Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Quote Originally Posted by jcray19 View Post
    Alright guys, I am currently looking around at shopping for a new camera body. I am curious as to what you guys think. I own an a100 with the kit lens (yes I know, throw it out), a Minolta 50mm f/1.7, the Sony 75-300 f/4.5-5.6, and I am currently waiting on a Tamron AF 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 IF XR to get here. Oh yeah, I also have the Sony FVL-F58AM flash with a Gary Fong light diffuser. My question is, should I buy a new camera body? And, if so, which would be suggested?
    By now you will have gathered that the group don't think much of your current lens choice and reckon your money is best spent on at least one good lens. How you proceed depends on how much money you can spend and how soon you will be able to spend some more.
    Quite frankly, the noise produced on a shot from the a100 at ISO 800 is rather disappointing. I dont want to buy something better but still have disappointing shots at "high" ISO settings. I know that this kind of comes with the territory, but is it any better on the a380, or a550?
    Your spending decision here depends on how often you use ISO800 and how frustrating you find it. To be more specific, for noise free images (given a 30dB S/NR) good results will be obtained for the ...
    A100 ISO @ 400
    A700 ISO @ 600
    A450/550 ISO @ 800 (similar to D300s)
    A850/900 ISO @ 1400
    Also, is I am going to spend the money on the new body should I SAVE and get the full frame a850 or a900? Speaking of which, what is the major difference between the a850 and a900?
    How much cash do you have? Many of us, but by no means all, would choose the FF option; I think it depends if you grew up with film cameras or not. However most of us can't afford FF as well as good glass. To be more spicific in answer to the question ...
    3 frame/second continuous mode, vs 5 fps for A900
    98% viewfinder coverage, vs 100%
    IR remote is optional, not included in the box
    Sony say that the body, sensor, and electronics are identical to those of the A900, but there do seem to be very slight differences in IQ. Sony probably altered the colour filter but in practice there seems little to choose.
    Quote Originally Posted by jcray19 View Post
    One thing that I am interested in, and one of the main reasons I want a different body is I want to get a vertical grip. I enjoy taking a lot of portraits, and I think this would be a good add... The a100 does not accommodate for this, well outside of some cheap looking grip that just plugs into the remote shutter release port. It looks kind of redneck if you ask me.
    The Sony VG is pretty damned expensive which is why I don't have one although I did on my 9000. Personally I don't find it too difficult to handle the camera without the grip in P mode.
    Also the a550 "ad" on sony style says this : " Capture the decisive moment in sports with a fast shutter speed and 5 frames/sec continuous shooting (optical VF, 4 fps Live View). You can even shoot up to a blazing 7 frames/sec in Speed Priority mode. "
    5 fps sounds pretty good to me....
    This is pretty much nonsense IMHO. To be clear, in any sport that involves hitting, kicking, throwing a ball, the "decisive moment" the mention occurs at or fractionally after the point of contact with the ball. If the ball is not in the shot, then usually you've failed. Take Cricket for instance (Baseball may be similar), the ball contacts the bat at around 90mph. In 1/5th of a second (5fps) the ball will travel 26 feet so to simply rely on blazing away will surely guarantee you miss the shot; anticipation is the only way to go.

    5fps maybe helps when it's not possible to anticipate a decisive moment, but it's still pot luck.
    Does help with bracketting too.
    Honestly I am not a big fan of the live view technology, I think it kind of takes away from the art of SLR photography... There is nothing like handing your camera to someone to have them take your picture and then they say, "it's not showing up on the screen, is the camera turned off?"
    Ummm.....no ma'am you actually have to look through that little hole there. HA...
    That simplifies your choice then. The stripped down 450 or the 850 but, remember the price difference would fund a pretty good lens.
    Quote Originally Posted by jcray19 View Post
    Just out of curiosity what exactly is bad about the lenses I have, poor picture quality?
    When you say slow, are you talking about aperture size, focusing speed...?
    Both but mainly speed in aquiring focus.
    I don't want to/can't pay $3000.00 for a Sony G series telephoto lens.
    Well, a 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM is less than an 850 body as is a 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss as is a .....
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 01-12-2010 at 05:20 AM. Reason: Afterthought

Posting Permissions

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