Considering a Sony SLR...

[calun]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...ilization.html

That has a lot of info in it, but probably won't help make your decision, unfortunately.

It seems like they both are about equivalent overall, I mean there are differences, but it definitely varies person to person (how steady are you?).

Great post, thanks. Read the article and came to wonder, will the "Tamron AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) LD Aspherical (IF) Macro" lense work well with the Canon 500D ? (Came to think about this, that I read there's some special electronics inside the lense that "speaks" with the house).

When you buy the Tamron lense, do you have to choose which camera to use it with ? (in other words, are the build and electronics inside the lense different from i.e Sony to Canon ?)

Thanks and goodnight from Denmark (now 00:05 :-))!

[dr4gon]

Yes, each mount is different and specific for each mount (Nikon F, Canon Eos, Sony Alpha, Micro 4/3 for olympus/pentax).

[seanhoxx]

My knowledge is based on Sony use and lots of reading. It seems to me that in lens stabilization is 'better' at longer focal lengths, but in body stabilizes every lens. I think the best use of in body is like Ryan says low light slow shutter speeds. I really have to work on a firm steady grip, the SSS in the alpha really helps out. Talking about new cameras and all for Sony I think we all agree getting the high ISO noise issues worked out should be their priority, but what about a 3 position SSS switch, 'off normal and high" have the high apply about a third or a half again as much stabilization then the normal does.

[Rooz]

the main benefit of sony is the in-body IS. if you;re not gonna buy older lens' and all you;re doing is bolting a superzoom tamron that has IS in the lens, then i dont know why you'd consider a son to be honest. what you will need with that superzoom is the ability to shoot at higher iso's to keep the shutter speed up.sony has an iso issue and the rebels seem to have some AF issues right now apparently so i'd be looking at a d5000 or a d90.

[dr4gon]

the main benefit of sony is the in-body IS. if you;re not gonna buy older lens' and all you;re doing is bolting a superzoom tamron that has IS in the lens, then i dont know why you'd consider a son to be honest. what you will need with that superzoom is the ability to shoot at higher iso's to keep the shutter speed up.sony has an iso issue and the rebels seem to have some AF issues right now apparently so i'd be looking at a d5000 or a d90.

Makes sense, in which case, do you really need an SLR? There are quite a few nice superzoom cameras out there that are a lot more compact and would save you some money. Just throwing that out there.

[Elisha]

Rooz does the T1i have an AF issue?
i know most Canon's have slowish AF except the 50D and the 1D series!

[Rooz]

Makes sense, in which case, do you really need an SLR? There are quite a few nice superzoom cameras out there that are a lot more compact and would save you some money. Just throwing that out there.

yepp, very good point. cheaper, lighter, longer zoom. sure its no dslr, but does the OP really need one ?

Rooz does the T1i have an AF issue?
i know most Canon's have slowish AF except the 50D and the 1D series!

there are alot of rumblings about inconsistent and inaccurate AF on the newer rebels. no probs with the 40d/50d. they both work great. droopy just went to a 50d from a rebel and he had a couple of rebels with the same AF issues.

[laydros]

Garsh. I missed a lot in this thread... lets see what I can remember..

I think Calun was questioning if the T1i was available in Europe. It is, but outside of the USA and Japan, it is called 500D.

As for the 85, I bought it to shoot people. If I need a slow enough shutter speed I can't hand hold, my subject is suffering from motion blur anyway. Yes there will be a time that I will shoot a still subject, and I will wish I could use a slower shutter speed, but that is WAY better than just not having an 85mm prime because I can't afford a $1400 CZ 85mm. I know the CZ is a little bit better lens, but it just wouldn't be a possibility any time soon. ISO 800 + f/1.8 gives me a lot of room on shutter speed anyway. Plus this thing probably focuses faster.

I haven't heard about focusing issues with the new Rebel, but Canon has been having some trouble like that lately.

Engadget's recent review of the D5000 and T1i(500D) pretty strongly picked the Canon. But engadget isn't a camera site, and I personally would pick the D5000 because of the bigger handle size. One other point that seems nice to me is the 3" 640x480 screen on the Canon. That is a nice thing to have (the guys with A700s here enjoy a VGA screen). However Nikons movable screen is an advantage for other reasons.

I think a super zoom might be a good option, the only real loss is low light and shallow depth of field. That may or may not matter.

Don't forget IS won't do you any good if your subject is moving. Almost any shutter speed that you need IS for is too slow to capture a human unless they are posing, and even then it might be iffy.

I think that pretty much covers it. I did pick up the 85/1.8 USM today, along with a battery grip, kinda as graduation presents. That 85 is far and away my favorite lens I have ever used. The Tamron 17-50 is incredible, and will probably get way more use, but the 85 was the first lens to ever make me swoon.

[DonSchap]

I kind of had the same effect when I mounted the CZ 135 f/1.8 at Calumet Photographic. Sitting in the showroom ... I didn't want to take the darn lens off ... and then went right to the zoo and got this:

and this histogram ... showing intensity.



It was a real head-nodder ... and $1300 later ... "Expose me, baby!"

"Untouched" 100% crop of another shot ...



As you have experienced ... it's all in the GLASS.

[Elisha]

Poly want a cracker?