[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just curious, may I know why you chose Sony Alpha among other competitors (brands)?

As someone just touched on, it's brand loyalty here. I've owned nothing but Sony. I owned the first 3.5" floppy Mavica all the way up to the Alpha, with about 5 in between. This may be an ignorant move as I know there are probably better camera's out there, possibly even for less money, but I like my Sony's.
Also, I was very impressed by the fact that the Sony fixed my F717 when it developed it's CCD problem. I doubt many companies now will be willing to do such a thing for a camera that over 3 years old, no longer under warranty and even pick up shipping costs both ways. That was one of the deal breakers right there.
I've played with some Canons and Nikons and have been equally impressed, but I guess since I've grown up with Sony, that's the main reason.
Same goes for MiniDV camcorders. I'm on my third and they have all been Sony.
This past year I remember a time when I was taking pictures with my Sony F717 and video with my Sony TRV80, which I loaded onto my Sony Vaio desktop connected to a Sony monitor that I later view on my Sony Vaio Laptop while I was listening to my Sony Vaio AP1L MP3 player and checking appointments on my Sony Clie UX50 PDA and watching my Sony Wega hooked to my Sony Dream DVD system. Half of this gear I don't own anymore, but honestly I don't know where the Sony fixation came from.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps the megapixel hype got to him? You see, with the recent price reductions, the Sony Alpha is now the least-expensive 10-megapixel DSLR on the market. (The Sony Alpha kit and the Nikon D40x kit are priced equally to each other - but the Nikon comes with only an 18-55mm zoom instead of the Alpha's 18-70mm zoom.)

No, this definately wasn't the case as I remembered my old 2.1M Sony F505 and the fact that it stomps most of the 5-6 Megapixel cameras out now.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?)

The same memory would have been nice, but this wasnt the case. I had a couple of the standard memory sticks that I used with the F717, 1.5GB which was more than enough. They arent the duo type, as I bought them before Duo was even an option, so these are not usable on my Alpha.
Also, the Alpha doesn't have 2 memory card slots, just one and it's compact flash. The Memory Stick Duos must be used with a compact flash adapter (which is included with the camera, not a 'extra' that Sony expects you to buy - which is often the case). That said and since I already have a big CF card and enough standard Memory Stick memory for the F717, Ill probably not buy any of the stupid Duos.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif The same memory would have been nice, but this wasnt the case. I had a couple of the standard memory sticks that I used with the F717, 1.5GB which was more than enough. They arent the duo type, as I bought them before Duo was even an option, so these are not usable on my Alpha. Also, the Alpha doesn't have 2 memory card slots, just one and it's compact flash. The Memory Stick Duos must be used with a compact flash adapter (which is included with the camera, not a 'extra' that Sony expects you to buy - which is often the case). That said and since I already have a big CF card and enough standard Memory Stick memory for the F717, Ill probably not buy any of the stupid Duos.

I stand corrected. The specs listed at some stores had the DSLR-A100 as accepting only the Memory Stick Duo cards, when the truth is that the DSLR-A100 is natively Compact Flash (Memory Stick Duo support comes from its included adapter, as you said). In fact, the only DSLRs which have two memory slots are of the very expensive Canon EOS 1D series (Mark II or newer); in Canon's case, the cameras have one Compact Flash slot and one Secure Digital slot. (Less expensive Canon DSLRs have only the single Compact Flash slot.)

Sure, I would love to have an EOS 1Ds Mark II, with its dual Compact Flash/Secure Digital storage capability, 17-megapixel resolution using a full 35mm-film-frame-sized (36x24mm) sensor and a 100% viewfinder (one which shows 100% of the area making the final image). But it costs nearly $8,000 for the body only. (The 1Ds should not be confused with the plain 1D, which uses a smaller, APS-H sized sensor with a crop factor of 1:1.3 - that means that with the plain 1D Mark II/III, a 50mm lens delivers the angle of view equivalent of a 65mm lens.)

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Actually I can.

Tripod is actually sort of limiting me in terms of composition, it just takes too much time to adjust the head, height, position etc... compared to do just using your hands. I can walk around, twist around, and finding the composition easily. I reckon if you have a decent fast lens, and using high ISO, you don't actually need tripod - unless it's for critical works.

I only use my tripod when I'm doing my macro indoors. But of course, if you have tripod, it's always better, but the hassle is just too much for me. I rather re-take my shots than having to carry tripod around.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually I can. Tripod is actually sort of limiting me in terms of composition, it just takes too much time to adjust the head, height, position etc... compared to do just using your hands. I can walk around, twist around, and finding the composition easily. I reckon if you have a decent fast lens, and using high ISO, you don't actually need tripod - unless it's for critical works. I only use my tripod when I'm doing my macro indoors. But of course, if you have tripod, it's always better, but the hassle is just too much for me. I rather re-take my shots than having to carry tripod around.

Compose your shot, remember it, then attach the camera to the tripod

I prefer to not use a tripod too, but I'm going to be taking some low light pictures of a haunted house (well, supposedly) later so I'll be needing it

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compose your shot, remember it, then attach the camera to the tripod I prefer to not use a tripod too, but I'm going to be taking some low light pictures of a haunted house (well, supposedly) later so I'll be needing it

Of course, but it's still too much hassle for me. I guess I'm just a lazy photog.

And if you don't have that pistol grip, I find it annoying to having to adjust tiny bit details efficiently.

The tripod for haunted house, is it to hold the camera or as a weapon in case someone attacks you?

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, this definately wasn't the case as I remembered my old 2.1M Sony F505 and the fact that it stomps most of the 5-6 Megapixel cameras out now.

Sonys are good cameras....afterall, all Nikons have Sony CCDs

You can still take well exposed photos with the 717 even. Here's one I took in low light, with the 717. Didn't have a tripod though, so it's not as sharp as it could have been

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course, but it's still too much hassle for me. I guess I'm just a lazy photog. And if you don't have that pistol grip, I find it annoying to having to adjust tiny bit details efficiently. The tripod for haunted house, is it to hold the camera or as a weapon in case someone attacks you?

I use a ball head which makes tiny adjustments pretty easy. What's not easy with the ball head is panning to stitch pictures together for a panoramic.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

I did another shootout amongst my P&S Canons and my Nikon D50 with an 18-55 II kit lens. The resulting images were then enlarged to 8x10. There's no contest: The DSLR wins by a fairly wide margin. The P&S digital cameras failed to pick up much of the detail in the cream-colored brick in my crapscapes that the DSLR easily picked up. This is because the P&S digital camera optics could not keep up with the tiny sensors' demands for ultra-high-definition optics. Plus, there are some chromatic aberration defects creeping into the digital P&S enlargements.

 

[3x331m]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did another shootout amongst my P&S Canons and my Nikon D50 with an 18-55 II kit lens. The resulting images were then enlarged to 8x10. There's no contest: The DSLR wins by a fairly wide margin. The P&S digital cameras failed to pick up much of the detail in the cream-colored brick in my crapscapes that the DSLR easily picked up. This is because the P&S digital camera optics could not keep up with the tiny sensors' demands for ultra-high-definition optics. Plus, there are some chromatic aberration defects creeping into the digital P&S enlargements.

For trivial shooting, I'll have my P&S. You can imagine yourself on a ski slope with a SLR ?

The rest would be served by my SLR. There's a very apparent reason why most professionals, who bet their career and make a living out of photography, chose this format.

 

[patalp]

DSLR photos come out pretty unprocessed. That's the advantage. To compare DSLR and P&S you'd have to boost the contrast, sharpness, and saturation of the DSLR photo a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use a ball head which makes tiny adjustments pretty easy. What's not easy with the ball head is panning to stitch pictures together for a panoramic.

The bogen/manfrotto heads allow a seperate control that lets you pan while keeping the head locked in place. I know because I have a 488 rc2 =]

 

[acp6s]

i would recommend a good photography book and a 3rd party guide for your dslr to take advantage of it. skill is far more important than the equipment

 

[acp6s]

that pic looks nice

 

[luckypictures]

Well, if you're compaing JPEG's, with similar resolution, shot at the same f/stop and shutter speed, then they're going to look the same.
What you're missing out on, is that with a DSLR, you are able to produce a RAW file. That is, a higher quality file without any in camera processing. This allows one to make a much better picture.
Not only that, but you have to keep ISO in mind. The higher the ISO, the more noise.

Sorry if this is a repeat, I don't much feel like going through 4 pages of responses. There is so much more to be able to compare the two, and it appears that your knowledge isn't quite up to par with needing a DSLR. Not to insult you, but if you need DOF explained to you, you should consider reading a basic photography book.

Good luck, and feel free to PM me with any questions.