Help me please - I need your advice/opinions on DSLR

[DznyFan]

yet another cry for help regarding the purchase of a DSLR.

I am gearing up for the step into a DSLR from a fixed lens superzoom digital. I shot Olympus now Canon in the Superzoom category, but they simply aren't giving me the quality I want.

My requirements:

QUALITY images - in all kinds of lighting situations. Noise and chromatic abberation and movement get under my skin big time.

I own three A Mount Minolta lenses from my SLR - two Minoltas and one Sigma zoom.

I'm on a budget.


I am struggling with which direction to go in my purchase. I know that I can get a Sony DSLR very reasonably with the Alpha series, and I'm entertaining the A200, A300 and A350. I won't have to buy glass.

BUT I'm very impressed with Nikon D60 and D80 images. Stabilization is in the lens, not the camera, so I need to make sure any lenses I purchase or included in a package would be VR. Is the price difference going to be worth it to me? Stick with the Sony because I've got the glass?

I'd like to hear your stories, see your shots, and get your opinions. You all are real life users who've already "been there, done that".

 

[spinetnglr]

yet another cry for help regarding the purchase of a DSLR.

I am gearing up for the step into a DSLR from a fixed lens superzoom digital. I shot Olympus now Canon in the Superzoom category, but they simply aren't giving me the quality I want.

My requirements:

QUALITY images - in all kinds of lighting situations. Noise and chromatic abberation and movement get under my skin big time.

I own three A Mount Minolta lenses from my SLR - two Minoltas and one Sigma zoom.

I'm on a budget.


I am struggling with which direction to go in my purchase. I know that I can get a Sony DSLR very reasonably with the Alpha series, and I'm entertaining the A200, A300 and A350. I won't have to buy glass.

BUT I'm very impressed with Nikon D60 and D80 images. Stabilization is in the lens, not the camera, so I need to make sure any lenses I purchase or included in a package would be VR. Is the price difference going to be worth it to me? Stick with the Sony because I've got the glass?

I'd like to hear your stories, see your shots, and get your opinions. You all are real life users who've already "been there, done that".

While I am a Nikon die hard fan and I think if you went the Nikon route you would be happy with your purchase. But I can also tell you a very good friend of mine purchased a Sony A300 with NO dslr or slr prior experience and she is getting some excellent shots. You should probably visit a camera store that would have the Sonys and the Nikons in stock that you could look at them, hold them and get a feel for the ones you are considering and see what feels right to you. If you get a good feel from one of the Sonys then you are already ahead of the game with some good glass to start out with. My friend just picked up a 70-300 (I think) from Circuit City for next to nothing and is having a blast with her new found optical reach and her A300. Good luck in your search !! If you would like to see some of her pictures from a true novice (her words not mine I think she is doing great) I will get her permission to send you the link to her flickr page.

 

[DznyFan]

spinetnglr - not the d60? your thoughts on that? I'd love to see the work your friend has done with the Sony!

 

[spinetnglr]

I cant speak for the D60. I started with a D40 and recently upgraded to the D300. I do really like the Nikons and now that I have the D300 and am comfortable using it when I pick up the D40 it seems so small in comparison. You really should try to handle all those you are interested in to see what feels and fits the best in your hands. There are some here that use/used the D60 that could probably tell you what they like and dislike about the it. I know annnewjerz has a D60 and is waiting arrival of a D90 perhaps she could give you some insight into that model. I will check with my friend about sending you the link to her flickr page and will PM it to you. I am certain she wont mind but dont want to do it without checking with her first.

 

[annnewjerz]

I cant speak for the D60. I started with a D40 and recently upgraded to the D300. I do really like the Nikons and now that I have the D300 and am comfortable using it when I pick up the D40 it seems so small in comparison. You really should try to handle all those you are interested in to see what feels and fits the best in your hands. There are some here that use/used the D60 that could probably tell you what they like and dislike about the it. I know annnewjerz has a D60 and is waiting arrival of a D90 perhaps she could give you some insight into that model. I will check with my friend about sending you the link to her flickr page and will PM it to you. I am certain she wont mind but dont want to do it without checking with her first.

Thanks for the recommendation I did, in fact, have the D60 up until this week (I sold it and upgraded to the D90). I haven't even taken a picture yet with the D90 so I can't give any advice on that particular camera (but WenRob probably can), so I'll give you my feedback on the D60. I actually loved it. From what I understand, it does a bit better at higher ISO's than the D40 and also has some sensor cleaning tool that "shakes the dust" from the sensor when you turn it on and off. I'm not sure how much this little tool actually did, but in the 4 months of using it I didn't have to clean the sensor because of dirt once.

That being said, depending on what your budget is, I would probably get the D40 over the D60. I only say this looking back because it's a little over $100 cheaper (although you do get the nicer kit lens with the D60 which is nice) and has almost all of the same features as the D60. At this point, knowing how expensive the hobby gets, I would probably rather have the extra $100 to put towards a bag, some software, some books or a new lens. I don't think you'll go wrong with either one, it really depends on your budget.

IMO, considering you already have the Minolta lenses, I would personally buy into the Sony system if you are happy with the glass you have. Why switch systems and buy all of the same stuff all over again if what you have is compatible with a Sony dSLR? There are quite a few people on this board that have Sony dSLRs (although Mickey88 is the only one coming to mind at the moment) so you may want to check with them for links, websites, etc. regarding your lens compatability.

Good luck---I'm sure you'll be happy no matter which you choose.

 

[My2Girls66]

If you are on a budget check out the D80. I just bought one and am happy with it. The body is down around $525. With an 18-135mm lens around $750(from a recent ad from Abes of Maine). Its an older model so the price has dropped quite a bit recently. I think the only drawback to the D60 is that it doesn't have a focus motor in the camera so you need AF-S lenses for autofocus. A friend of mine has one- its a great little camera. It has a smaller body than the D80. If you can afford to spend more the D90 is the D80's replacement. Last I heard it was around $1200 for body and lens.
Good luck

 

[Chikabowa]

If noise is one of your big things, I would definitely look at the D60 over the D40 and the D90 over the D60 or D80. I've been impressed with some of the photos coming out of the D90 in terms of noise.

 

[Todd_H]

IMO, considering you already have the Minolta lenses, I would personally buy into the Sony system if you are happy with the glass you have. Why switch systems and buy all of the same stuff all over again if what you have is compatible with a Sony dSLR? There are quite a few people on this board that have Sony dSLRs (although Mickey88 is the only one coming to mind at the moment) so you may want to check with them for links, websites, etc. regarding your lens compatability.

I definitely agree with this statement if budget is a big concern and the camera feels good in your hands. There is a good Sony thread going on here: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1508616

 

[zackiedawg]

Regardless of the fact that I have an A300, I'd recommend going with the Sony mostly for budget reasons. There is really so little between the quality and capability of the entry level DSLRs regardless of brand that if you've got a good reason to go with one brand (ergonomics, price, lens legacy, etc), that makes the decision easier. However, I'd also recommend handling the cameras in person, looking through the finders, and fiddling through the menus to make sure you like the layout and find the camera comfortable to hold and use, as this does make a difference in your comfort level and happiness with the camera in the long run.

Feel free to browse my gallery for A300 shots, with 3 different lenses (most Disney shots with the A300 were with the SAL18-250 or the Minolta 50mm F1.7). Note that in my main gallery, I've got a subgallery with all of the A300 photos in one spot - it's 20 pages at 40 shots a page, so it's a little heavy! In my Disney gallery, there are a mix of cameras in there - to see the A300 shots in those galleries, go to the later pages - any photos taken from July 08 or later are likely with the A300. The camera model lists under each photo, as well as EXIF info.

You won't go wrong picking any brand - and I think nearly anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the same scene taken at the same time from virtually any brand of DSLR with equal lenses. Some of the higher-end models handle extremely high ISO better, or have faster burst modes than others...but for the most part the quality for 85% of the shots most people take will be near a dead heat.

Having 3 lenses already in the bag makes buying a Sony model a bit more of a bargain...especially considering all 3 of those lenses are automatically stabilized (as well as any other lens you buy).

Just make sure you're comfortable holding and shooting with the camera you choose!

 

[manning]

Are willing to part with over 3 grand? then

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/

35mm full format, high definition movie mode

I'm looking at. But then I have a ton of lenses that will fit it that are sitting around from the film days.

 

[VVFF]

Regardless of the fact that I have an A300, I'd recommend going with the Sony mostly for budget reasons. There is really so little between the quality and capability of the entry level DSLRs regardless of brand that if you've got a good reason to go with one brand (ergonomics, price, lens legacy, etc), that makes the decision easier. However, I'd also recommend handling the cameras in person, looking through the finders, and fiddling through the menus to make sure you like the layout and find the camera comfortable to hold and use, as this does make a difference in your comfort level and happiness with the camera in the long run.

Feel free to browse my gallery for A300 shots, with 3 different lenses (most Disney shots with the A300 were with the SAL18-250 or the Minolta 50mm F1.7). Note that in my main gallery, I've got a subgallery with all of the A300 photos in one spot - it's 20 pages at 40 shots a page, so it's a little heavy! In my Disney gallery, there are a mix of cameras in there - to see the A300 shots in those galleries, go to the later pages - any photos taken from July 08 or later are likely with the A300. The camera model lists under each photo, as well as EXIF info.

You won't go wrong picking any brand - and I think nearly anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the same scene taken at the same time from virtually any brand of DSLR with equal lenses. Some of the higher-end models handle extremely high ISO better, or have faster burst modes than others...but for the most part the quality for 85% of the shots most people take will be near a dead heat.

Having 3 lenses already in the bag makes buying a Sony model a bit more of a bargain...especially considering all 3 of those lenses are automatically stabilized (as well as any other lens you buy).

Just make sure you're comfortable holding and shooting with the camera you choose!

I agree except one issue...the Sony models...especially the budget ones, have significantly worse high ISO noise than the competition. If that bugs the OP, then he may want to look elsewhere.

 

[bob100]

And I'll make the plug for Canon -
A wider (and cheaper) selection of lens and camera bodies
fantastic image quality
The latest Canon XSi (450D) Rebel series with two lens 18-55IS and55-250IS zoom - less than $800 !
check it out

 

[spinetnglr]

OP check your PMs if you havent already. I sent you a link for my friends flickr page (with her permission). She is a relatively new owner of an A300 and totally a beginner with the dslr.

 

[DznyFan]

THANK YOU ALL! All your information is all very valuable, and very much appreciated, as are all the links to galleries that I have been able to peruse through. My glass is not new. It dates back about 15 years for my Minolta lenses - a 35 - 80mm f/4.5, and a 70 - 210mm f/4.5, and an add on Sigma 75 - 200mm f/2.8 that is about 13 years old and heavy as a horse.

Chikabowa - yes, noise is very important. If the noise wasn't as bad as it is on the Sonys, it would almost be a no-brainer for me. I think the noise is a big turn-off for me and that line.

Manning - I WISH!! I guess, though, all I said was I'm on a budget... I didn't say what the budget was.

Bob - I'll look @ the xsi (again) but i think I had kicked it out for reasons unknown -or that I can't recall. I may look at the 400d again if I can find one, I think I liked it's resolution better than the 450d.

Zackiedawg - I was looking thru your galleries earlier, and really liked what I saw with your A300. The heavy noise was pretty apparent in the POTC ride photos. You like it, I guess?

 

[Chikabowa]

Dzny - I would really check out the D90 in that case. In a consumer camera, I think it's an excellent option. And the strides they have made in terms of noise in this particular model is huge. The added option is the video, but you never made mention of need of that. It also has a few additional upgrades you won't find in the XSi, although, the XSi is a great option as well.

 

[Mamiamjo]

I have a Nikon d70 and d80 which I like, but I've been really thinking about getting a d90. If you could afford one that would be my recommendation. If not, a d80 would still be a good choice. I think someone else pointed you to dpreview.com they have a forum and lots of camera reviews.

Good luck

 

[zackiedawg]

Chikabowa - yes, noise is very important. If the noise wasn't as bad as it is on the Sonys, it would almost be a no-brainer for me. I think the noise is a big turn-off for me and that line.

Zackiedawg - I was looking thru your galleries earlier, and really liked what I saw with your A300. The heavy noise was pretty apparent in the POTC ride photos. You like it, I guess?

I do like it...quite a bit. I'm not quite as 'anti-noise' as some - having experience with the grain in film at speeds of 400 and up, I am not completely averse to the idea of a little grain or noise at high ISO...not to say that less wouldn't be better all the time, in any camera. I guess I just have what I would consider reasonable expectations.

Noise is quite dependent on light - if you expose properly, you get alot less noise. If you underexpose badly, noise will crop up much more. The Sony A300 to me has very good noise control in proper exposures to ISO1600...which is more than enough for 99.9% of all photographs I'll ever take. For those rare times I need ISO3200 - like in Pirates of the Caribbean especially without a fast lens (I shot POTC this past January with an 18-250 F3.5-6.3 - not exactly the type of lens to be shooting low-light indoor shots with!) - it's good enough to get by for my needs. I wouldn't be looking to sell prints to a magazine taken at ISO3200 with the A300, that's for sure.

Then again, I'd say the noise is quite well controlled and the photos quite good when better exposed...throwing a few examples:

ISO800:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/96447725

ISO1600:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/105792433

Even ISO3200, which is admittedly pushing past the camera's limit a bit and for emergency only, can be used if properly exposed. Check out how only the shadow area under the awning has the severe noise...the daylight portion of the yard still retains very good detail and low noise:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/99161598

Or here, where I used 3200 for the Nemo show, and the 18-250 lens. I wouldn't call this unusable:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/101086662

Sure, some cameras might do better - and in serious underexposure, some can really excel over mine when it comes to shadow noise. But personally, I think a person should weigh how many photographs they take in each given situation, then weigh the importance of the camera's IQ in those areas. How many times do I take underexposed, extremely high ISO low light photos as a percentage of my overall photos...1%? That wasn't enough to make me demand a camera that could perform better in that area while compromising in another. It's always going to be a compromise. For me, I wanted the tilt LCD and very intuitive and fast Live View capability, and in-body stabilization.

Works for me. And the ergonomics were a perfect fit for me as well. I don't have any qualms about shooting up to ISO1600, as long as I know I'm going to properly expose the shot...and I can still sell the prints. If it's badly underexposed at ISO1600 or 3200 - then another camera will likely do a little better (notably Canon & Nikon). If you think a large number of your shots will be at ISO1600 to 3200, and likely extremely low light with underexposures likely, then I'd say the Sony is certainly not the top of the list. Or if most of your shooting will be occurring inside POTC or Haunted Mansion! Otherwise, I'd consider it the equal of any other brand's entry-level DSLR overall.

I still think when referring to the better noise control at high ISO in one brand of DSLR over another, it's like comparing the top speed of a Ferrari to that of a Corvette. While one might indisputably be faster, both go far beyond the needs of the average shooter, and both are amazing machines compared to more pedestrian commuter cars. DSLRs are all much more capable than P&S models, and even the 'worst' of them is still an amazingly capable machine that will exceed the abilities and skills of 75% of the people who buy them!

Just get what makes you happy, has the features you want, and is a good deal, and don't worry about brand loyalties and cachet. That's my advice!

 

[VVFF]

I do like it...quite a bit. I'm not quite as 'anti-noise' as some - having experience with the grain in film at speeds of 400 and up, I am not completely averse to the idea of a little grain or noise at high ISO...not to say that less wouldn't be better all the time, in any camera. I guess I just have what I would consider reasonable expectations.

Noise is quite dependent on light - if you expose properly, you get alot less noise. If you underexpose badly, noise will crop up much more. The Sony A300 to me has very good noise control in proper exposures to ISO1600...which is more than enough for 99.9% of all photographs I'll ever take. For those rare times I need ISO3200 - like in Pirates of the Caribbean especially without a fast lens (I shot POTC this past January with an 18-250 F3.5-6.3 - not exactly the type of lens to be shooting low-light indoor shots with!) - it's good enough to get by for my needs. I wouldn't be looking to sell prints to a magazine taken at ISO3200 with the A300, that's for sure.

Then again, I'd say the noise is quite well controlled and the photos quite good when better exposed...throwing a few examples:

ISO800:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/96447725

ISO1600:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/105792433

Even ISO3200, which is admittedly pushing past the camera's limit a bit and for emergency only, can be used if properly exposed. Check out how only the shadow area under the awning has the severe noise...the daylight portion of the yard still retains very good detail and low noise:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/99161598

Or here, where I used 3200 for the Nemo show, and the 18-250 lens. I wouldn't call this unusable:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/101086662

Sure, some cameras might do better - and in serious underexposure, some can really excel over mine when it comes to shadow noise. But personally, I think a person should weigh how many photographs they take in each given situation, then weigh the importance of the camera's IQ in those areas. How many times do I take underexposed, extremely high ISO low light photos as a percentage of my overall photos...1%? That wasn't enough to make me demand a camera that could perform better in that area while compromising in another. It's always going to be a compromise. For me, I wanted the tilt LCD and very intuitive and fast Live View capability, and in-body stabilization.

Works for me. And the ergonomics were a perfect fit for me as well. I don't have any qualms about shooting up to ISO1600, as long as I know I'm going to properly expose the shot...and I can still sell the prints. If it's badly underexposed at ISO1600 or 3200 - then another camera will likely do a little better (notably Canon & Nikon). If you think a large number of your shots will be at ISO1600 to 3200, and likely extremely low light with underexposures likely, then I'd say the Sony is certainly not the top of the list. Or if most of your shooting will be occurring inside POTC or Haunted Mansion! Otherwise, I'd consider it the equal of any other brand's entry-level DSLR overall.

I still think when referring to the better noise control at high ISO in one brand of DSLR over another, it's like comparing the top speed of a Ferrari to that of a Corvette. While one might indisputably be faster, both go far beyond the needs of the average shooter, and both are amazing machines compared to more pedestrian commuter cars. DSLRs are all much more capable than P&S models, and even the 'worst' of them is still an amazingly capable machine that will exceed the abilities and skills of 75% of the people who buy them!

Just get what makes you happy, has the features you want, and is a good deal, and don't worry about brand loyalties and cachet. That's my advice!

To be fair, those images have been resized by quite a large amount and so they don't exactly show the real noise situation of the Sony DSLRs. I'm not trying to say that its majorly excessive. It's just over that of the competition. Especially shots taken at night apparently because DCresource.com has great pictures showing the noise at these levels.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a350-review/index.shtml

Even the lower pixel count A200 has some issues with noise in nightshots

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a200-review/

Obviously neither of these is the exact model your talking about but these comments are echoed in the cameralabs.com review of the A300(read the sample low light images comment):

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A300/sample_images.shtml

That's obviously not a showstopper but I just want to make the OP aware of this shortcoming. Otherwise, my experience with the Sony SLRs has been very positive.

 

[zackiedawg]

To be fair, those images have been resized by quite a large amount and so they don't exactly show the real noise situation of the Sony DSLRs. I'm not trying to say that its majorly excessive. It's just over that of the competition. Especially shots taken at night apparently because DCresource.com has great pictures showing the noise at these levels.
That's obviously not a showstopper but I just want to make the OP aware of this shortcoming. Otherwise, my experience with the Sony SLRs has been very positive.

No question...when it comes to high ISO performance, the upper-level Nikons, and pretty much any Canon but the base model, are the leaders...followed by the lower model Nikons. The others all seem to be a step or two behind...Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc all can't quite keep up with the Canons and Nikons.

My fair point was just that ALL DSLRs are so significantly better than P&S models with regards to noise control that most people, especially those coming from a P&S (or even film), should find the noise control at high ISOs to be incredible even in the least-capable DSLR model. But there's such an internet and camera board phenomenon of training people to hate all grain and noise and raise wants above needs, that I try to diffuse it whenever possible. Being on other camera boards fairly often, I've seen the pixel-peeping searches for the tiniest sign of noise, or the demand for 6fps burst over 4fps burst...yet almost none of the people in the argument ever use ISO1600 or the 6fps burst...making me wonder why that had to be weighed so strongly in their purchase, especially when they ended up making huge sacrifices in other areas.

Those who are 'professionals' or DSLR enthusiasts deservedly have a different set of standards for what features and capabilities a DSLR should have - but too often a beginner or casual photographer is bombarded with advice from these enthusiasts on what is necessary to be happy with a DSLR, and they are often steered away from what in the end was probably a better choice for THEM. And I say this as someone who is a definite camera enthusiast, and a 'professional' photographer to boot. It just might be that a new DSLR user would fare better with a Sony or Pentax, than a Canon or Nikon. Maybe the LiveView implementation would be superior for them, or the in-body stabilization which allows all lenses, even primes, to be stabilized and without the increased cost of in-lens systems. Who knows? It seems a shame for them if they were to immediately strike those brands off their shopping list because of higher noise at the highest ISO levels.

Just my opinion! Thanks for the friendly debate/conversation on the topic.

 

[VVFF]

No question...when it comes to high ISO performance, the upper-level Nikons, and pretty much any Canon but the base model, are the leaders...followed by the lower model Nikons. The others all seem to be a step or two behind...Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc all can't quite keep up with the Canons and Nikons.

My fair point was just that ALL DSLRs are so significantly better than P&S models with regards to noise control that most people, especially those coming from a P&S (or even film), should find the noise control at high ISOs to be incredible even in the least-capable DSLR model. But there's such an internet and camera board phenomenon of training people to hate all grain and noise and raise wants above needs, that I try to diffuse it whenever possible. Being on other camera boards fairly often, I've seen the pixel-peeping searches for the tiniest sign of noise, or the demand for 6fps burst over 4fps burst...yet almost none of the people in the argument ever use ISO1600 or the 6fps burst...making me wonder why that had to be weighed so strongly in their purchase, especially when they ended up making huge sacrifices in other areas.

Those who are 'professionals' or DSLR enthusiasts deservedly have a different set of standards for what features and capabilities a DSLR should have - but too often a beginner or casual photographer is bombarded with advice from these enthusiasts on what is necessary to be happy with a DSLR, and they are often steered away from what in the end was probably a better choice for THEM. And I say this as someone who is a definite camera enthusiast, and a 'professional' photographer to boot. It just might be that a new DSLR user would fare better with a Sony or Pentax, than a Canon or Nikon. Maybe the LiveView implementation would be superior for them, or the in-body stabilization which allows all lenses, even primes, to be stabilized and without the increased cost of in-lens systems. Who knows? It seems a shame for them if they were to immediately strike those brands off their shopping list because of higher noise at the highest ISO levels.

Just my opinion! Thanks for the friendly debate/conversation on the topic.

Agreed and all are good points.

One needs to weight whats important to them. I personally enjoy a lot of low light/night shooting and so high ISO performance is pretty high up on my list. This, as you point out, may not match the OP's needs. The Sony definitely has a better live view system if you value that. That, however, for me was pretty low on my list as I prefer the viewfinder and find I can get better stabilized shots with it.

I really do love Sony's flip screen though. I use a Canon S3 IS and its flip screen comes in handy for when your composing a shot on a stabilized surface that may not lend itselt to looking through the viewfinder.