[jmmtn4aj]

From what I've heard of the D40, about it being too light, I'd assume the Alpha feels better too. I tried it out at a local Sony store and was impressed by it's build quality and handling.. though, well, Sony isn't exactly a brand known for SLRs so I got a D50 instead. Nevermind the fact that Sony makes the CCD used in the D50

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif From what I've heard of the D40, about it being too light, I'd assume the Alpha feels better too. I tried it out at a local Sony store and was impressed by it's build quality and handling.. though, well, Sony isn't exactly a brand known for SLRs so I got a D50 instead. Nevermind the fact that Sony makes the CCD used in the D50

You think the D40 is light? Try some Canon Rebels...then we'll talk

 

[chych]

Regarding your images, I'm gonna say that the first flower image is the Alpha, second is the 717. I say this because typically P&S tend to oversaturate colors, where DSLRs keep a more neutral tone. You can boost the colors on the A100 using the 'Vivid' mode.

I believe the second screw-driver one is the Alpha; it has less DOF than the 717 version. P&S typically give more DOF than SLRs, so you need to worry about aperture control on SLRs to get good DOF. As for exposure, if you use the DRO+ option, it helps in getting better exposed images (I leave this on always for me).

On SLRs, you typically want to stop down your aperture to get more DOF, and lenses become sharper as you stop down (but too small of an aperture is bad too). I believe the Sony kit lens becomes the best around f12 or so, but f8 is a good place to be for most lenses. Usually you reduce this to reduce DOF/get faster shutter speeds.

Quote:

You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty. The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either... If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

I don't agree with this; the Sony kit lens is pretty decent, especially when stopped down a bit. And the A100 has one of the highest resolving powers of the current 10MP DSLRs, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page29.asp. The A100 kind of sacrifices noise reduction for pure resolution (which is a good thing, since noise reducing is irreversible once out of the camera); using post processing it is possible to go the other way and get low-noise shots at ISO800/1600 (and with better NR algorithms).

And keep in mind you have access to all the old Minolta AF lenses, many of which are quite good. I picked up a 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS to replace my kit lens for ~$120ish, and is much better (also got a 50/1.7 for $80 and a 70-210/4 for $150). Don't be discouraged by SLRs quite yet, they do take a bit of practice getting used to. But once you learn it, you'll get some interesting shots that are much harder to get with P&S.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif You think the D40 is light? Try some Canon Rebels...then we'll talk

I have the 300D, the Rebels don't even get included in the build-quality discussion

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif QFT: This is the main reason why I don't get purists. With traditional film based photography, a good photographer will spend a lot of time in the darkroom to get the right contrast (as higher tonal ranges can be hard on film and the digital that's shown on monitors and paper). They're all 8 bit per channel mediums: meaning that they can't capture the full instensity ranges of light. Ansel Adam's zone system is a method to control the amount of tone or intensity you can see in a photo. Simply, look for shadows when you're shooting, and define your highlights while developing. This compensates for the tonal limitations of film. When you shoot in RAW, you get improved range because it's 16bit per channel. Your monitor and printer, though, are 8bit/channel mediums....so you're not seeing the full value ranges that are actually in that image. This is why it's very important to do post processing in Photoshop IMO. When you burn and dodge a RAW image file, you'll actually be getting more detail then you were able to in the darkroom!! This is why I think Adams would have loved digital When you look at the business of photography, all fine art photographers spend more time developing/processing....to get the best control and detail. Comercial photographers such as advertising and sports do not spend much time in post because of time restraints and subject matter. Composition of the scene is the most important for them.

x2. Ansel Adams wrote 3 books, The Camera, The Negative, The Print. Those who don't believe in post processing are ignoring the third book. That said, some people go way overboard in the post processing

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Brand loyalty? Since he's moving up from the F717...

Not having to buy a different type of flash memory? When I bought a camera for my wife 2 years ago, I made sure it used compact flash so we could use the same cards in both cameras.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not having to buy a different type of flash memory? When I bought a camera for my wife 2 years ago, I made sure it used compact flash so we could use the same cards in both cameras.

That also. The DSC-F717 used the full-sized Memory Stick Pro cards (as opposed to the smaller Memory Stick Pro Duo); however, MS Pro Duo cards will work in the DSC-F717 with the cards' included adapter.

The DSLR-A100, unlike many low-priced DSLRs, actually has two memory slots: One accepts standard Compact Flash cards, the other accepts MS Duo/MS Pro Duo cards directly without the use of adapters. That way, if he's using an adapter with the DSC-F717, he could just set the adapter aside when that same MS Duo card is used in the DSLR-A100. (He may still need the adapter when he takes the memory card to a store for use in a store's self-serve digital photo kiosk, either self-contained or connected to an in-store minilab.)

On the other hand, even the Nikon D80 has only a single memory card slot - in this case, one which accepts SD (up to 2GB) or SDHC (4GB+) cards. (Ever noticed that Nikon's current-production lower-end DSLRs up to and including the D80 no longer use CF cards?)

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif You think the D40 is light? Try some Canon Rebels...then we'll talk

One of the reasons why I like the 5D is it is slightly more substantial and heavier then even the oldest metal SLR I've used

I'm wondering if I should ever try getting it's battery grip....if I do, I might develop carpal tunnel just because of its weight

As for the Sony Alpha, well it looks like it competes pretty well with other DSLRs in its pricerange. It even has image stabilization in its body: definitely cheaper then lens based systems on the Canons and Nikons. But for me, I decided to stick with Canon for my DSLR because of their well known optics and full sized sensor.

 

[hudsong]

I guess I didn't really make myself clear...
If you're going to run around indoors with a lens that has 3.5-5.6 aperture, and take photos of things at 50mm +, you're already dealing with having to use high shutter speed to compensate for the tiny aperture value. To make the picture even useable (without flash) you'll probably also have to boost sensitivity to 200ISO+. You can forget about trying to stop down the camera to get a sharp image (pretty much all kit lenses have bad purple fringing and low sharpness at wide open, and the sony is NO EXCEPTION) so all your images, as the above are, will be soft. You can PP them with unsharp mask, curves and contrast if you like, and make them look BETTER than the P&S, but you simply WILL NOT get the same performance from a KIT LENS and INDOOR CONDITIONS from a DSLR as you would from a P&S.

If you want a lens for indoor use, get a 2.8 (or better yet, 1.4) fixed aperture lens. Until then, try to do things in brightly lit areas of the combination of high ISO, low shutter speed, wide open aperture and low light will produce unsatisfactory images.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I didn't really make myself clear... If you're going to run around indoors with a lens that has 3.5-5.6 aperture, and take photos of things at 50mm +, you're already dealing with having to use high shutter speed to compensate for the tiny aperture value. To make the picture even useable (without flash) you'll probably also have to boost sensitivity to 200ISO+. You can forget about trying to stop down the camera to get a sharp image (pretty much all kit lenses have bad purple fringing and low sharpness at wide open, and the sony is NO EXCEPTION) so all your images, as the above are, will be soft. You can PP them with unsharp mask, curves and contrast if you like, and make them look BETTER than the P&S, but you simply WILL NOT get the same performance from a KIT LENS and INDOOR CONDITIONS from a DSLR as you would from a P&S.

This doesn't make sense to me. One thing is your examples and values are too small (ie ISO200 is still bright outdoor situation type ISO)...and you want slower shutter speed for smaller aperture in any situation. The Sony Alpha has an ISO of 100-1600, while the 717 has an ISO of 100-800. The shutter speeds of the Alpha are 30 to 1/4000 sec, and the 717 are 30-1/2000 sec. So since the Alpha has a higher ISO rating, it will do better in dark situations, and with a faster shutter setting, it will do better in light situations (simplifying it a bit, since quality of sensor comes into play too).

A fast prime lens does give you more sharpness and speed....but a lens with an open aperture of say 3.5 still works in low light situations: it's just you're more likely to need a tripod. Probably the reason why you got blurry pictures with a kit lens in a dark situation, was that you weren't using a tripod

Call me silly, but I think learning exposure is the most important part of photography.

 

[scompton]

Unless I'm taking snapshots, I always try to use a tripod when possible in low light situations. And for those who think a tripod takes too much time, trying to get a good shot that can be blown up without one can take longer with much frustration, if you can get it at all. It also helps you to take more time composing the shot than hand holding. I have taken adequate shots indoors without a tripod, but I've always had to compromise in some way. Usually by finding something to brace myself against, limiting my ability to frame the way I'd like.

 

[Puppysmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, here is the real question... am I just inept at taking photos with a DSLR, because surely it HAS to be able to take better pictures than my 3+ year old F717, or could the F717 actually be a better camera? I understand that the Alpha certainly isnt the end all when it comes to DSLR, but it's being compared to a lesser camera of the same brand. I can understand differences if Im comparing Nikon to Sony or Canon to Sony, but this is old Sony prosumer P.A.S. v. new Sony DSLR. I went ahead and created a Flickr account with 4 total shots, 2 Alpha and 2 F717. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7753631@N03/ See if you can tell which is which.

The Sony DSLR is possible of taking better pictures, however its CCD is very sensitive to noise above ISO 400. So the answer is probably no unless you are shooting at an ISO of 100-200 or the anti shake feature comes into play with a telephoto lens.

Noise and great CCDs are, IMO, the key in DSLR cameras. If you cannot shoot at ISO 800 without noise problems, IMO any DSLR is not worth the price. Not all of us have the $$ to lay out for fixed 2.8 and faster lenses, so having the ability to shoot at ISO 800 with noise problems is key, at least for me.

Low light shooting without a flash is critical for me, but maybe not for everyone.

The Nikon D50 and Canon EOS have brilliant CCDs that allow shooting at 800 without noise becoming a problem.

 

[kin0kin]

Noise is generally not a problem with fuji's super ccd, and most canon's dsrl. If nikon doesnt come out with a D200 replacement by the end of the year, I might wanna jump on the Fuji S5 pro, this sucker is just plain awesome. Might also wanna replace my PnS with a fuji F31fd....

 

[chych]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppysmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Nikon D50 and Canon EOS have brilliant CCDs that allow shooting at 800 without noise becoming a problem.

Funny that the D50 sensor is made by Sony, and Canon doesn't use CCDs (not since the 1D). The D50 is a 6MP camera, so it's going to have low noise anyway. As a direct comparison, the A100 extends 20% more than the Canon Rebel XTi in resolution (both being 10MP - see dpreview tests). Personally, I believe that this is the tradeoff with the A100; you get more resolution due to less NR; however NR is an irreversible process with respect to resolution.

One should look into good post processing solutions for noise reduction (I use Noise Ninja for mine). You have to realize that NR is post-processing anyway, whether it is done on the camera or not; better to have a better/more intensive algorithm on a computer to do it than a slower/poorer algorithm on a camera's processor, IMO (of course this adds a step to the photographic process).

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I didn't really make myself clear... If you're going to run around indoors with a lens that has 3.5-5.6 aperture, and take photos of things at 50mm +, you're already dealing with having to use high shutter speed to compensate for the tiny aperture value. To make the picture even useable (without flash) you'll probably also have to boost sensitivity to 200ISO+. You can forget about trying to stop down the camera to get a sharp image (pretty much all kit lenses have bad purple fringing and low sharpness at wide open, and the sony is NO EXCEPTION) so all your images, as the above are, will be soft. You can PP them with unsharp mask, curves and contrast if you like, and make them look BETTER than the P&S, but you simply WILL NOT get the same performance from a KIT LENS and INDOOR CONDITIONS from a DSLR as you would from a P&S. If you want a lens for indoor use, get a 2.8 (or better yet, 1.4) fixed aperture lens. Until then, try to do things in brightly lit areas of the combination of high ISO, low shutter speed, wide open aperture and low light will produce unsatisfactory images.

???

Have you ever shot a P&S indoors without flash? Good luck. P&S cameras usually take pretty bad indoor shots because of their small sensor size...the buttery smooth CMOS sensors in Canon cameras and even the CCDs of Nikons and Sony will take better shots anyday because they are able to reach high sensor sensitivities, whereas P&S shots turn into pure sand once you go above ISO-400. Even at f/5.6, it will be easier to shoot a lowlight shot with a DSLR than it is with a P&S at f/2.8. And even the kit lens wide open will have better resolution than most P&S cameras.