Decide between Nikon D80 & Sony Alpha A700

[joematt]

Hi All

I like Nikon D80 with the 18-200 Vr lens.

Now I see that Sony came up with Alpha A700. I like their dust proof and 18-250 lense. I spoke with a sale girl at A reputed Camera store in Los Angeles and she told me VR on lense is better than VR on camera body. So she said it's better to go with Nikon D80. She said she had 3 Canon cameras and she is happy with them. It's kind of hard for me to decide. I had 2 Nikon point shoot digital camera and then I bought a Canon and it's much better even though the camera looks cheap.

I hate the shutter lag in point and shoot cameras. I like to take the pics as soon as I see it. I travel a lot and like taking picture in door and out doors. I appreciate your suggestions

[joematt]

I am thinking about Canon 40D too. I don't know which will be a good lens to go with. Do Canon carry a VR lens?

[fionndruinne]

Canon's version of VR is called IS (which is the more commonly known of the two, actually).

You should fill out the questionnaire in the "Which Camera..." forum, or at least give us a good idea of what you want to primarily take pictures of.

The A700 has the advantage of being a generation ahead of the D80, but costs significantly more. Nikon's contender is actually the soon-to-be-released D300, which is probably better on most if not all fronts, especially when paired with a VR lens.

[DonSchap]

Canon's version of VR is called IS (which is the more commonly known of the two, actually).

You should fill out the questionnaire in the "Which Camera..." forum, or at least give us a good idea of what you want to primarily take pictures of.

The A700 has the advantage of being a generation ahead of the D80, but costs significantly more. Nikon's contender is actually the soon-to-be-released D300, which is probably better on most if not all fronts, especially when paired with a VR lens.

It's probably the cost of "pairing" up with a VR-equipped lens that might hold you back. The SONY A700 has "stability" all of the time (unless you shut it off) and that means ANY SONY/Minolta mount lens gets it too ... for FREE.

FREE is a big word in photography ... because it rarely, if EVER, is heard!

A standard 18-200mm lens is somewhere around $325 ...

A VR-equipped 18-200 from Nikon is ... around $750!!!

For that extra $425 ... you could have the SONY A700 over the Nikon D80 and every lens gets anti-shake-shake-shake. Gosh, I guess I'm glad I no longer need to make that deci$ion.

[Rooz]

the d80 is not in the same ballpark, (or price range), as the 40D and a700. if you are going to spend that much case take a serious look at both the canon and sony in store. they are both awesome tools.

[fionndruinne]

But the Sony stabilization ain't free, Don; you pay for it with the price of the camera. Considering most shooters probably don't need a large range of telephoto lenses, A Canon IS or Nikon VR tele might not come out such a bad monetary choice.

I'll hold off on my opinion of the A700 until I see the reviews. Good high-ISO performance would be nice.

[BBPhoto]

Hey Don (sorry to hijack the post), I was wondering if you have installed your camera's new firmware. I'm curious to see if it does what Sony claims.

[DonSchap]

Thanks for reminding me ... I completely forgot ... been so caught up with my son's Eagle Ceremony and schoolwork ...


http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/Kevs%20Eagle%20Project/Initial-Eagle-Composite.jpg

Eagle Award! - Timeless
From Dad's old Eagle Scout shirt ... to earning one of his very own

[BBPhoto]

Well, at least you have your priorities straight. :)

[DonSchap]

Gee ... thanks, I think.

Anyway ... attempted the SONY A700 Update and could not get it to the "Confirmation Window" on the LCD. I called SONY Support and went through it, again ... and still could not get it to do it. I have a new number, for secondary level assistance (1-866-385-7669) ... but they aren't open at the moment ... so, I'm kind of stuck on Ver. 1, with the Ver. 2 update on my Compact Flash Memory Card ... where it is supposed to be ... ready for conversion. :rolleyes:

At least the Camera didn't drop dead or anything nuts. When you mess with the operating system of anything, all bets are off until it takes. I've done firmware updates on computers, tape libraries and network switches. It is always dicey. :confused:

Anyway, I'll track it down, tomorrow.

[DonSchap]

Okay, after talking with SONY Level 2 Support ... we mutually discovered a small, salient point of the install that can easily escape notice (and did):

The UPDATE is supposed to be the ONLY thing on freshly formatted media, when you install it!

Well, I'm not going to erase 8GB of my artwork off my CF card just for a 4MB update. I obtained a piece of SONY Memory Stick, formatted it and downloaded the update on to it. Without any further mishap, in it went, just as described in the accompanying Update Instructions.

I should probably keep a piece of memory stick in the camera ... just for these little ... improvements. Besides, I can easily make use of it with the CF ... if the picture taking gets a little too intense and I don't have a spare CF in my pocket. The A700 camera will accomodate both memory devices, unlike the A100 ... which had only one socket and used an adapter to accomodate using a memory stick.

So, you ask ... "Any difference in sharpness, Don?" Hey look, I work for a living too ... a guy can only do so much with a lunch.

Anyway ... my A700 is now at ver. 2 ... so we shall see soon enough. :o

[swpars]

The VR II on the 18-200 VR lens is pretty good - and from the reviews that I've read, the Nikkor 18-200 VR has better optical quality than the Tamron 18-250. And the 18-200 VR is a little faster on the long end (f5.6 vs f6.3) - of course, it's 50 mm shorter.

A better comparison between the D80 and a camera in the Sony lineup would be Sony a100 versus Nikon D80. While I am now in the Nikon camp, I looked at the a100 and really liked it except for the high ISO noise performance. I love that beefy grip on the Sony.

And don't forget, as Don mentions, you get anti-shake with all the legacy Minolta autofocus lens lineup - which will mount right up on an a100 or a700. Surf over to www.keh.com and check out what Minolta autofocus lenses you can get used. There are some really good deals.

[TheWengler]

What happened to joematt? He started this thread and an almost identical one (except the other one looked like he typed it with his elbows) a week ago and has yet to respond. Maybe he was drunk when he made them and he just forgot he wanted a camera the next day. :p

[joematt]

I finally decided on Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR

[Rooz]

welcome to the dark side young jedi...http://emoticons4u.com/evil/teu42.gif

[DonSchap]

Should be another banner year for the Nikon Corporation.

Good ... improvement shouldn't be that far behind. They certainly can't complain of marketshare loss. LOL :D

SONY seems to be doing better in Europe than here, which is to be expected, I guess. Minolta had a strong presence in Great Britain, so I suppose that only makes sense. In a way, it is kind of sad that such a seriously nice camera is getting slapped with SONY's dubious repetation, because is really is not your standard SONY developed product. Well, at least ... not yet. ;)

Time will tell ... that's a big marketshare to have to challenge by any standard. Maybe they should give the rest of the A100 stock to a small town in Alaska ... and turn them loose in the caribu herds, before the poor beasts have nothing left to stand on except semi-permafrost slop. At least we'll have some images.

30683

[N.L.P]

Now why do I say so? Those cameras are one level down of beforementioned Nikons, Canons, Sony's

First of on cameras mentioned above.
I had recently an argument on Sony A700 and 40D on another forum. I don't like empty words about VR and IS. I like to see the quality of the image. So I looked at the images by Sony and Canon on high ISO (this is important if you do indoors, or low light). Sony was way behind on my opinion. But this is just my IMHO and Sony's images were from the pre - release. If I see nice images (before Neat Image of course) from Sony, done on 1600/3200 I may change my opinion. In hands Sony has few interesting features - such as nice switch to manual focusing and pretty nice screen for such (though not good enough for me). On the other hand I did not like the joystick.
So on my opinion IQ on high ISO of 40D beats up Sony A 700. And the difference is not that easily cleaned with NeatImage.

Now Nikon D80 - I just made few shots with the camera. It is nice and steady, with good viewfinder and nicely laid out controls. The disadvantage over Canon's is it has worse IQ on high ISO. And again some can call it marginal, but for me it is not as easily removed by noise reduction software.
Otherwise - D80 is good.

I did not have in hands 40D yet, but I saw the images posted on different sites. The IQ is impressive. Most impressive from the flock.

Now how about the statement about "cheapies" - XT/XTi, D40, 100K, Olympus 510?

As I can understand the author is newbee in the DSLR world (no offense and correct me if I am wrong!). So on my opinion it is good idea to buy and nice little, simple and cheap body + good glass. You will then decide what is good for you - do you need high ISO? Do you like small cameras (I personally do due to small hands)?

So what can be nice setups for you

Olympus 510/Pentax 100K + 18-250(200) from Tamron(Sigma) or original ones from Pentax/Olympus.
With those cameras you also get IS so you can use long lens.

Rebel XT/XTi + Tamron 17-50 or wait till Tamron/Sigma offering of IS/VR with 18-250. Also 28-105 from Canon, 17-70 or 18-125 from Sigma may be your choices.
Note that XT is probably best value/price today it is "old" and thus cheap, it has good IQ and all the features you need.

Now D40 - I have read few good reviews on it... The only problem with it is - it is rather "simple". Also D40x has some incompatibility with some Nikon lenses. Otherwise it is good.

So up to me - buy something cheap and nice, play with it for an year - decide which "system" you go with and buy then into system. When you make pictures with your camera you will find where it lacks and find out if it is important for you and buy next one with all this in mind.
Good luck!

[DonSchap]

Now why do I say so? Those cameras are one level down of beforementioned Nikons, Canons, Sony's

First of on cameras mentioned above.
I had recently an argument on Sony A700 and 40D on another forum. I don't like empty words about VR and IS. I like to see the quality of the image. So I looked at the images by Sony and Canon on high-ISO (this is important if you do indoors, or low light). Sony was way behind on my opinion. But this is just my IMHO and Sony's images were from the pre - release. If I see nice images (before Neat Image of course) from Sony, done on 1600/3200 I may change my opinion. In hands Sony has few interesting features - such as nice switch to manual focusing and pretty nice screen for such (though not good enough for me). On the other hand I did not like the joystick.
So on my opinion IQ on high ISO of 40D beats up Sony A 700. And the difference is not that easily cleaned with NeatImage.

Now Nikon D80 - I just made few shots with the camera. It is nice and steady, with good viewfinder and nicely laid out controls. The disadvantage over Canon's is it has worse IQ on high ISO. And again some can call it marginal, but for me it is not as easily removed by noise reduction software.
Otherwise - D80 is good.

I did not have in hands 40D yet, but I saw the images posted on different sites. The IQ is impressive. Most impressive from the flock.

Now how about the statement about "cheapies" - XT/XTi, D40, 100K, Olympus 510?

As I can understand the author is newbee in the DSLR world (no offense and correct me if I am wrong!). So on my opinion it is good idea to buy and nice little, simple and cheap body + good glass. You will then decide what is good for you - do you need high ISO? Do you like small cameras (I personally do due to small hands)?

So what can be nice setups for you

Olympus 510/Pentax 100K + 18-250(200) from Tamron(Sigma) or original ones from Pentax/Olympus.
With those cameras you also get IS so you can use long lens.

Rebel XT/XTi + Tamron 17-50 or wait till Tamron/Sigma offering of IS/VR with 18-250. Also 28-105 from Canon, 17-70 or 18-125 from Sigma may be your choices.
Note that XT is probably best value/price today it is "old" and thus cheap, it has good IQ and all the features you need.

Now D40 - I have read few good reviews on it... The only problem with it is - it is rather "simple". Also D40x has some incompatibility with some Nikon lenses. Otherwise it is good.

So up to me - buy something cheap and nice, play with it for an year - decide which "system" you go with and buy then into system. When you make pictures with your camera you will find where it lacks and find out if it is important for you and buy next one with all this in mind.
Good luck!

Well said.

It's pretty obvious that SONY has a few improvements to be made ... but overall, it has come farther than any of the others in improving from the last model in its product history. The A100 struggled with anything above ISO-400 ... and now the SONY A700 is kicking out ISO-6400 ... with a pretty reasonable looking ISO-1600 shot. Does it match up to Canon's high-ISO images ... (ignoring the jiggle) perhaps not, but I challenge anyone to consistently shoot ISO-1600 for a quality image. That is NOT the way to take images with a digital camera. It should be an exception, not the rule. If you need more light, get a better (faster) lens. The quality of your shot will instantly be reflected in a nice ISO-400 image ... not some forced ISO-1600 one.

In other words, "it's hard to score, indoor, at f/4!"


30693


Okay ... no need to be simplistic about this. We all are searching for the best we can get out of our respective rigs. The Nikon D300 will be a fun camera to inspect and critique, when it hits the street.

Once again, though, I do believe the real measure of a camera will be in what the full frames can do with an image. APS-C sensors can only go so far ... because it's hard to fit much more into that space. You know the old saw about getting 12 pounds of .... in a 10-lb sack.

You also know what they say in New York: "Hey, hold still ... I'm trying to take a picture, here!" :cool:

[fionndruinne]

Now D40 - I have read few good reviews on it... The only problem with it is - it is rather "simple".

Hey, so is a pretty farm girl from the midwest... whatever's the problem with that?

[N.L.P]

First of I don't mind "simlicity" of D40:) I strongly believe that photographer is more important than camera. This said, I would note that Pentax/Olympus/Canon (100K, 510, Rebel XT) seem to offer for the same price more features.
Such as IS, more pixels (not that it mattered), more AF points, better high ISO.
If we speak of a different animal D40x - that one I am biased against because of the choice of lenses (D40 is O.K. with that as much as I know). But no doubt right man can make fantastic shots with any of those. So "simplicity" is going in quotes.

Secondly, Don your point about Sony developing and going up is valid. I don't have a doubt that eventually Sony will produce decent high ISO CMOS. Not yet though.
As to your remark on fast lens I have to disagree here. I use amazing 17-50 Tamron 2.8. Amazing from price value point of view (BTW it was your posts which turned my attention to it - so thank you!). Still when you have totally usable ISO 1600 and 2.8 lens it is better when you have 400 usable ISO and 2.8 lens. Now I would say that for making low light architecture shot IS which is provided by Sony would be good. But for making nice indoors/low-light picture of moving object, such as child it would be difficult to do. Furthermore. With moving object it is good idea to close apperture a bit - the DOF would increase thus reducing a bit possibility of out of focus, but with 400 and 800 you would have less opportunities to do so.
IMHO - good high ISO is a huge plus, while IS is absolute necessity usually with long and heavy lenses.
I have to admit though that one of the reasons I don't add expensive gear to my Canon right now is that I expect Nikon, Sony and others to get even with Canon in high ISO department. If this is the case I will be then comparing the lovely 40D (or what ever Canon is going to exhibit at that time) and other players and decide. If I had to make the decision today though - it would be 40D.

[fionndruinne]

No, the D40 and D40x have exactly the same lens compatibility.

As for high-ISO performance, though, the D40 is the best Nikon has made in the consumer DSLR range as of now (though the D300 will of course take that merit for itself), and beats Pentax by a hair, Sony and Olympus by a mile, and rivals Canon's Rebels.

Personally I prefer the simplicity, as it's less distracting in focusing on the artistic and technical aspects of getting a good photograph. Even the three AF points, far from being limiting, have helped me to fully integrate the rule of thirds into my photography. But to each his own. I will eventually have need of a more in-depth DSLR experience, and I believe the D300 is going to fill that requirement - but for a first camera (costing less than one third of the price tag), simplicity is all to the good, as long as it does what it does well.

[DonSchap]

You know ... (I love that response) because, yes I do know.

Anyway ... you ask about the α700 ... and I may not know everything about it or about all the other DSLRs in the world, but what I do know I am more than willing to share and I am very ciomfortable with.

It is rare that I get surprised, these days, by the performance of the cameras or the lens. The DCRP has been a godsend for reviewing, discussing, joking and learning for many people and I, for one, am quite thankful that I've been privileged to participate.

Oh sure, Coldrain can have a moment or two, but it's all good stuff. I'd venture to say that most of you newer folks really have only a small clue as to the amount of work, research, painstaking examination and effort that has been lovingly (lustfully, in some cases) poured into most of the conversation, exchanges and answer sessions that have gone on, in these forums.

I know what I've been through and although a lot of it has be good and light-hearted ... there have been darker moments (no pun intended) also. Maintaining focus can be hard in some cases. We all have a wonderful variety of experiences to draw on and even experiment with.

I know the α700 is a very good camera, up against almost anything else out there. No one would be hurting to have it in their bag. Whether you purchase one or elect to go with something else, it is what it is ... a darn good camera that can compete and deliver an equally impressive shot.


"Hey ... who's soap box is this, anyway?"

30758