Dilemma dilemma

[chunfye]

I am currently using a Sony Alpha 100 with 18-70mm and 70-300mm lenses. So far I am quite happy with it apart from a couple of areas:
- The lenses are quite noisy when auto focusing
- Images got noisy when I shoot at ISO > 400

I read some review which commented the quality of these kit lenses are quite poor and cant really get the best out of the camera. So I am thinking of getting better lenses but am unsure if I should stick to Sony. I read many reviews that recommend either Nikon or Canon. Some recommend Olympus also. I am not sure if I should carry on with Sony or switch to Nikon, Canon or Olympus. Could anyone advise?

Many thanks in advance!!!

[djwixx]

Sony are getting good reviews in general, but I suspect the majority of people will recommend NIkon or Canon. The big question is what will your budget be? Unless you're willing to spend $1,500+ on a camera body only, I think you'll find the noise above ISO400 similar on most cameras in the same price range. With Nikon, the D300 will probably be your best option and with Canon the 40D. The lenses are the important piece. Depending on what money you are looking to invest,it may be wise to consider the lens options available for Sony. The kit lenses are always a compromise with whoever you go for, so you need to figure out what you want to do then invest in lenses around that. You might want to consider some of the lens options from Tamron or Tokina. Most would argue that the build quality won't be up to NIkon or Canon, but unless you're a pro you won't notice the difference. Another option might be to consider plugins like NeatImage or Noise Ninja to see if that cleans up the noise sufficiently (post processing) with the equipment you already have.

[chunfye]

Thanks for the advise Dave. I am just picking up photography and would like to follow a system so that I won't be wasting money when I have to give up a bunch of lenses when switching to another system. In your opinion, is the Sony with Sony/ Carl Zeise lenses worth the money? The alpha 700 is actually pretty pricey as compared to the rest of the competition.

[djwixx]

Thanks for the advise Dave. I am just picking up photography and would like to follow a system so that I won't be wasting money when I have to give up a bunch of lenses when switching to another system. In your opinion, is the Sony with Sony/ Carl Zeise lenses worth the money? The alpha 700 is actually pretty pricey as compared to the rest of the competition.

People are buying the Sony so it implies it's worth the money. Another way to look at it, it what equipment is out there secondhand? How likely are you to be able to sell and buy Sony versus Nikon/Canon. I would suggest Nikon/Canon are more available and hence also more saleable should you grow out of some equipment.

My guess is that Canon have the slight edge over Nikon, because of the 1D and the L lenses, but I think the D300/D3 is doing a lot to address that imbalance. With Nikon, the F mount is decades old, so you can buy almost any Nikon lens and mount it on a new Nikon with some functionality.

Personally I don't like Sony products mainly because of their insistance on proprietory formats and cost loading, but that's just me.

Again, the lenses are the important piece. There's little point having a $2,000 camera and putting a $200 lens in it!

[dharden]

Careful with the Nikons. Great cameras but you can only use lenses with integral motors on the D40 and D60. The D80 is an excellent body but is getting on a little in digital terms now. Canon have a very good body in the 40D and the 400D is also pretty capable for the money (not seen a review of the 450 yet...)

A friend has just bought the Sony Alpha 200 (same sensor as the 100 I think, possibly revised) with kit lens for about £370, which is much cheaper than you'd get the Canon/Nikon equivalent for. It does seem to get a little noisy over ISO 400 but it's not bad and careful exposure will help to minimise it.

Definitely get yourself a better lens than the standard 18-70. It struggles on the old 6mp Konica Minolta 5D body that another friend of mine has and just doesn't resolve enough detail for the higher megapixel bodies. A truly excellent lens for someone on a budget is the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC. I had it on my 20D before I got L lenses and it was terrifically sharp, good AF (not easy to get with third party lenses on the 20D), lovely build quality and fairly good colour, although the Sigmas do tend to be a little 'yellow' (but nowhere near as bad as a Tamron 17-35 Di I owned for a few months!). I got 'L' lenses when I bought a Canon 5D body but the Sigma went to my mate's 400D and it produces some wonderful images on that. Tamron's 17-50 f2.8 is well regarded too and I think Tokina have a 16-40 or similar out now but I can't profess to know anything about it.

In Sony's own range, the Zeiss should be pretty good and certainly leagues ahead of the 18-70 DT lens. None of these will change noise levels though (apart from affecting contrast and possibly noise as a side-effect of that) - that's down to exposure really. Turn sharpening to "Normal" or less to help a bit if it isn't already (doesn't accentuate it as much) and also try shooting RAW if you're up for doing your own processing to get more control over the final image. Personally I think Sony are going to keep improving and provide a serious challenge to the "bigger" camera brands. Canon and Nikon are (as already pointed out) much more saleable second hand though....ooh and don't forget Pentax - some really good bodies and lenses out there now. I can't see a reason to get an Olympus at the moment - apart from the "magnification factor" of the half size sensor. I haven't seen a review that scores them well for noise levels yet and the lenses can be quite pricey but then again some people will swear by 'em.


I think if I were in your position right now I'd look at getting a new lens and using the body I'd got to learn with - it's more than capable enough. In the days of film most people didn't shoot over ISO400 much at all - it was all about learning how to get the best out of the equipment - and of course still is (plus you've got built in stabilisation so unless your subject moves during exposure you're a couple of ISO ratings better off already!). If you can do it well with your current body then a camera with good ISO800 upwards will be a doddle to use in the future!

I hope some or all of that proves useful to you?

cheers

(another) Dave

[chunfye]

Thanks again Dave. Agree with your view. I only found out about the proprietory after I bought my alpha 100. I might have opted for Canon 400D otherwise. Apart from Nikon and Canon, there is still Olympus which is more affordable. Why aren't there many recommendations for Olympus?

[chunfye]

Thanks Dave (dharden). They certainly help a lot. I am actually pretty happy with my Alpha 100 apart from the noise. Just pondering on whether should I continue with Sony and get new lenses or switch to either Nikon or Canon.

[djwixx]

Thanks Dave (dharden). They certainly help a lot. I am actually pretty happy with my Alpha 100 apart from the noise. Just pondering on whether should I continue with Sony and get new lenses or switch to either Nikon or Canon.

The noise is fixable in post processing, with Noise Ninja or Neat Image etc, you'll be surprised at how well it cleans up. Also take it off Auto ISO and keep it at ISO100/200 and play with controlling and handling the noise before deciding on a larger investment. Any camera will introduce noise as you up the ISO - it's normal. Even at the pro end of the market you'll get noise at higher ISOs. The trick is knowing when to use it and how to control it. A faster lens, i.e. a wider aperture will reduce your need to rely on ISO in relavant situations.

Check out http://www.dpreview.com for camera reviews. I guarantee almost every camera review will say the noise gets bad at ISO X.

Ignoring the noise, does the Sony feel good in your hands and does it generally give you results you like? If the answer is yes then stick with it and explore lens options. If the answer is no, then look at other cameras and consider the ergonomics, functionality and results relative to your preference.

Each person will tell you their preference but it will be based on what they use. It will ultimately be down to what works for you.

[chunfye]

Thanks again Dave. I have got it!

[ericvision]

Be aware that the Konica Minolta 70-300mm lens is the best budget lens in that range available in terms of image quality. Better than Canon and Sigma (I have owned both) and better than Nikon (from comparing with a friend's lens). I don't know if the Sony version is as high quality, but since they bought the manufacturing process lock, stock and barrel, I assume that they are.

Canon will give you noise above ISO400 also.

Sony Alphas are good cameras; they feel very well built, especially for their price. They feel nicer in the hand than my Canon. If you're having problems with noise, you probably just have to make an adjustment to your post-processing or try out some different software packages.

Happy shootin'!

[chunfye]

Thank you gentlemen for the information and advice. I have gone to some local camera shops to have a feel of both Nikon and Canon.

I don't really like the ergonomics of Canon. The 450D don't really feel comfortable in my hands. 40D feels better but it's a bit too heavy for me. Nikon D80 is pretty comfortable for me but I didnt got to try the D300. To be honest, I like my A-100 better in terms of ergonomics and menu selection. It's pretty easy to understand and use. Nevertheless, I felt both Nikon and Canon focus faster than my A-100 and the lens is much quieter. However, I find that the build of the kit lens for Canon pretty bad (both 18-55 IS and 17-85 IS). It's kind of lose. Probably it's a display unit and have been used for ages. Nikon kit lens is much better (18-135) but without stabilizer.

I am considering a few lens for my A-100:
1. Tamron 18-250
2. Tamron 28-300
3. Sony 16-105

I have read good reviews for both Tamrons and the Sony and Tamron do produce Sony mount lens. Just wonder if the lens mount can be altered to suit other cameras like Nikon or Canon if I decided to swith to either in the future and would the focusing speed of these lens be better than my 18-70 kit lens.

[djwixx]

Thank you gentlemen for the information and advice. I have gone to some local camera shops to have a feel of both Nikon and Canon.

I don't really like the ergonomics of Canon. The 450D don't really feel comfortable in my hands. 40D feels better but it's a bit too heavy for me. Nikon D80 is pretty comfortable for me but I didnt got to try the D300. To be honest, I like my A-100 better in terms of ergonomics and menu selection. It's pretty easy to understand and use. Nevertheless, I felt both Nikon and Canon focus faster than my A-100 and the lens is much quieter. However, I find that the build of the kit lens for Canon pretty bad (both 18-55 IS and 17-85 IS). It's kind of lose. Probably it's a display unit and have been used for ages. Nikon kit lens is much better (18-135) but without stabilizer.

I am considering a few lens for my A-100:
1. Tamron 18-250
2. Tamron 28-300
3. Sony 16-105

I have read good reviews for both Tamrons and the Sony and Tamron do produce Sony mount lens. Just wonder if the lens mount can be altered to suit other cameras like Nikon or Canon if I decided to swith to either in the future and would the focusing speed of these lens be better than my 18-70 kit lens.

Without knowing Sony I would suggest the 16-105 will be the better lens for quality because of the reduced range, but it seems expensive for what it is. If you look in most pro (and I'm nowhere near) bags they will either be using prime lenses (single focal length) or zoom lenses with a limited focal range, i.e. 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 etc., and quick lenses, i.e. F2.8. The one thing that puts me off the Tamron's (and Sony) is the F6.3 as the widest aperture at the long end. That will make the lens slow (shutter speed) and hence need very good light to get decent shots. The longer the zoom range the more compromises the lens will have. As already pointed out the 70-300 would be an excellent lens for range and quality and the older Minolta should fit the Sony.

Given a brief look around I'm struggling to find quality new Sony lenses in the price range that Canon and Nikon can give you. That in itself is a put off. Another thought is that you are not getting many Sony fans jumping all over this forum making suggestions, so that in itself may be a clue? Again that may suggest Canon and Nikon (and Olympus) may be the default equipment that many are using?

One thing that might help is to define what you are interested in taking shots of. You can find an 'all in one' lens but remember it will be a compromise and by using an 'all in one' lens you may not realize the benefits of a 'quality' lens.

You can cross mount lenses but I wouldn't recommend it unless you know the specifics of what the lens is giving you and are happy with the loss of functionality that will happen and know how to make the most of the lens manually. I don't know of many people that do it, and those that I do know of are extremely serious pros!

Looking at Sony's website below are reasonably priced lenses and the order I'd choose them in, but that's my own preference for my own reasons. Again, what do you want to achieve?
SAL-1680Z - Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5
SAL-24105 - 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5
SAL-1870 - 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6
DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6
SAL-55200 55-200mm f4-5.6
SAL-75300 - f/4.5-5.6

Try the SAL-50F14 - 50mm f/1.4 Lens for an almost reasonable price to see what a solid prime can give you and once you see the difference I guarantee you won't look at any other cheap 'all in one' lenses again

I was posting this as Dharden was replying and I agree with everything he has stated.

P.S. With regards to menu'ing I'd put that at the bottom of your list of concerns. If the camera is set out the way it should be you'll hardly ever need it. If you have to flip through the menus to setup then you've already lost the shot you wanted.

[dharden]

It's not just the lens mount that differs - the electronics do too! So no, not really practical if you change brands, unless as pointed out you wish to rely on manual focus....

Your main challenge to getting noise to a minimum is careful exposure, possibly followed by careful processing (using RAW if you're up for it). Canons do indeed give noise above ISO400 but tend to be (only slightly) lower levels. The 5D is particularly good but you pay for it! 1D series are as good as it gets but silly prices for us 'non pros'. Nikons are generally held to give a noise pattern a bit closer to film grain, which is more pleasing to the eye....

Ergonomically I hate Canons (ironic cos I've got two, but there's a reason for that if you read the blurb on my main gallery index). Nikons are much nicer to use and so are K-M / Sony bodies. HOWEVER it is quite a subjective thing and some people will find the opposite of my experiences to be true for them. There's no substitute for trying a body out yourself.

I did have a 17-85 IS Canon and thought it pretty terrible to be honest. Not particularly sharp at all. The Sigma 17-70 even without a stabiliser beat it hands down. Can't comment personally on the Nikon lens but I believe its quite a reasonable performer?

For the Alpha, I think you're looking at the Sony 16-105 vs the Tamron 18-250 from your shortlist. Don't bother with the 28-300 lens - not wide enough at the wide end (equivalent view of a 42mm lens in full frame terms) and not enough light coming in at the 300mm end really (unless it's sunny a lot). In fact for all these lenses, even with stabilisation, if your subject moves you're stuffed.....

I seriously recommend you check out the Sigma 17-70, with perhaps a used K-M 70-300 lens for longer shots. You'll get better images than any of the three lenses you mentioned would provide.

I really don't see you gaining anything much by changing brands at the moment. Invest in some decent glass (as good as budget will permit) and read up on best shooting and processing techniques. This will have much more impact on your images than changing to Canon or Nikon or anyone elses brand, in my view.

HTH!

[chunfye]

Thanks Dave(s). I have been looking at reviews on lenses these few days and I agree with you that there isn't much choice for me at the moment. The lenses are not cheap as compared to those of Nikon or Canon. A 50mm F1.4 Sony lens will cost me SGD699. An equivalent from Nikon costs only slightly above SGD500 while a 50mm F1.8 costs only SGD200. Sony lenses seem pretty expensive as compared to others while I am not sure if the quality are superior.

Believe it or not, my alpha 100 kit cost me only SGD1,400 and the kit lenses retail price are SGD700 combined. I guess Sony is making money back from lens sales.

I am still undecided whether to switch to either Nikon or Canon or stay on with Sony at the moment. But I do agree with dharden that I should prioritize in picking up shooting techniques and post processing skills.

Thanks again Dave(s).

[marcoz852]

is to expensive in my opinion