Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    "Warin", why not collect all the IS-equipped lenses ... ? That should make quite a stack of expensive stuff. Quite a bag of zoom-glass, until you try to go with a sub-200mm PRIME or MACRO. Oops ... no-IS!

    With the SONY ... you can use ANY Minolta AF or SONY-mount lens (go ahead, count 'em ... oops, that's ALL of them) ... and you instantly get IS with it, now matter what it is (Zooms, PRIMES, MACROS, Tilt-shifts ...) or what it costs ... $25 to $25,000! That's right, folks ... IS with them all!

    What does "slightly better IS" have to do with it ... if it's simply not there?


    Stop it, Don. It's just not fair when you're making sense.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-05-2008 at 03:18 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    752
    Whatever you choose, choose it for the right reason. Otherwise, you'll buy into the wrong system and spend a lot of money trying to switch. Play with every manufacturer's cameras hands-on and take it from there.
    Last edited by Jason25; 02-05-2008 at 02:50 PM. Reason: removed potential pissing match inducing content
    Jason
    http://www.jmodzikphoto.com
    Save $5 on Zenfolio using RKS-T9C-M8G
    Flickr
    D200 - Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 30/1.4 - 50/1.8 - 55/3.5 Ai Micro w/PK-13 - 70-300 VR - SB-600 - Gitzo GT2530 + Markins M10

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,222
    My opinion on this matter would be to wait it out for a couple months. Sure you could jump on the 40D now, but the XSi comes out in April, and at least on PAPER, appears to be just as good of a camera as the 40D at 400 dollars cheaper.

    You will also then know the price of the new Sony's. Which if the past is any indicator will be WAYYY to expensive for what they are at first, but after a while, the price will become reasonable and competitive the A700 now is 1,400 body only.

    So I would go with a Sony for the in-body stabilization- IF and only IF priced right- or a Canon, so you'll have more money for accessories like lenses.

    As for in-body vs. in-lens stabilization, i won't even touch on that, being that it's such a controversial issue and tempers flare and people's feelings get hurt and others get banned.

    But the only thing i will say about stabilization is that it becomes a moot point if you learn to use a flash right.

    ~Cory
    Canon 50D; 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS, 50 F1.8, BG-E2n

    Downtrodden's Flickr - Deviant Art: LAME

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,222
    OR, you could check into a used body and leave an even bigger budget for nice lenses...
    Canon 50D; 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS, 50 F1.8, BG-E2n

    Downtrodden's Flickr - Deviant Art: LAME

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by downtrodden View Post
    OR, you could check into a used body and leave an even bigger budget for nice lenses...
    That's what I would do. Older models are easy to come by on the cheap nowadays. Not to mention one doesn't have to worry so much about scratching or bumping their nice new shiny toy
    Jason
    http://www.jmodzikphoto.com
    Save $5 on Zenfolio using RKS-T9C-M8G
    Flickr
    D200 - Tokina 12-24 - Sigma 30/1.4 - 50/1.8 - 55/3.5 Ai Micro w/PK-13 - 70-300 VR - SB-600 - Gitzo GT2530 + Markins M10

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    1,068
    I have the E-3 and am completely happy, so let me give my spiel: no problems with AF, and I personally think a goodly proportion of the reported problems are teething issues having to do with using the completely new system (new vis a vis the system used on earlier E-system cameras). If you need 14MP, the new Sony may be interesting, though I doubt they're the best company for lenses. Speaking of lenses, how many do you need? Olympus is an optical company, and they placed a lot of their development yen in producing a stable of excellent designed-for-digital lenses before ramping up their body development, but as of November the figures for made-for-digital lenses were:

    Olympus: 20 (total 34 lenses counting other manufacturers)
    Canon (EF-S): 7
    Nikon (DX): 10
    Sony (DT): 7
    Pentax (DA): 11

    Olympus itself produces three levels of lenses, and the intermediate and top pro level are all dust and splashproof. The E-3 is also, of course.
    There may be some difference between in-body and in-lens IS systems in terms of ultimate effect (in-lens people claim theirs is better), but at the level of the E-3, the difference is minimal. I prefer having all my lenses stabilized without the cost in weight and $$ of dedicated in-lens systems. As always, YMMV, different strokes, etc. All the cameras you mention will take excellent pictures in the right hands.
    "...and only the stump, or fishy part of him remained."
    Green Gables: A Contemplative Companion to Fujino Township

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Lightbulb Glass makes more difference than most people think ...

    Cameras might deliver similar results, Norm ... but your glass ... there's good and bad. Excellent and sad. You have to exercise some caution ... not everything is wonderful in HappyLand. I mean, if it were so, there would not be such a delta in the pricing between them.

    Look at the 70-300mm lens, alone ... SONY just released a G-series for $800 ... but, you can get the same range for about $150 from Canon, SIGMA, or TAMRON. Heck, even SONY has another 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 for $229. What's the difference? Obviously, someone thinks they are on to something. Is improved Chromatic Aberration compensation and a quiet lens motor worth an additional $600? For an outdoor lens? I know I'm hard pressed to be a "believer" to spend that kind of scratch for one of the most common lenses on the planet, short of the 50mm. I still believe $800 would be much better spent on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Sheesh!

    Unless your pockets are bulging, I don't see this as a 'mover." Still, the point is ... good glass is essential to your photography. You often look for sharpness in all your shots. That crispness that says to the viewer ... "Nicely done."
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-05-2008 at 09:46 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    the a350 has absoultely no place in a thread where the OP is looking at a Canon 40D, Nikon d300 Oympus E-3, and the Sony a700. come on, the a350 shoots at 2fps for God's sake. i mean that downright criminal for a dslr. and 14mp ? Don, come on...i hope YOU are not subscribing to the MP war are you ? more MP does not necesarily mean better camera and/or better perfomance.

    this of course will entirely depend on your shooting needs. the best value i would say from all of those you originally mentioned is the 40d. you're paying a premiu for the d300's features and build but you may never need it. i agree with cory here, look closely at the xsi aswell. the difference you save in bodies can go to some very nice glass indeed.

    the LV in the d300 and 40d are not very effective for anything other that studio or macro. the E3 is a great LV system with the flip screen making it incredibely versatile. as already mentioned, if in body IS is your thing, then the a700, E3 and pentax k20d all look like very good options.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    No ... a sensor is a sensor ... but, noise improvement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    Don, come on...i hope YOU are not subscribing to the MP war are you ?
    Even though I totally recommended the α700 earlier in this thread, I personally don't give two hoots what camera you want to use ... if you shoot through bad glass ... you are just screwing yourself. There's no excuse for shooting with poor optics other than just being cash-strapped.

    I will support the idea of limiting noise at high ISOs ... as a desireable goal. But, you can shoot ISO-400 on most cameras and reduce that to a tolerable level. Yes, even the α100

    I know we're not all made of money ... okay ... but don't believe a great camera is going to make your poor glass shoot any better. Lenses stand on their own. Bad glass on a Nikon D40 ... is still bad glass on a Nikon D3, except you have a $5000 camera hanging off it.

    I believe I've put together a respectable and cost-effective glass collection. I have one or two lenses I still am interested in adding, and yes, I have some older stuff, too ... but, it all has value for comparisons and examination. I don't shoot through it all or carry it all, but it's there and I don't see much value in dumping it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-05-2008 at 10:26 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    OP, go to a camera store and try them out. See what's comfortable for ya.
    Quality wise they are within percentage points of each other. This is not 1999-2003 when the gaps were far larger.
    Good luck.
    Also, don't be afraid to get a used body as already recommended- it could save you a lot and open up the budget for some quality glass.
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •