I am amateur photographer looking to buy my first digital SLR. Sony Alpha A100 DSLR has built-in image stabilization, but the reports are saying it has noise at high ISO settings. How important is IS for an amateur photographer versus better ISO quality in the Nikons and Canons? I travel alot in developing countries where it is usually not convenient to have a tripod, so IS would seem to be a big plus. Still, I'd like to hear from folks with more photography experience on whether this is a gimmick or whether this makes it a better deal than the Rebel XT or the D50/D80.
2006-08-13
15:39:49
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Didgeridude
4
in
Consumer Electronics
➔ Cameras
Thanks for all the helpful comments. I found this link that has a very good discussion of the tradeoffs between the image stabilization and the ISO performance:
www.a-digital-eye.net/?p=154
2006-08-17
07:15:11 ·
update #1
All of the cameras you mentioned are great and good value for money. Their strenghts boil down to this:
If you want to do long zooms hand held & on the cheap, get the Sony.
If you do a lot of night time photography, get the Canon.
If neither is a big priority, get the Nikon D80.
And get the D50 if you're on a tight budget or don't need the (advanced) features of the other models.
---
Sony A100:
The review at dpreview.com gives the A100 a 'highly recommended' but mentions that it only produces clean images up to ISO 400. So you'll have to use the flash at dusk and indoors.
Regarding Sony's 'Super SteadyShot', this is not a gimmick: it will let you shoot about 2 stops slower than normal and this is fantastic for long zooms.
---
Canon Rebel XT:
The Canon Rebel XT produces clean images up to ISO1600 and usable results at ISO 3200. The difference between ISO 400 (clean image Sony) and ISO 1600 (clean image Canon) is also two stops.
In theory, on the one hand you have a Sony where image stabilisation lets you slow down the shutter speed from 1/60th to 1/15th to get the shot, and on the other hand you have a Canon where you can crank the ISO up and keep shooting at 1/60th.
In practice, the Sony is better for long zooms and the Canon is better for low light.
With the Canon you can also add image stabilisation in the form of expensive lenses. This would make the Canon better in every situation.
The Rebel's only down side is the flimsy build quality. You'll have to pamper it a bit.
---
Nikon D50/ D80:
I personally use a Nikon D200, so I read the specs for the D80 with great interest. Of the four cameras you mentioned, the D80 is the most advanced, the best built, and the best all-around camera. It's also the most expensive of the four models.
Like the Canon, if you want image stabilisation, you'll have to buy expensive lenses. In terms of high ISO performance, it's midway between the Sony and the Canon. Recent Nikons produce clean images up to ISO 800 and usable picture at ISO 1600.
What I often do in low light situations is replace my f/2.8 zoom lens with a fast 50mm f/1.4 prime lens. You can do the same with Sony and Canon too, so this doesn't change the comparative advantage of the brands.
The D50 is the least advanced and cheapest of the four. Actually, it's price and simplicity are the only things going for it. Then again, if you don't need the features of the other models, maybe you shouldn't pay for them... With 6 Megapixels, the D50 will still produce great quality 8x10 inch prints.
---
Panacea's Sony R1:
Panacea's been plugging that thing for a month and I've been cautioning people for a month. The R1 actually is a great camera for what it is, but it has severe limitations compared to dSLR cameras. My main gripe is that it uses an electronic viewfinder. This viewfinder introduces a 1/10th second delay to the eye piece - before you ever press the shutter button. This makes it a lousy camera for action shots. It also fares poorly against the dSLR cameras in low light situations.
2006-08-13 21:38:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I have not shot with the Sony, but I have shot with its predecessor, the Minolta Maxxum 5D, which I found to be an excellent camera. The basics in the Sony are the same, so I feel OK commenting.
The stabilizer is the real deal. If you have a steady hand, it's worth three stops of effective lens speed. If the maximum aperture of your lens is f5.6, the stabilzer will let you shoot without blur at the shutter speeds otherwise obtainable with an f2 lens. That's a huge difference, especially with longer telephoto lenses, where motion blur ruins more pictures than any other problem. Keep in mind the rule of thumb that the shutter speed should not drop below the approximate focal length of the lens, so if you're lens is 300mm, you're not going to get away with shutter speeds below 1/250th of a second, and maybe not that low. The stabilizer brings the useful shutter speed down to 1/125th, maybe even to 1/60 if you have the steady hand I mentioned. Your results may vary.
Another way to look at it is that the stabilzer makes the camera's 400 ISO setting as good in low light as at least 1600 on an unstabilized camera/lens combo.
These are real advantages that I have proven to myself in actual shooting. I've shot a lot of motor racing over the years, so I know how to handle a telephoto, so I'm not talking theory here.
You say that a tripod usually isn't workable for you, so that makes the stabilizer even more valuable.
In a very short time, a couple of years at most, all SLRs or their lenses will have some sort of stabilizer. We're already seeing it in point and shoot cameras by Canon, Nikon and now Fuji. I think you would find it valuable.
BTW, the Canon 30D, Canon Rebel XT and the Nikon D50 and D70 have APS-C sized imaging sensors, not full 35mm sensors.
2006-08-14 21:04:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by dbaldu 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I have serveral bad experiences with Sony Mechanical engineering and build quality. The IS feathure is by means of a high speed motor and control ATTACHED to the sensor in the body of the camera. Moving the sensor is not a great idea. If the mechanics fail for any reason the camera is worthless. No more photography. End of shoot. If you get a Canon or Nikon IS lens and the IS fails in the lens you can still use the camera and lens. So all is not lost with a Canon or Nikon solution.
The Canon is great for night shoots. I have used my 5D at night for fireworks displays without a tripod. I shot using the ISO 3200 and the pictures are every bit as good as shooting with film at ISO 1600 with a tripod. I have IS lenses and I perfer to use my faster prime lenses for most shooting. Just have to use the old sneaker zoom method.
2006-08-14 10:53:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by bondoman01 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
To be honest, I don't even own a dig still camera, but I have a lot of experience with vidcams. I do stormchasing vids (and one of my vidcams also takes stills @ 2 megs), and image stabilization is very important to me. Things are pretty crazy sometimes while filming a thunderstorm.
I have had four Canons, because Canon had the best image stabilization when I bought my first one in 1999, and I have just stuck with Canon.
If you can go to a store and test several different brands, you'll probably get a much better idea of what is right for you than any answer you'll get here.
Good Luck!
(I have a few pics posted on my 360 page/blog. Take a look if you'd like a few samples of pics taken with Canon products. The newest one only was taken with the vidcam that does 2 meg stills.)
2006-08-13 22:58:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by BobBobBob 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
The bottomline is that the A100 is a craptastic camera compared to other entry level dSLR and is a MAJOR disappointment. There are several things that show up under testing that are just flat out unacceptable in digital SLR. The irony of this is that the Sony DSC-R1 has none of those problems and is a much better camera even though it is a fixed lens and much cheaper. Read these two reviews to see exactly what I am talking about:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_r1-review/index.shtml
One thing that is not at all obvious is that Sony manufactures the CCD sensors for the D series Nikon cameras. Those cameras perform much better than the A100 (so the problems with the A100 are more than its small sensor) but I really question if these cameras are nearly as good as the entry level dSLR that Canon makes (with full sized CMOS sensors).
I would definitely get a Canon EOS 30D over the D series or the A100:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_30d-review/
Buy the camera as the body only (kit lenses suck) and get a decent lens seperately. For about $360, this is the one I would recommend:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7443
Also, truck on down to your local Sony Style Store and play with the DSC-R1. You might find that camera a better choice than a dSLR for you.
2006-08-13 23:31:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋