sony a200 newbie

[sony man]

Hi, I new to dslr cameras. I recently bought the sony a200. Seems nice and so far i like it. I have lots to learn though. I had a quirk this weekend about the camera though. My brother in law and i shot lots of pictures on our vacation, he has the nikon d40 and when we downloaded our pics, his seems more vibrant i guess is the word to use, more pop in his colors. He's a newbie also. why would this be? Can someone with a sony tell me of some settings i have to adjust. Im gonna look thru the manual again and see if theres something that might work. Did I make a mistake by getting the sony instead of the d40? I have a few more days to exchange it.

[sparkie1263]

Don will advise you when he sees this. I would suggest you post a few images with the settings so he can see for himself what you are talking about.
Frank

[DonSchap]

Frank is correct ... w/o some type of examples ... both from the D40 and your own A200 ... it's a tough thing to compare.

[sony man]

Ok, will do when I get home. I really appreciate it!

[DonSchap]

Just mulling this over, without seeing anything:

I have to ask, what "colorspace" are you using (by default) ... or which one he may be using?

Not having a A200 to look to identify menu options ... some ideas are:

For example, on the A700 ... under "Creative Style" selection:
Standard (this is "sRGB" on most cameras)
Vivid
Neutral
AdobeRGB
Portrait
Landscape
B/W

Normally, in AUTO ... this will be in "Standard" ... even if you change it, it will be restotred back to "Standard" when you turn the camera OFF and back ON, again.

37228

Now, if you are in "AdobeRGB", in any other mode, the Gamut selection of color is much larger ...

AdobeRGB Gamut
37229

sRGB
37230


but, if an "AdobeRGB" colorspace image is viewed through an "SRGB" website or program, the greens, cyans and blues (GCB) will look flat and rather lifeless (just not look corrrect). If you look at the above illustrations, you will note how much less the "sRGB" triangle takes from the GCB potion of the Color Gamut.

Have you been the only one using the camera? In other words, could someone (camera shop salesperson or another customer) have changed this selection, previously, before you bought it? With other "normal" modes of camera operation (not AUTO), the Creative Style" will be left in whatever it was last set to.

[sony man]

wow, looks like u know your stuff, I could barely understand it!lol, You are right that in auto it sets to standard which is what I used to take the pics on vacation. I just found the adobe rgb setting, should i keep it on that? Here a couple pics, not very good ones but all i can get for now the top pic is mine and the bottom is his; if u need more similar pics, i can try and get some from him
. htthttp://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jixxxer/004-1.jpgp://[/IMG

[IMG]http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jixxxer/DSC_0779.jpg]

[sparkie1263]

Your picture looks a little dark. I am o pro but I have started using Aperture mode almost all the time. I start out using f/8 turn on the Histrogram and take a couple of test shots. The Histrogram should be in the center. Check out this site http://www.llvj.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml it explains all about histrograms and how they work.I am sure Don will chime in and explain it better or tell you not to listen to me. LOL Good luck and keep taking shots they will get better. I don't leave the house without my camera.
Frank

[DonSchap]

On the contrary, AdobeRGB should be something you progress to ... more for printing and images you plan on keeping, long term, for yourself. There is more color description in them ... but the display device (printer and/or program) you use must be set to display AdobeRGB also.

When you post to the web, you need to bear in mind that you have to convert AdobeRGB to sRGB to keep them from looking "flat" and desaturated.

If you leave the camera on "Standard", there should be no problem with web posts. It is sRGB for everybody.

Saturation levels from the camera can also be adjusted. Normally, SONY does a pretty good job with these. I am surprised to hear you having difficulty.

37239

Admittedly, shooting into the sun is not the best idea for imaging. It tends to silohuette your subjects ... and the auto-DRO did save some of them.

Also, a crop can do wonders at focusing the viewer's attention ...

37238

[sony man]

well, this weekend I will get his camera and take some pics with it, and then mine with the same pics and compare them; if its still a big difference I'll post on here and let u see them. I'll make sure our cameras are on the same settings. I thought my pics were great until I saw some of his and it bummed me out. Thanks again, and if u have anymore advice as to setting, i appreciate it.

[DonSchap]

Well, a lot of this has to do with the optic you are using. If you are sporting the "kit" lens ... that can be a real bymmer. It really lacks good sharpness and contrast, in my estimation, color is rather dismal and I, flat out, refuse to use it. Personally, I'm not waste mine or anyone else's time using it.

Once you opt for a TAMRON 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, you will clearly see an improvement in what you are shooting. Doing a side by side is like day and night.

Like they say: "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

Good luck.

BTW: Pay stricter attention to leveling your horizon's. You can lose valuable image trying to straighten that simple adjustment out. Just concentrate on your framing. Use the upper edge of the viewfinder window as a guide. Try to remember: The world is flat. ;)

[sparkie1263]

I knew Don was going to pick on the kit lens. LOL he has me ashame to say I used it in my pictures. LOL I know he is right because I have seen side by side tests. I have two new lenses on my Christmas list both Tamron one is the 90 mm Macro and the other is the 17-50mm f/2.8.
Frank

PS Don must have stock in Tamron. LOL

[DonSchap]

Frank ... honestly, I just want everyone to shoot better. The TAMRON does it with the least amount of coin-outlay, for the SONY DSLR. Are you really going to fight with that fact?

Believe me, SONY will certainly take your money for the Carl Zeiss® lenses ... after posting a 3.3 Billion dollar loss with PS3. Woo-boy! That's like seriously messed up. It cost them more to make the PS3 than it actually sells for, by almost 50%. Unfortunately, market pressures won't allow it to sell for more ... so they took the loss.

I'm not saying the Zeiss-stuff does not work well ... hardly ... but, if I can get really acceptable stuff from a lower cost lens ... darn tootin'! I shoot TAMRON because I like them and they work well. That 6-year manufacturer's warranty does not strike me as unappealing, either. ;) Zeiss lenses start at $650 and go up from there, easily $1000-1300 for most of their lenses. The TAMRON price list is signifcantly less ... averaging $400, and still delivering a great image.

Make mine TAMRON ... I like hearing that jingle in my pocket, afterwards.

[sparkie1263]

You have me sold. There is no fight to be had the proof is in the pictures. I bought my first Tamron because of you and I love the lens. I only wish I knew before I got my kit lens because I would have got the Tamron from the start. It would have cost a little more but it would be have been worth it. Then I could have asked Sony for the Flagship. LOL Don maybe Tamron can start sending you lenses so you can test.
Frank