get a camera that is just as good from other manufacturers.

jim

[djb5118]

ok let me rephrase myself. the sales numbers amongst professional photographers shows their superiority over other brands.

If sony is using the same sensor in their cameras, then why aren't they selling better than nikons?....there is more that goes into a camera than an image sensor.

like i said, if you want a sony, then buy a sony. its your money not mine, im just giving my input

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

well since nobody else mentioned it, do NOT discount Sony DSLR cameras when you look for something new. everyone is always hung up on Nikon and Canon. not saying that they suck or anything, far from it, but just don't be so quick to jump on their bandwagon before you check out some other manufacturers.

High iso image quality? Edge Nikon and Canon
Autofocus system? Edge Nikon and Canon
Lens and accessory selection (both new and used market)? Edge Nikon and Canon

I can't think of any reason to buy a Sony unless you have a collection of Minolta lenses. For those starting from scratch, the Nikon and Canon bodies make better sense mainly for the sheer volume and availability of lenses and accessories. Hop on any photography based forum and look at the Buy/Sell section. For those of us dropping $8-10k in gear, the used market can easily save 20-25% from buying new. If I owned a Sony, I'd go nuts trying to find used gear.

[97TurboDSM]

buy mah 30D

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by djb5118

ok let me rephrase myself. the sales numbers amongst professional photographers shows their superiority over other brands.

If sony is using the same sensor in their cameras, then why aren't they selling better than nikons?....there is more that goes into a camera than an image sensor.

like i said, if you want a sony, then buy a sony. its your money not mine, im just giving my input

i understand what you are saying and there is something to be said for a camera made by a company that does nothing else but cameras. and you're right, there is more to a camera than the sensor, but you have to admit, it's pretty much the bread and butter.

as for sales numbers, i don't think Sony will ever touch Nikon or Canon in the DSLR market. but then again, Sony has only been in the market for less than 2 years after taking over Konica-Minolta.

jim

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by i like rice

High iso image quality? Edge Nikon and Canon
Autofocus system? Edge Nikon and Canon
Lens and accessory selection (both new and used market)? Edge Nikon and Canon

I can't think of any reason to buy a Sony unless you have a collection of Minolta lenses. For those starting from scratch, the Nikon and Canon bodies make better sense mainly for the sheer volume and availability of lenses and accessories. Hop on any photography based forum and look at the Buy/Sell section. For those of us dropping $8-10k in gear, the used market can easily save 20-25% from buying new. If I owned a Sony, I'd go nuts trying to find used gear.

i have to be honest, i found that most situations do not need high ISOs, people just like to throw ISO numbers around. who the hell needs to shoot anything in an ISO over 800? most of my night shots are under 400 ISO.

auto focus? please show me where Canon and Nikon have any noticable edge when compared to an equal Sony model in this area. i have used Canons before (not Nikon though) and the auto focus seems to be about the same versus my A-100.

lenses and accessories.......well you are right here. but in all honesty, what do you really need? the average photo enthusiast needs 2 or 3 lenses, maybe a bigger flash, some filters and a tripod. i have noticed though that i can easily find Canon and Nikon stuff anywhere for cheap, which is nice. i actually considered a 30D before i got the Sony because my dad has some nice lenses for his Canon F1, but i wasn't sure if they would work. anyway, with the emergence of 4 more Sony DSLR cameras, i have no doubt that the availability and number of lenses and accessories will grow.

anyway, i am not bashing Nikon or Canon in any way. i think they are awesome cameras. my original post was just to throw the idea of looking at off brands that can be just as good.

jim

[djb5118]

actually i shoot a majority of my pictures over iso 800...you need that for action/sport shots. and you said yourself that canon and nikon stuff is much cheap and more readily available

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by djb5118

actually i shoot a majority of my pictures over iso 800...you need that for action/sport shots. and you said yourself that canon and nikon stuff is much cheap and more readily available

correct, but i guess it just all depends on what you're looking for accessory-wise. you can also find a decent amount of older Konica-Minolta lenses online at a good price and Sony has the awesome line of Carl Zeiss lenses.

one thing i do not like, however, is Sony's proprietary hot shoe. i have an external flash that ran me 300 bucks! granted it's wireless and all that, i would've liked more options when it came down to that purchase.

jim

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

i have to be honest, i found that most situations do not need high ISOs, people just like to throw ISO numbers around. who the hell needs to shoot anything in an ISO over 800?

It all depends what you shoot. Your situations may not require high iso but some of us do require. I use my gear for weddings and sports/action photography so high iso image quality is a must. For indoor sports or motor sports towards early evening, you will use ISO 800-1600-3200. For sports, you'll need shutter speeds of 1/250-1/500 to avoid motion blur. With high school and collegiate level lighting, f/2.0 lens or faster, you will use ISO 1600 to maintain those speeds. For wedding photography, no explanation needed. Just go to any church and you can see what type of lighting conditions you'll be working with if you are not allowed to use a flash (hi, Catholic wedding anyone?). Even with venues that allow for flash photography, natural lighting usually works better than with artificial lighting.

auto focus? please show me where Canon and Nikon have any noticable edge when compared to an equal Sony model in this area.

Give me any Sony and I'll take 100 panning photos. Give me any Canon and I'll take 100 panning photos. I'll guarantee you that Canon's keeper rate will be higher, easily, by 10-15%. I'm no noob to panning since I've been doing this for 10 years.

lenses and accessories.......well you are right here. but in all honesty, what do you really need? the average photo enthusiast needs 2 or 3 lenses, maybe a bigger flash, some filters and a tripod.

That's the problem people have these days. They don't plan ahead. You buy into a system, not a body. Look at the enthusiasts on this forum. Most are just getting into photography, so they have $1000-3000 invested. As they grow as a photographer, they'll continue to sink more money into the hobby. $3000 is now $6000. $6000 becomes $10,000. The next thing you know, you realize you don't like Sony gear and want to switch to Canon. Guess what? You have $10,000 invested. You can sell the items and recoup ~ 60-70% of it back but you'll still lost some money because you didn't plan ahead 5 years ago. You can learn a thing or two from those who have the experience and have gone through all this. Just hop on fredmiranda.com and read the posts about those who are thinking of switching brands.

[djb5118]

^ my man here knows his stuff

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by i like rice

It all depends what you shoot. Your situations may not require high iso but some of us do require. I use my gear for weddings and sports/action photography so high iso image quality is a must. For indoor sports or motor sports towards early evening, you will use ISO 800-1600-3200. For sports, you'll need shutter speeds of 1/250-1/500 to avoid motion blur. With high school and collegiate level lighting, f/2.0 lens or faster, you will use ISO 1600 to maintain those speeds. For wedding photography, no explanation needed. Just go to any church and you can see what type of lighting conditions you'll be working with if you are not allowed to use a flash (hi, Catholic wedding anyone?). Even with venues that allow for flash photography, natural lighting usually works better than with artificial lighting.

understandable, gotcha. i was merely posting assuming that the OP was an amateur photographer with no real plans to go pro with his first SLR.

Originally Posted by i like rice

Give me any Sony and I'll take 100 panning photos. Give me any Canon and I'll take 100 panning photos. I'll guarantee you that Canon's keeper rate will be higher, easily, by 10-15%. I'm no noob to panning since I've been doing this for 10 years.


That's the problem people have these days. They don't plan ahead. You buy into a system, not a body. Look at the enthusiasts on this forum. Most are just getting into photography, so they have $1000-3000 invested. As they grow as a photographer, they'll continue to sink more money into the hobby. $3000 is now $6000. $6000 becomes $10,000. The next thing you know, you realize you don't like Sony gear and want to switch to Canon. Guess what? You have $10,000 invested. You can sell the items and recoup ~ 60-70% of it back but you'll still lost some money because you didn't plan ahead 5 years ago. You can learn a thing or two from those who have the experience and have gone through all this. Just hop on fredmiranda.com and read the posts about those who are thinking of switching brands.

again, i fully understand what you are saying with all this. i also am not doubting or criticizing your experience or knowledge. i will, however, point you towards the "pros" at dpreview and other venues of the sort. they have all given the Sony SLR cameras great reviews and the cameras come highly recommended.

the biggest problem is that they are new to the SLR camera game, so of course Nikon and Canon will have more stuff available and a bigger user base. i also don't ever think Sony will capture as many folks as Nikon and Canon just due to the fact that they have been in the business for such a long time and have such a focused scope on photography only. but don't think that Sony is just "toying" with this venture and will leave it's customers high and dry. aside from Betamax and MiniDisc, Sony has had nothing but success in the electronics world. they make some of the best "point and shoot" digital cameras, they make (arguably) the best consumer camcorders, they provide the movie and TV industry with the standard in video equipment and they were one of the pioneers of digital photography along with Kodak Eastman. there is no way that they will abandon this segment.

here...........

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/

and the camera i use (note a lot of the "cons" were fixed with firmware)

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

one more time, for the record, i am not here to sway anyone who supports their brand, lord knows i am a bit of a fanboy too. all i am saying is, there is more to photography than Nikon and Canon.

jim

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

i will, however, point you towards the "pros" at dpreview and other venues of the sort. they have all given the Sony SLR cameras great reviews and the cameras come highly recommended.

Until I start seeing Sony DSLRs on the sidelines of sport venues, I wouldn't bother giving them a 2nd look. Ergonomics are awkward; high iso IQ and autofocus mechanism still has several years of development needed before it's in the same ballpark as Nikon and Canon. Just due to sheer volume, Canon can't compete with the other two. Just look at the pricing of Sony's version of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or 70-200 f/2.8 VR

So, for a new consumer, there really isn't a good reason to buy a Sony over a Nikon or Canon unless it's a free gift or comes with 100 free lap dances at the local titty bar.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by i like rice

Until I start seeing Sony DSLRs on the sidelines of sport venues, I wouldn't bother giving them a 2nd look. Ergonomics are awkward; high iso IQ and autofocus mechanism still has several years of development needed before it's in the same ballpark as Nikon and Canon. Just due to sheer volume, Canon can't compete with the other two. Just look at the pricing of Sony's version of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or 70-200 f/2.8 VR

So, for a new consumer, there really isn't a good reason to buy a Sony over a Nikon or Canon unless it's a free gift or comes with 100 free lap dances at the local titty bar.

lol and i thought i was a fanboy. i see there is no talking to certain people about this subject. they will always bust out the "well i can buy lenses at 2am at the Wal Mart" or "no professionals use them, so ha".

if everyone thought like you in your last statement, then Sony would have stopped with their first DSLR but clearly people are buying enough of their stuff to warrant 4 newer models, new lenses and accessories and oddly enough.........they keep selling. weird i know.

well, happy shooting!

jim

[i like rice]

Not a fan boy, just a smart consumer that plans ahead. There is no reason to spend moremoney on a product that is inferior to its competition. It's like going out and buying a Mugen Civic Si and spending $30k-32k when there are better cars for the money. The Civic does the job but the money could be better spent. Is the Sony bodies a bad product? No, there are just better ones out there. You can argue this all you want but you aren't going to win this argument.

[ILLJIM69]

Originally Posted by i like rice

Not a fan boy, just a smart consumer that plans ahead. There is no reason to spend moremoney on a product that is inferior to its competition. It's like going out and buying a Mugen Civic Si and spending $30k-32k when there are better cars for the money. The Civic does the job but the money could be better spent. Is the Sony bodies a bad product? No, there are just better ones out there. You can argue this all you want but you aren't going to win this argument.

at this point, we can argue all day as far as price vs. value. you own a Miata? LULZ! there are much better cars for less money. not unlike my Z........could have spent 30 grand and got more car for less. people will buy what they want and when you are talking about SLR cameras, there are some hard facts but with Nikons, Canons and Sonys.......around the same price range, you will get a camera with pretty much the same performance. to claim that a Canon 20D is better than a Sony A-100 would require more proof than "i can pick up a lens at Wawa". sorry bro, but this isn't an argument, it's pretty much subjective. i have met guys with Nikon and Canon rigs where the body alone cost more than my whole setup who can't take a picture worth a crap. again, if you can shoot, a 20D, a D200 or a A-100 will serve you well.

SUBJECTIVE...............PURELY SUBJECTIVE

jim

[den9]

buy the new D60

750 with a 18-55mm vr lens

[grimm]

sony used to make great tv's. But I wouldn't even consider a sony DSLR.

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

people will buy what they want and when you are talking about SLR cameras, there are some hard facts but with Nikons, Canons and Sonys.......around the same price range, you will get a camera with pretty much the same performance.

You want objective evidence?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page30.asp

This is the main reason why Sony is still behind the rest of the competition. HIGH ISO IQ

Is it a nice camera? Yes, no one is arguing that except for you. Is it capable of good image quality under all shooting conditions? No.

[i like rice]

Originally Posted by ILLJIM69

at this point, we can argue all day as far as price vs. value. you own a Miata? LULZ! there are much better cars for less money. not unlike my Z........could have spent 30 grand and got more car for less.

You should add your input to this thread
http://www.my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=344372

$30k for a car that uses cheap plastic interior parts and runs low 14s. Thanks, I'll pass. More car for less? You do realize the Miata is pretty much the handling benchmark for cars under $30k? There's more to a car than what it does in a straight line. If I was worried about my ego and needed a fast straight line car, I would've bought a Z06.

Before I bought my gay Miata, I was looking at the 350Z, G35 coupe, S2000 and 2.5 Legacy GT. The 350Z was on the bottom of the list and was the first one I crossed off.