Entry level DSLR and buying abroad advice.

bretttp1

Hi Everyone,

I’m in the market for an entry level DSLR and I’ve got it narrowed down to three choices:

1.Nikon D60
2.Cannon 450D
3.Sony A350

I’m kind of surprised myself, but the Sony is the one I’m leaning towards, I had a look at each in a camera shop yesterday and I really like the adjustable live view screen (great for interesting pov shots) and the general feel of the Sony, but I preferred the viewfinders of both the cannon and Nikon.

Ok my questions are:

1.Does anyone here have the Sony and what are your experiences compared to other dslr’s?
2.I’m going to New York in the next couple of weeks and I’m planning on buying the camera then, any tips/pitfalls you think I should be aware of?

Thanks all.

mathias

Does anyone here have the Sony and what are your experiences compared to other dslr’s?

With an SLR you are buying into a system , not just an individual camera , and sooner or later you are going to want better lenses.

When that happens , You are not going to be happy with the range and cost of Sony ( Konica minolta ) lenses. The choice is way smaller than Canon or Nikon and also way more expensive. They are also not as well supported by third party lens manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron etc.

So for that reason , I say go for the Canon or Nikon.

By the way , because of the size of the sensor live view sucks power from the camera like crazy. A good view finder is better.

Morrisseeee

If you like LIVE VIEW why not go for an Olympus E510 or E520 (twin lens kit at €592 on pixmania), & the kit lenses are great, ie. better than Canon or Nikon......(ahem...I await the backlash!).

bretttp1

mathias wrote: »

By the way , because of the size of the sensor live view sucks power from the camera like crazy. A good view finder is better.

I never thought of that mathias, good point.

Morrisseeee

But you would only use the LIVE VIEW on critical applications....

bretttp1

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But you would only use the LIVE VIEW on critical applications....

Yeah I was thinking the same but one of the down sides of Sony’s particular method of achieving live view causes some problems in the viewfinder I suppose there has to be some trade off somewhere.

On the lens front, one of the reasons I looked at the Sony as well was that the image stabilization is built into the camera body and I thought this would bring down the cost of lenses, but I obviously haven’t done enough research in this area.

grainne.obrien

Whichever you go for, reckon Canon and Nikon, you can't really go wrong with them, buy it on Amazon from 42th street photography or from adorama. I always buy from them and have them delivered for when I get there. Ring the hotel or where ever your staying and check you can get something delivered, it can work out cheaper than buying it in somewhere like Best Buy or Circuit City.

Imposter

bretttp1 wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking the same but one of the down sides of Sony’s particular method of achieving live view causes some problems in the viewfinder I suppose there has to be some trade off somewhere.

On the lens front, one of the reasons I looked at the Sony as well was that the image stabilization is built into the camera body and I thought this would bring down the cost of lenses, but I obviously haven’t done enough research in this area.

Olympus has the IS built in too. Lenses are small and light too.

mathias

FYI , a list of Sony /Minolta lenses , look at the prices ....

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Now look at the Canon EF list ....
http://www.canon.ie/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/index.asp

And the Nikon list

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

Its a bit of a no brainer really ...

bretttp1

mathias wrote: »

FYI , a list of Sony /Minolta lenses , look at the prices ....

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Now look at the Canon EF list ....
http://www.canon.ie/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/index.asp

And the Nikon list

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

Its a bit of a no brainer really ...

Thanks for that mathias, makes things a bit clearer alright.

Does anyone know a camera store that they've used in New York and can recommend?

sineadw

OP - did you look at the canon 1000D? I have a friend looking for an entry level yoke and I haven't been able to do much research. Just wondering how it levels up...

Biro

bretttp1 wrote: »

Thanks for that mathias, makes things a bit clearer alright.

Does anyone know a camera store that they've used in New York and can recommend?

B&H Photo. All my stuff came from there, by one means or another! Was in the store in July.

Rael

bretttp1 wrote: »

Thanks for that mathias, makes things a bit clearer alright.

Does anyone know a camera store that they've used in New York and can recommend?

B&H. Down near the Empire State Building. Just search through the boards, its the only place you need to go

ablelocks

in case you're traveling next week, note that b&h is closed from the 13th-22nd oct. for a jewish religious holiday. Looks like adorama is the next best shop to go to in New York, altho' Amazon have a few good deals - I've asked the hotel we're staying in if they take delivery for us.

I'm in the same boat - I had discounted the sony after reading the review on dpreview.com so I'm leaning towards the 450d, altho' haven't fully ruled out the d60 yet as there seem to be some good kit deals.

bretttp1

sineadw wrote: »

OP - did you look at the canon 1000D? I have a friend looking for an entry level yoke and I haven't been able to do much research. Just wondering how it levels up...

Yeah I looked at the 1000d all right but I decided to move up a level to compare with my other choices, the 1000d is comparable to the Nikon d40x and the Sony alpha200, I just wanted a bit more of a feature set.

It’s all down to how you are going to use the camera, how intuitive the menu system is and I think more importantly how they feel in your hands.


I’m still weighing up the options myself.

So in shoping terms B&H it is then. Thanks for the heads up on the opening times ablelocks as I'm flying out on the 19th so you've saved me a wasted trip untill after the 22nd

Morrisseeee

I had discounted the sony after reading the review on dpreview.com

Strange, I was just reading a magazine and the Sony came out tops of all the entry level D_SLR's.....

Note: I suppose my gripe is that if the only GOOD advice is to buy Canon/Nikon then how are other manufacturers ever going to get a slice of the pie, and hense improve/expand their product range ???? doh!
It becomes a monoply/duopoly ......eg. microsoft et al.

mathias

I suppose my gripe is that if the only GOOD advice is to buy Canon/Nikon then how are other manufacturers ever going to get a slice of the pie, and hense improve/expand their product range

2 ways , Increase the range of lenses , especially on the budget end and drop those prices on the higher end.

The Sony bodies are good , but SLR's need lenses , and while Canon and Nikon have such a lead over the competition in range and price , they are the only sensible options.
Not to mention their combined experience in the field ...Sony bought theirs and are probably still getting to grips with it, they have no proven track record yet.

Morrisseeee

The only sensible options for entry level models for me are the Sony, Olympus ones (from what I've read)
1. They are cheap.
2. Better quality kit lenses than Canon/Nikon
3. Better features built in to the cameras
4. Lighter

If you need better quaity glass (lenses) after that, then you have the Zeiss lenses for Sony, and Zuiko/Leica for Olympus, after all you pay for what you get.

ablelocks

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Strange, I was just reading a magazine and the Sony came out tops of all the entry level D_SLR's.....

Note: I suppose my gripe is that if the only GOOD advice is to buy Canon/Nikon then how are other manufacturers ever going to get a slice of the pie, and hense improve/expand their product range ???? doh!
It becomes a monoply/duopoly ......eg. microsoft et al.

other manufacturers will increase their market share when their products get good reviews.

Unfortunately, the A350 is a slow camera by modern standards. The continuous shooting speed is some way behind the models it will share retailer shelf space with, but the bigger problem is the general lag while waiting for the review image to appear after each shot. Waiting around for the camera to start displaying a shooting screen (either the status screen or the live view preview), further distances you from the shooting experience in a way that will be unfamiliar for DSLR users.

The biggest reservations we have about this camera, though, relate to its image quality. On paper and when shooting resolution charts, the A350 is an impressive performer but that prowess doesn't always hold up when you step outside the studio. The default JPEG output from the A350 is distinctly soft (and this is exacerbated when coupled with the rather below-par 18-70 kit lens), though detail is being recorded and can be recovered if you're willing to shoot in RAW and post-process. We also see the traditional trade-off between tightly-packed pixels and high-sensitivity performance, with the sensor producing a lot of noise and smearing it away to an extent we're not used to seeing in cameras of this type.

- link to full review (this quote is from the conclusion).

Morrisseeee

Agreed the A350 is gettin dodgy reviews.
The mag I was reading was comparing the A200 to other entry level D_SLR's.

Why not go for the E510 / E520 from Olympus: quoted on cameralabs:

The Olympus E-510 is one of the most feature-packed and affordable DSLRs around: you get 10 Megapixels in a relatively light and compact body, the option of one or two decent kit lenses, and the triple whammy of built-in anti-shake, effective anti-dust and Live View capabilities, not to mention easy access to a wide variety of settings. The view through the optical viewfinder may appear smaller than rival DSLRs, the 3-point AF is relatively basic and the motorised manual focusing not to everyone’s tastes, but the benefits should still see it shortlisted by anyone wanting a decent and affordable DSLR. If you’re not bothered by anti-shake and prefer something smaller and lighter, the E-410 is a great alternative.

Pros: Built-in anti-shake, effective anti-dust, Live View.
Cons: Relatively small viewfinder, motorised manual focusing.
Overall: The E-510 is one of the best-featured DSLRs to date.

mathias

If you need better quaity glass (lenses) after that, then you have the Zeiss lenses for Sony, and Zuiko/Leica for Olympus, after all you pay for what you get.

Simple answer to that is the nifty 50's , outstanding image quality for less than 100 ..... wheres the Sony and Olympus equivalents ?
Olympus have the pancake , very good , but the price ?

Morrisseeee

For everything else there's ........SIGMA:
Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM Lens
eur395.00

Available for Canon (HSM), Nikon (HSM), Olympus (HSM) Pentax and Sony/Minolta

Just 1 example.

bretttp1

Two of the issues I had on the Sony a350 were the continuous shooting speed and image quality vs. the canon and Nikon but the thing is I'm not really going to be using the camera for sport or fast moving photography.

I've decided to check out the A300 instead as this addresses both these issues by utilizing 10.2 mega pixel vs. 14.2 this

1.Increases the shooting speed from 2fps on the A350 to 3fps on the A300.

2.Reduses noise by not cramming in so many pixels.

I think that the issue with image quality on the A350 was that the standard lens shipped with the package wasn't up to resolving the detail produced by the 14.2 sensor.

(The 300 still has the moveable LCD which is one of the big selling points for me)

mathias

I've decided to check out the A300 instead as this addresses both these issues by utilizing 10.2 mega pixel vs. 14.2 this

1.Increases the shooting speed from 2fps on the A350 to 3fps on the A300.

2.Reduses noise by not cramming in so many pixels.

OK guys , the noise v megapixel/sensor size issue does not apply here , this issue is mostly confined to compacts at the moment because of the extremely small size of the sensor ,
Both APS-C and Full frame size sensors found in SLR's are way below the megapixel densities needed for there to be an inherent noise issue related to megapixel count and photocell size.

See here ,

http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32

APS-C can go to 36 megapixel before noise becomes and inherent issue , and Full Frame can go to 96 megapixels.

So a 10.2mp v a 14.2mp on an APS-C sensor camera is not better in noise terms because of the megapixel count , both are way way below the critical density and the photocells are more than big enough to handle images with the least amount of noise possible , so if there is a difference between them it will be down to the electronics and processing of the camera more than anything else.

Considering those facts , if a given SLR has lesser image quality compared to another with a similar class lens mounted , it is going to be down to the camera body electronics and software and no amount of good glass is going to improve that.

bretttp1

mathias wrote: »

So a 10.2mp v a 14.2mp on an APS-C sensor camera is not better in noise terms because of the megapixel count

But why then would there be a difference in picture quality between the A300 and A350 given that the only difference is the pixel count, both have the same software, lens, etc.

mathias

Its going to be in the camera body electronics , it cannot be down to megapixel count for the reasons posted.

Edit: From Dpreview , comparing the A350 with other cameras in its class in terms of noise ,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/page17.asp

The differences in performance between the three cameras are visible at ISO 400 with both luminance and chroma noise appearing in the Sony and Pentax crops. The response to this noise varies between the three manufacturers with Pentax doing very little to rein it in, while the Sony smoothes it away fairly aggressively and the Canon balances its noise reduction to stay relatively noise-free up to ISO 1600. The results of the Sony approach do not appear to have too damaging an effect at sensitivity levels up to ISO 400 but it blurs away an increasing amount of detail above that level.
And unfortunately, the noise reduction doesn't so much reduce the noise as share it with adjacent pixels. The results at ISO 3200 are frankly dismal, obliterating detail in such a way that it limits post-processing options yet still doesn't produce noise-free images. Thankfully, unlike the more expensive A700, the A350 does not appear to apply noise reduction to its RAW files, as we'll see on the next page.

* It's worth noting that these results are with the cameras in their default modes, the EOS 450D for example has an optional stronger High ISO noise reduction option which delivers images with almost no chroma noise.

Noise graphs
Luminance noise graph
In numerical terms, the A350 seems to do well against the Pentax K20D in terms of both Gray and Chroma noise. However, the crops above (and the studio examples later in the review), show that this is mainly because of much more aggressive noise reduction that is smearing away detail from ISO 400 upwards

So it is Sonys over aggressive noise reduction routine which is the culprit , according to the experts. ( That would mean the software )

The pixel count is not the cause , as it should be capable of producing similar results to the competition , who can do much better with similar or higher pixel counts

bretttp1

mathias wrote: »

Its going to be in the camera body electronics , it cannot be down to megapixel count for the reasons posted.

But that’s the problem, they both have the same body electronics, the only difference between the A200 A300 and A350 is the articulated lcd in the A 300 (it has the same sensor as the A200) and the 14.2 sensor in the A350, but according to tests performed on the cameras the A200 and A300 perform better at higher ISO settings.

But as you say there has to be some other reason other than the pixel count.

Thanks for all the information on this by the way.

Thanks for that mathias.

nilhg

Guys I'm afraid you are in danger of falling into the trap of over analysis, maybe even becoming borderline measurebators.;)

To the OP, while the stuff you are talking about above is important, its not the be all and end all of it.

You need a camera which is comfortable in your hands, if its not comfortable you will end up not taking it out, which takes pictures with a tonality that you like (in the whole, not at 100% crops) and which comes with reasonable quality lenses and gives you access to more lenses in your budget range.

Other things which I would consider important are dustproofing, not just is it there but also how well does it work, and also the warranty situation, some makes are only covered it the country where its bought others are covered world wide.
Personally I like inbody IS, though loads of folks would not agree.

Most, if not all DSLRs available now are perfectly capable of taking high quality photographs in the right hands, I'm sure that which ever you buy will give you lots of pleasure for years to come.

Freddie59

nilhg wrote: »

Guys I'm afraid you are in danger of falling into the trap of over analysis, maybe even becoming borderline measurebators.;)

To the OP, while the stuff you are talking about above is important, its not the be all and end all of it.

You need a camera which is comfortable in your hands, if its not comfortable you will end up not taking it out, which takes pictures with a tonality that you like (in the whole, not at 100% crops) and which comes with reasonable quality lenses and gives you access to more lenses in your budget range.

Other things which I would consider important are dustproofing, not just is it there but also how well does it work, and also the warranty situation, some makes are only covered it the country where its bought others are covered world wide.
Personally I like inbody IS, though loads of folks would not agree.

Most, if not all DSLRs available now are perfectly capable of taking high quality photographs in the right hands, I'm sure that which ever you buy will give you lots of pleasure for years to come.

Great points. I've had Olympus & Fuji P&S (absloutely superb cameras), and now have a Canon Eos 450D. But it truly is down to personal taste. And Nihlg is right - most modern DSLRs give superb results. But they are an extremely sharp learning curve.

bretttp1

nilhg wrote: »

Most, if not all DSLRs available now are perfectly capable of taking high quality photographs in the right hands, I'm sure that which ever you buy will give you lots of pleasure for years to come.

I know exactly what you mean about how the camera feels is the only true way to pick one out, but it’s nice to have the experience of others to weigh up your options. And for that I’d like to thank all those who put up with my annoying questions, I’ll let you all know what I finally decided on when I return from the US.

I’ll probably change my mind 10 times in the shop !!

Biro

mathias wrote: »

Not to mention their combined experience in the field ...Sony bought theirs and are probably still getting to grips with it, they have no proven track record yet.

This is why I'd go for the Olympus if it wasn't Nikon or Canon.