Sony Alpha 100 with 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 Lens ?

[hector_evans]

I am about to go for my first dSLR. After much research, I am leaning towards

the Sony Alpha 100 kit which includes the 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 lens:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-10-2MP-Digital-18-200mm-f3-5-6-3/dp/B000JE7YW4/

 

I don't plan to buy any more lenses in the near future. I just want an all-

purpose lens that will be able to take decent indoor photos without a flash

and decent outdoor sports photos.

 

Your feedback will be greatly appreciated, especially if you have the above

configuration.

 

thanks

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Hector,

 

I don't have your proposed camera and lens.

 

But, I can tell you that you have no chance of taking indoor photos without a flash with that camera and lens.

 

There are two problems... the lens is not nearly fast enough and the camera at any ISO above 400 is too noisy to produce quality photos.

 

You would need an f1.8 or faster lens to have a chance of taking indoor photos without a flash... and even then it depends on the amount of available light.

 

Sorry, but you're out of luck with that setup.

 

//Chuck

[r.t. dowling]

6.3 is pretty slow for the long end of that zoom. You'd probably be better off with an 18-55 or 18-70 + a 70-200 or 70-300 or 75-300. Those 18-200 megazooms are often quite poor at the 200 end.

[aaron meyer]

<<There are two problems... the lens is not nearly fast enough and the camera at any ISO above 400 is too noisy to produce quality photos>>

 

The lens, yes, it's too slow, even though SSS will help a lot for stationary subjects. (I'm gotten clear shots with a 300mm, 450mm equivalent, lens and a shutter speed of 1/13 second with the steady shot on my Alpha. Supposedly clear shots should have needed at least a 1/450th second exposure without steady shot.)

 

The camera, BS. I own one. ISO 800 is perfectly useable and running ISO 1600 through Noise Ninja takes care of things suffciently for up to about an 8x10 print.

[bengt_rehn]

Picture quality is very subjective. Sony and former Konica-Minolta got and gets complants about poor high ISO performance at the same time as many users are happy with its ISO 1600 performance. Given ten Mpix, SSS and 18-200 Zoom range and price, I think the Sony kit offers a lot of of camera for the money. Its easy to find other alternatives that would perform better in low light and sports photography, but not without to sacrifice at least one of the givens. Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR would perform better at low ISO and the VR is more efficient than SSS, but at a considerable higher price. You could of course choose a lesser body like Nikon D50, but still at a higher price. Other alternative is Pentax K100D with 18-55 and 50-200 4,5-5,6. The price of the latter kit will not differ too much from the Sony kit, but then you get 6 Mpix and two zooms. The Pentax kit offer better high ISO performance and a faster and better performance at longer focal length than the Sony kit. With Pentax you can buy an old manual 50/1,7 for less than 50$ and get outstanding low light performance. It all boils down to what compromise that suit you the best, and the Sony kit is as good as any other, and you cant get all you would want for that kind of money. If money wouldnt be a factor I would recommend a Canon D1 MK2 or D5 with EF 28-300 L IS.

[glenn_stokes]

Indoors, most on camera flash won't give decent photos beyond 10 feet and they won't light up a wide angle covered by a 18mm lens.

Add a flash attachment to your budget, or buy some "slave" strobes for added indoor light.

 

Manufacturers may want you to buy a single 18 to 200 lens, however

I prefer to not be lugging around a lens larger than necessary when doing up close wide angle and medium angle work. Long lenses can sometimes intimidate people in indoor work.

 

I prefer one lens in the 18 to 85 or 100 range,

and another lens in the 100 to 300 or more.

If one gets lost, stolen, or destroyed, you have at least one backup lens and have not put all your dollars into one lens.

 

AND add a tripod to your budget.

Even with image stabilizing on any camera, you NEED a tripod.

I used my Sony A100 for 3 weeks all over Rome, inside dark churches and outside in variable conditions day and night. Tripods are not permitted in my indoor locations, however by using 400 ISO and leaning up against walls and using image stabilizing I got acceptably sharp, although not perfectly sharp, images.

The A100 is a little bulky, but not heavy and is not a heavy duty durable camera like you might find in the higher end Canon or Nikon family. I would use it as a backup camera for any pro heavy duty intensive harsh weather environment photography. However it performed flawlessly with enough quality to produce enlargement glicee photoart. I used several 3gig microdrives in the camera with no problems. I like the Canon A100 but I can not compare it to a Canon or Nikon as I have not used them. Spend no more money than needed to get the job done, unless of course you are mainly interested in camera and lens envy and can't imagine being seen on the street with anything less than the top of the line latest and greatest.