Play it safe with a D90 or take a risk with an alpha550?

cpjfox

7

13 Jul 2010 - 10:34 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Hey Guys,

Currently I'm shooting with a Canon SX20is which takes (comparatively) nice shots, but I've decided to start taking my photography a little more seriously, and have found the canon a little limiting in terms of programmability and of course the wonder that is .jpg for image quality.

I had a long soul search on the D90 vs Eos550, and decided in the end to go with the D90 as the smaller crop, and larger sensor should more suit the type of photography i do.

Please check my portfolio, it shows pretty much the main type of photography i like to do, though I may end up doing a little bit of portrait work, it won't be the priority.
http://www.ephotozine.com/u31633

The alternative I'm considering is a Sony Alpha550, whilst there are some negatives to them which i don't disagree with, the sensor sizes are up there with nikon, the tiltable screen is helpfull as i tend to take low or high perspective shots, and with the money i save on the body, i can invest in the zeiss lenses which are so often mentioned in the same realm as Leica, can i go wrong?

Ultimately none of the cameras I've mentioned are super 'serious' cameras, If i do get super serious about my photography I'll probably end up buying a Full Frame camera as well.

I keep hearing people say that the lens is ultimately more important than the body, so it seems like a alpha 550 with zeiss lenses may out shoot a D90 with kit lenses.

Thoughts?

cpjfox

7

13 Jul 2010 - 10:50 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

the two little niggles i have with the D5000 are the low screen resolution, and the lack of an AF drive motor which is fairly limiting for lens choices...

cpjfox

7

13 Jul 2010 - 11:01 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

That's a valid point, but i would doubt the D90's replacement will be cheaper, still leaving me in the kit lens boat.

strawman

8

13 Jul 2010 - 2:07 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Ok a couple of things. the crop difference between a D90 or an 550D is trivial. And the results difference will not be big either. I looked at your portfolio and it looks like you are not doing anything that pushes the lenses. It does look like you do low light work so that typically favours the CMOS sensors, so if you are looking at Sony have a hard look as they have been very slow at introducing CMOS sensors.

As for lenses, its a mixed bag and a lot of miss information gets spread. In short, mass produced lenses often have designed by etc stuck on them but they are designed to a mass market process and specification, i.e they are not that different from the rest. The top lenses are generally good, and their prices reflect that, but you often only see the real benefits of the top lenses when you use them at the edge of their performance i.e Wide open, or where you need fast AF or shoot into the sun etc. the rest is often durability, though in wide angles lenses you can get less distortion. But stick a lens on at F8 to F11 and print at A3 or smaller and it will be harder to split the photo's from a top notch lens from those of the kit lens.

Speaking from the Canon front, in general the L series and primes are best. There are a few crackers in the Sigma range with the EX tag. (Sigma's I think are good are the 10-20, 105 macro, 18-50 f2.8, 150-500 as good value for money (though not best lens) 70-300 APO MKII excellent value for money) Nikon and Sony too offer great top lenses, and the price reflects the general trend.

So the advice on picking lenses first is good. If wildlife is your bag then the Canon system has some mid price lens options that are good, think 400 f5.6 prime, 300 F4L and also 100-400. If its more moderate use, then nikon's kit lens is often a bit better made than the equivalent Canon, but the F4L series from Canon offer a price/quality balance that Nikon cannot meet (yet). But be in no doubt the F2.8 and top lenses from Nikon are pretty dammed good. At the entry level, Sony often sell camera and kit lenses at competitive prices, as do Olympus.

But do not expect to line up prints and see a massive difference at the same price point.

davey_griffo (e2 Member)

3

13 Jul 2010 - 6:54 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I have a Sony a550, & would heartilly recommend it to anyone. I bought into Sony because I got more for the same money. I was offered a Canon & Nikon single lens kits, or a Sony a350 twin lens kit. The Sony had lots of little extras like a built in focus motor (not on the low-end Nikons), built in IS (not on any Canon or Nikon), & the feature that finally sold it to me, the tilting screen. I often get envious glances at the club when others are grubbunbg around on their belly to get a low level shot, & I don't have to.

The trouble with this question is there's a lot of brand snobbery. You have to expect that a lot of people will have gone for Canon or Nikon because "they're best, aren't they?", not because they actually tried a few & found this to be the case.

Well actually they're not. The a550 has been compared a couple of times in group tests (one on EPZ) to the equivalent Nikon & in pure quality terms, was it's equal. In some areas, it was better. But the Nikon/Canon mostly wins because of that elusive "feel". Mostly, I suspect, because the tester themselves use one of the big 2, so are more familiar with the camera.

I'm not gonna try and tell you to buy Sony because they knock spots off a Nikon/Canon. All I'll say is don't dismiss other camera's out of hand. There are a lot of superb cameras from manufacturers who are neither Canon nor Nikon.

The Pentax K-X, for instance, won the best entry level camera this year in the TIPA awards. I had a Pentax ME-Super in the film days, when they were the ones chasing hard on the heels of Canon & Nikon, so I know they are good too.

If you decide to go full frame, Sony's are less than £2k. I've seen the a850 offered at around £1,500.00.

All I can say is, I've never regretted my choice, or looked enviously at a Nikon wielding colleague & thought "wish I'd gone for that".

The best advice is to go to a shop & try a few out. Have an idea of what features you consider important, & see which one you like the feel of, & best meets your needs feature-wise.

BTW. Camera Warehouse are throwing in a 55-200mm with the a550 & 18-55mm kit (£609.00) for free. Check out their website.

PS. I have to admit that Vince is right. The Zeiss lenses are designed by Zeiss, not built by them. Though they don't put their name to anything that doesn't meet their standards. I have a Zeiss 16-80mm, & I swear by it for quality.

They don't make the kit lenses.

All manufacturers have 2 or 3 tiers of lenses, and Sony is no exception. They have the cheap & cheerful, the pro G series, & the Zeiss astronomically priced.

cpjfox

7

13 Jul 2010 - 8:42 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote:

Do people seriously think that Ziess actually make the lens supplied as a Sony " Kit Lens " ....? ? ?



They shouldn't, I don't, the Kit lenses don't say Ziess. as mentioned above, I'm looking to get the sony so i can afford to not get the kit lenses, the Sony Zeiss lenses are priced around the same as the Canon or Nikon mid/high end lenses...

strawman

8

13 Jul 2010 - 11:30 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Yes Sony make the CMOS sensor for Nikon but they also have produced new DSLRs with CCD sensors when the others had moved on so it pays to check. As for which is the best it rolls backwards and forwards with camera models. The A380 is CCD for example. also you will find Nikon have aspects of the sensor design you do not get in Sony's own.

The other things to think on . In camera AF motors, perhaps of interest for the past, but going forwards its not a great solution. Also for Video and longer focal length in-lens stabilisation is best as it helps keep the viewfinder image steady and that helps keep the AF sensor over the focus point. But in-camera is handy as it works on all lenses and it works well at shorter focal lengths. So for Sony its important if you are getting/have old lenses but not important if you are buying new lenses.

Sony also have a few functional decisions and ergonomic features that annoy me, and its a surprise as the A700 was quite good, and the A900 is interesting, but then its like they forgot to carry things down to the lower cost units. So no depth of field preview (I mainly use it in live view for landscapes and macro work) and the lack of a second control wheel is disappointing and the restrictions over bracketing are a surprise. I guess they will make am A700 replacement sometime, its a good camera if you find one and has better handing than the A550 etc, but go try and see what you think.

I am not certain the D90 is at a disadvantage compared to the A550 even though it is a tad older, and if they were the only choice I would probably get the Nikon. But against the 550D and the canon lens line up.................

But go try a few cameras see how they feel in the hand and think about the future features etc you want. What one person likes another does not etc and it is all opinion, and yours counts more than anyone elses

Now the A850 makes more sense to me in the Sony range but that is a different price point

strawman

8

14 Jul 2010 - 2:14 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

When buying a camera there is the sensor plus the handling plus the ability to capture the image. Do not under-estimate the impact of handling and responses in the aspects of taking an image. From where I sit A700 and A550 image quality a draw so advantage A700 for handling. The A700 was the breakthrough for Sony, the A550 just an iteration of technology. In the same way the Canon 20D was a breakthrough camera, the 30D an iteration of technology.

as for Video the small depth of field is the attraction.

screw drive lenses a thing of the past really the faster in-lens motors work much better,