Considering a Sony SLR...

So, what you're saying is, that the two 18-250 lenses from Tamron and Sony are both prduced by Tamron but slightly changed for Sony and a little faster !? (That should make it an easy pick :-))

I have actually been considering the Canon D500 with the AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) lense instead of the Sony a330, but I guess I have to wait to see some specs on the a330 :-)

Thanks again guys....

Hey, you are welcome. If you do not purchase any other lenses for your Canon, you should be good to go ... the TAMRON will provide the stability.

If you do go Sony, get the Tamron 18-250 for sure. The focusing might be a hair slower, but in my opinion the 6 year warranty more than makes up for it.

One of the reasons I suggested the Sony cams over the Canon xxxD is because of the grip, but that is about to change. I don't know if it is for better or worse. According to the leak today (stuff that appeared on Sony's russian site) the new series will not have video, but they do have a more interesting screen, and a new interface.

A few points for Sony vs. Canon, I have used both:

The 20mm extra you would get from the Canon won't be a big difference. I can also tell you from owning a number of Sony screw drive lenses, and now owning a Tamron in Canon mount, the AF on a Canon mount tamron lens stinks. It isn't much slower than Sony's screwdrive system, but it hunts a bit back and forth, and it is loud. The Canon mount Tamron has lens IS, which some people say is better than in-body IS at the long focal lengths. I don't know one way or another, but that tends to be what I hear. I also don't know how good Tamron's IS system is. Canon's live view is almost useless, it is nice to have for a tripod, but autofocusing isn't useful at all if you or your subject is moving. The Sony live view AF is very nice... however I never used it much. This may change with the new ones, but Sony's entry level cameras so far have a good quality to them, the Canon's are obviously stripped down, and made as cheaply as possible. One may or may not hold up better, but the Canon Rebels feel cheap. I'm also a big fan of Sony's "function" button. It puts a lot of nice stuff at your fingertips. I don't like Sony's lens lineup much. My big complaint is they pretty much have starter stuff, and pro stuff, with very little in the middle. Tamron is a good option, but Sony doesn't offer much for the "advanced amateur." Because Canon's stuff is more popular, it is a lot easier to find good second hand stuff. With Sony it is easier to find someone that doesn't know what they have, and they sell you some nice older lenses for next to nothing.

In the end I switched to Canon from Sony for two reasons... availability of used (and even new) lenses and accessories, and the better high ISO capability. Those were important to me. Don switched the other way a couple of years ago because he was sick of paying for IS with every single lens. It depends on your needs. Unfortunately, it is hard to figure out what is important to you until you have shot with one or the other for a while.

Great post laydros, very much information :-)

I can't figure out if you're pro-Sony or Canon, I see you switched to Canon for a very specific reason, but if I read between the lines, I feel you like Sony better ?

What's this about Sony a330 not having HD video ??? If it doesn't, it's going to be a nobrainer picking the Canon D500 with the Tamron 18-270 :-)

I have borrowed a Sony A350 and a Canon 450D, I like the smaller house on the Canon and the grip, but I beliewe the colors are a bit cold on the Canon. I'm still in doubt, but if the new Sonys doesn't have video, then I'm definately going for the Canon 500D.

Carsten

Looks like you are bound for Canon movie-land. Excuse me while I slip on my "swift-kick" boots, as we see you to the door.

Attachment 45987

In the meantime, the TAMRON lens should improve the color, though. Canon's tend to be a little "icy." Remember, if you shoot JPEG ... no matter what the lens ... the Canon sensor/internal processing will automatically color correct. If you shoot RAW .. you will see the TAMRON effect.

BTW: Good luck with your ... uh, movie-camera. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calun

Great post laydros, very much information :-)

I can't figure out if you're pro-Sony or Canon, I see you switched to Canon for a very specific reason, but if I read between the lines, I feel you like Sony better ?

What's this about Sony a330 not having HD video ??? If it doesn't, it's going to be a nobrainer picking the Canon D500 with the Tamron 18-270 :-)

I have borrowed a Sony A350 and a Canon 450D, I like the smaller house on the Canon and the grip, but I beliewe the colors are a bit cold on the Canon. I'm still in doubt, but if the new Sonys doesn't have video, then I'm definately going for the Canon 500D.

Carsten

---

Ha, funny. Might be true. I kinda dislike Sony in general, I don't like some of their practices, and I think they somehow have convinced people they make great electronics, which are really just overpriced. But I have a little loyalty to the SLR cameras. I guess my loyalty is to Minolta.

The REALLY IMPORTANT THING is that it doesn't much matter what brand you go with. A camera is a tool. In reality any camera you buy is going to take great pictures, most of what matters is what YOU do. Don't get too worried about the brand. I do think if you plan on getting really serious, you are better off with Canon or Nikon. It can be done with Sony, but it is an uphill battle. If you just want a great camera to have some fun with and not worry about off camera lighting, fast lenses, prime lenses, etc, then just find the best deal. And I think Sony often is.

Jason ... I cannot agree with all that you are saying, but I am totally supportive about your right to feel any which way you want. We all make choices, for a variety of reasons. If a stone falls left or right, it may be cause for a change of course. Who knows?

If you are a Minolta-fan ... the SONY would seem to be the practical choice to continue your pursuit and use the older equipment you have acquired. There are people coming to SONY for the first time. They also have an investment in seeing it become successful. Each has a reason for their choice, both equally valid and not necessarily final in any way.

Let's hope SONY grows and eventually spins off the Camera Division, so that it is not in lock step with SONY's larger corporate plans, otherwise it will probably never aspire to being a complete camera system. I can easily see limited growth on the horizon, due to a number of things. Minolta ran into money problems and their business plan faded to so must dust, but they still had exciting equipment plans and ideas. Those have lived on, but requires a back-fill of the prior 35% of Minolta Camera Division that was lost during acquisition. Stuff like the original MACRO ring-light, hot-shoe devices and various lens ideas. Should that be accomplished, then the real corporate fight can begin for marketshare domination. It is often tough being on the ground floor of a growing system. It takes some faith and a little bit of luck to get to the next level. Eventually, the two major players will be pushed off their pedestals and will either have to grow as well, or watch their remaining marketshare reduce to so much ash ... with a good ol' ash-kicking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Jason ... I cannot agree with all that you are saying, but I am totally supportive about your right to feel anyway you want. We all make choices, for a variety of reasons. If a stone falls left or right, it may be cause for a change of course. Who knows?

If you are a Minolta-fan ... the SONY would seem to be the practical choice to continue your pursuit and use the older equipment you have acquired. There are people coming to SONY for the first time. They also have an investment in seeing it become successful. Each has a reason for their choice, both equally valid and not necessarily final in any way.

Let's hope SONY grows and eventually spins off the Camera Division, so that it is not in lock step with corporate plans, otherwise it will probably never aspire to being a complete camera system. I can easily see limited growth on the horizon, due to a number of things. Minolta ran into money problems and their business plan faded to so must dust, but they still had exciting equipment plans and ideas. Those have lived on, but requires a back-fill of the prior 35% of Minolta Camera Division that was lost during acquisition. Should that be accomplished, then the real corporate fight can begin for marketshare domination. It is often tough being on the ground floor of a growing system. It takes some faith and a little bit of luck to get to the next level. Eventually, the two major players will be pushed off their pedestals and will either have to grow as well, or watch their remaining marketshare reduce to so much ash ... with a good ol' ash-kicking!

---

It is funny to read the history of some of this stuff. As far as I am learning, there was a time that Pentax offered some of the best pro stuff, and now they are really lacking in that area. Nikon was way ahead on Canon for years. Most pros didn't even consider Canon until the EOS system came out. Before auto-focus Nikon was way in front, with (again, if I understand correctly) Olympus, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax all serving as distant runner ups.

I think thing can change. We may see Canon or Nikon knocked down. However it has been many years since those two weren't way out in the lead. Right now, in my opinion, Canon or Nikon offer the better systems for my level. And I honestly lost a lot of faith in Sony at PMA. I was expecting some real solid announcements, and instead we got some concept car business. And the new consumer bodies don't make me feel any more confident that they are taking the camera system very seriously.

I hope I am wrong, if nothing else for the sake of competition. And I have stated that if I start making money, I might be very interested in a Sony FF and the corresponding 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 combo. There is some really nice stuff there. But for now that gap between the A300 with kit lens and the A900 with CZ 24-70 seems pretty empty.

For example, tomorrow I'm planning to buy a very good quality 85mm telephoto prime with a silent ring focusing motor. And it costs less than $400.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laydros

It is funny to read the history of some of this stuff. As far as I am learning, there was a time that Pentax offered some of the best pro stuff, and now they are really lacking in that area.

---

I just spoke to my friend with the brick & mortar camera shop, here in town, on the phone. Strangely, we discussed the plight of Pentax, of all things! He was of the sincere opinion that Pentax my not survive the next year. Their stint with Samsung (which is a huge company) has run its course and they're out. That does not bode well for expansion ... and it speaks volumes of retraction and disintegration ... hence, adios Pentax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laydros

For example, tomorrow I'm planning to buy a very good quality 85mm telephoto prime with a silent ring focusing motor. And it costs less than $400.

---

Remember to use your tripod with it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Remember to use your tripod with it. ;)

---

LOL, I bet that's the one thing Laydros misses is the built in stabilization. (maybe I'm wrong). That's the first thing I would miss on lenses like this. But when you can afford to bump the ISO 1 stop, it does help to some extent.