Buying a Camera?

[ioan]

And the stabilization system in Nikon and Canon
is more advanced, more effective, and more usable.

And also way more expensive. And you pay it again and again with each new lenses.

You cannot see the correction through the viewfinder for instance with a Sony.

Like if you needed it. Our eyes sensibility does not require IS, the captor however needs it.

In lens stabilization is more effective. It not only provides a correction factor that can be seen through the viewfinder but it makes the image corrections before the full telephoto effect of the lens happens allowing it to be more effective.

Not sure about how the IS makes "the image corrections before the full telephoto effect of the lens happens allowing it to be more effective" given that it has to work continuously until the picture is taken.

This would offer great opportunities for the consumer to get an excellent deal if not for the accessory support issues. None of the above manufacturers offer many entry level or intermediate level lenses, and Olympus and Sony's top of the line lenses are far more expensive than Canon or Nikon (10-25% more). This is all good and well for the people that will never expand their kit beyond a lens or two, but it does severely limit your options down the line. Further consider the fact that at least Sony and Panasonic have to utilize purchased brand names to make their lenses appear to be desirable (Sony provided a huge infusion of cash to Carl Zeis, however, there are only three true Zeis lenses for the Alphas, despite branding to the contrary, and Panasonic provided a huge infusion of cash to Leica to utilize Leica's brand name, eventhough Leica just "sign offs" on Panasonic lens design).

As I said you can use any post 1985 Minolta lenses on a Sony DSLR camera, and they are not expensive at all (contrary to what you say) as they don't need inbuilt AF motor (for some Nikon cameras do not come with a built in one anymore) and IS.

The Sony's are not bad cameras in the slightest. The problem however, is that you by and large will be left to what you get at the initial purchase, and if you do try to expand into higher grade equipment later any cost saving (real or perceived) at the onset will leave you spending more in the end.

I do not agree with that, for the reasons I already explained.

Anyway, back to the initial post in this thread.
Everyone should consider trying several cameras before deciding which one they buy, simply because we all use them in our own way.

Cheers

[wacked]

I do have your number if you haven't changed it in the last couple of years?
Anyways I will PM you my new # as well..yeah lets catch up sometime

btw, mostly going to Kanha in November..

cool.. yeah my number has been same for the last 7 years.. im working on senapati bapat road now.. so give me a call anytime when ur there.. im there all day..

[wacked]

thanks for all the input guys.. i have used a number of camera's, and yeah quite a few SLR's too.. i have used the nikon's, sony's, canon's and yeah also a oly and a fuji, i personally prefer the canon's out of all of them, nikon second..
im not saying the other camera's are bad.. i just prefer a canon and really not looking at image stabilisation as BDunnell said its not the be-all and end-all , i have decided on the camera after comparing a lot of camera's and yeah talking to a few people using it, a EOS 450D, just need to figure out 2 things, should i buy the kit lens or any other and if any other how much it would cost compared to the kit lens, and yeah since i have the option right now.. thailand, singapore or back in India, where would it be the cheapest to get it..

[ioan]

Kit lenses usually cover the basic use of a camera and are cheaper if bought in a kit with the camera than bought separately (unless you would buy them second hand).

[L5->R5/CR]

Like if you needed it. Our eyes sensibility does not require IS, the captor however needs it.

Perhaps if you used one you would understand what I am talking about

Not sure about how the IS makes "the image corrections before the full telephoto effect of the lens happens allowing it to be more effective" given that it has to work continuously until the picture is taken.

This is a simple question of lens optics and physics. If you are moving elements within the lens before the final elements you are manipulating the image before the full telephoto effect of the optics has happened. If you are only able to make corrections after the full optical effect of the lens then you are dealing with not just the basic vibrations but the impact that the telephoto effect has. If this doesn't make sense to you perhaps you should look more into how the in lens based systems work.

As I said you can use any post 1985 Minolta lenses on a Sony DSLR camera, and they are not expensive at all (contrary to what you say) as they don't need inbuilt AF motor (for some Nikon cameras do not come with a built in one anymore) and IS.

I never stated that you couldn't use old lenses. You most certainly can use your old glass. However, if you want to address my issue, that being of new lenses, and especially higher grade lenses your options are much more limited. It is a nice tactic to deflect the point but it doesn't change my point. New lenses, beyond the most basic entry level glass, is more expensive (if the lenses are even available) with most of the smaller manufacturers. Start looking into flash systems and you options become almost non-existent.

I do not agree with that, for the reasons I already explained.

It is fine if you want to use older lenses to try to save a couple of bucks. The problem with the old equipment compatability argument is the fact that many people would prefer the more responsive, smoother, and faster focusing lenses of today (besides the fact that the mid range and above Pentax cameras will work with any Pentax lens, making a stronger argument, or that any Canon EOS lens can be used).

Obviously you love your Alpha, and that is great!

Don't delude others into following you down that path. Buying a Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, or Sigma severely limits you down the road. For people that know themselves well enough to know they aren't going to want to pursue higher grade lenses that have things like internal focus, fixed apertures, or ultra sharp low dispersion glass, those manufacturers represent a better investment as you will get more features for your dollar (very important and subtle difference between features and performance). Similarly if you have SLR equipment of moderate to good quality you will greatly maximize your money spent by being able to utilize that equipment.

Whatever your combative response may end up being there are very clear reasons why Canon and Nikon share over 91% of the overall digital SLR market, and it isn't just brand name, its value.

Similarly, don't come back at me with some silly argument about how great the salesperson said your Sony was when you bought it. No other SLR manufacturer attempts to bribe sales people to sell their products more aggressively than Sony does and there is a reason for it.

[wacked]

hey L5 what camera do you use?.. and suggestions on a alternative on a kit lens on a new cam.. Canon..

[GridGirl]

Rah has mentioned it also but I really can't recommend highly enough the 17-85mm. Its firmly become our 'everyday' lense and we wouldn't be without it these days.

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod..._USM/index.asp

One of Canon's cheapest lenses which cost about £60 in the UK is also good for indoor use even if it is fixed rather than zoom.

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...18II/index.asp

[wacked]

well will consider other lenses, thats one option, or my favourite one.. just get the kit lens for now and then share lenses with my friends, i have 2 of them who are canon users and they have a good range, so yeah share with them and buy a lens later when i have some more money..

[rah]

well will consider other lenses, thats one option, or my favourite one.. just get the kit lens for now and then share lenses with my friends, i have 2 of them who are canon users and they have a good range, so yeah share with them and buy a lens later when i have some more money..

Thats fair enough, thats what I did. Just let us know what the kit lens is so we can make a judgment. You can share lenses between mates, but your favourites you will need all the time. I only have the 17-85is and a 100mm macro and that is all I need at the moment. The 100mm macro is a fairly specialised lens and I could borrow my mates one, but I got my own because that is the photography I enjoy the most. If you had a look at my flickr page you would see why. Borrowing lenses is only good for the stuff you don't do all the time.

[L5->R5/CR]

hey L5 what camera do you use?.. and suggestions on a alternative on a kit lens on a new cam.. Canon..

Various different Canon's

20d, 40d, 1dIII paired with the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 non-IS, and ocassionally the 17-55 2.8......

In terms of the focal range? The 17-85 is a great range.

The problem with the lens? Canon's EF-S lenses are quickly developing a very bad reputation for quality of construction. This is mainly due to the basic case of the lens being well made but the seals at the front optic and at the body of the camera aren't up to par (when you zoom in dusty conditions the lens acts like a vacuum sucking dust inside the lens at a greater rate then most of their other lenses). I've seen this happen to about 20 different lenses so far, so it is not exactly an isolated problem limited to just one type (see more 17-85s since there are more out there but seen it with plenty of 17-55s as well).

On the XSI however, I would probably look into the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (haven't had a chance to play with that one much but on paper it is a real solid lens) and then the canon 24-105, or 28-135, 70-300 IS or the 70-200 f4 non-IS. All of those lenses should be nice and sharp, have smooth and responsive AF, and have solid build quality to last well beyond a couple lifetimes for the body they are paired with.