sony alpha over rebel xti

[peterblaise]

.

 

More fun:

 

Earlier: "... the truth is that anti-shake is most useful with longer lenses ..."

 

Let's explore. Generally, long lenses have (a) smaller apertures than shorter lenses and (b) magnify hand held camera shake more than shorter lenses. Both these reasons would imply that anti shake therefor is more effective with longer lenses. But, that would ignore that anti shake is purposed to reduce capturing hand held camera shake regardless of aperture or focal length, that is, when the shutter speed required for an appropriate exposure is too slow to prevent also capturing hand held camera shake. So, anti shake is designed to compensate for SLOW SHUTTER SPEED. But it does look like like anti shake is aimed at long focal length for the (a) and (b) reasons above, doesn't it? Good that anti shake works on ANY lens, long or short focal length, wide or narrow aperture!

 

Now, if we're using a tripod, this hardly matters, so 100% exclusive tripod users (ANYONE out there?) can ignore anti shake features and benefits, I suppose. Except at resale time, when such a feature might be valuable to the next purchaser. Kind of like having air conditioning in a car even if you don't value it - you need it for at least one day: the day you SELL the car. ;-)

[joz]

Peter, Robert, I hope I didn't stumble into a wasp nest while discussing the topic. Like I said, it all depends on which route user will go onto in the future. For the average joe john smith, Sony's consumer grade glass ain't half bad on the anti-shake body. With the exception of 70-200mm SSM, other Sony/Minolta lens prices are on par with Canon/Nikon, not to mention you get anti-shake with every one, there are plenty lens to choose if you are not prime-lens-aficado, let me see: 20-35mm, 18-70mm, 75-300mm, 24-50mm, 28-85mm, 100-300mm.... the list goes on.

 

By the way, the new 1,8/135mm Zeiss Sonnar ZA is a fantastic prime, it's the best 135mm telephone in the world. PERIOD.

[peterblaise]

.

 

More fun:

 

Earlier point (paraphrase): "ALMOST ALL lenses work with anti shake"

 

Counterpoint (paraphrase): "all but ONE lens works with anti shake"

 

Counter counter point (paraphrase): "you're being nit picky"

 

Counter counter counter point: "I'm making a specific and useful reference which can support a specific decision, versus generalizing which helps no one make a specific decision."

 

Otherwise, NOT to nit pick, I guess that I accept that BOTH statements are true-ish! ;-)

[alexx_williams]

well. i take mostly pictures of live bands. thats why i originally looked at the alpha.<br> <img src="http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/ohio1sforlovers/photography/stevo.jpg">

 

<br>

that is a picture i took, but because of photobucket and a 5mp camera, its not that great quality.

 

are there a good assortment of anti-shake lens that i can get for the rebel.

 

what about the 30D.

 

 

price is really not a factor in the camera.

 

thanks again.

 

Alexx

[alan_krantz]

I don't own either the alpha or the rebel but I have looked at both. I'll probably get a digital camera in 6 to 18 months. While I think canon make better sensors and telephoto lenses I'm not real happy with their selection for wide angle lenses (esp for the 1.6 crop factor). That's not to say that sony is much better - but if zeiss makes a couple of quality lenses in the 20 to 30 range that might be enough to sway me towards sony (the 135 and 85 are less interesting since canon has quality lenses in this range). Then again if canon would produce a modern 20mm and/or 24mm lens i'd probably jump onto the canon bang waggon. THe anti shake, while interesting, is (probably) not that great for long lenses where anti shake system are more useful (ala 200+).

 

Then again I'm most impressed with Olympus selection of quality lenses - so if they could produce a sensor with low noise in the 8-10mp range i might go that route. Perhaps the fuji design ?

[peterblaise]

.

 

Alexx - how DARE you interrupt our discussion here?!?

 

Hahahah! ;-) Only kidding.

 

Look, if price were not a limit for you, you'd not have discussed bottom-of-the-line cameras. I think you are not seriously doing any research of your own needs let alone what the market has to offer. Back at ya' - what SPECIFICALLY about the Canon 30D drew your attention and appears to be a possible match for your photographic needs and skill set? Specifics on both YOU and the CAMERA please, otherwise, you're just askin' us to do all the guesswork, and I ain't playing! =8^o

 

Okay, one comment before returning to our discussion without you - DSLR low light performance wise, nothing beets the Canon 1 or 5 (with IS lenses, of course). Have at 'em and enjoy and let us know how it goes. Me? I'm happy with the low light performance of my Minolta AS system since it allows me to leave the ISO set much lower than a non-AS system, so I get the less noise of low ISO capture in low light where other cameras need to up their ISO and noise to be able to capture at the equivalent exposure of the slow hand held shutter speeds I can use and they can't.

 

Meanwhile, back to Minolta arguments - er - discussions. Where were we? Oh, yes, ... so, you think the Atlantic ocean is a better ocean than the Pacific ocean?

[joz]

If only people used Minolta first. For me, I absolutely love the low light performance of 35/1.4 or 50/1.4. Trust me, there is so much to gain with inbody-IS. There are too many scenarios where it's simply impossible to use tripod or monopod. I have seen all kinds of arguments of IS-SSS, to me, the benefits of in-body IS is so overwhelming, I see no reason why other camera manufucatores don't follow the route. When you have 16/2.8, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 50 MACRO, 85/1.4, 100Macro, 100Soft, 1,8/135mm, 200/4, 17-35mm, 28-70mm, 70-200mm, 500mm all Stablized, imagination is your only limitation.

[robert_paul1]

Ollie, Pentax has followed suit and come out with their own version of built-in anti-shake. The reason the others haven't done so is because they have to develop a system that doesn't infringe on either Sony's or Pentax's patents. However, I don't think this is insurmountable.

 

In the meantime, compare the prices of Pentax's lenses and Sony's. Sony is ripping-off the consumer with the prices they're charging.

[chris_harley1]

If its low light shots you're after, like the one posted then I would say the Alpha is definitely NOT the camera you want.Its high ISO performance is very poor unless you want to do a lost of Noise reduction post shoot.

The AS might help you 1-2 stops but the noise will be hard to live with.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

First decide what features matter most to you (anti-shake, low light performance, lenses, etc.) And feel confident that pretty much any DSLR will be better than a digital p&s. Then go handle some bodies and decide what feels good in your hands. Buy a camera and lenses and feel happy with your choice.

 

Most important of all, avoid asking about other alternatives after you buy - too many brand loyalists will tell you that you've made a bad choice.

[joz]

chris harley , dec 26, 2006; 04:39 a.m.

If its low light shots you're after, like the one posted then I would say the Alpha is definitely NOT the camera you want.Its high ISO performance is very poor unless you want to do a lost of Noise reduction post shoot. The AS might help you 1-2 stops but the noise will be hard to live with.

 

Chris, the "high ISO noise" is more like a myth. When shooting in the same lighting condition, Sony produces same level of noise like Canon or Nikon on ISO 800, the trick is, you need to over-expose by +0.3EV or +0.7EV. I feel this is more like a software bug. Try it.

[chris_harley1]

Not according to every review, online or in magazines, that I have ever read. Seems we're all wrong and its just a little underexposure.

I've seen some horrendous 1600 iso shots posted that would be barely usable without post noise reduction.

Too many pixels and not enough in camera noise reduction. Not to say you can't reduce to acceptable levels afterwards, just it would be hassle to do this with every shot.

Horses for courses ! No entry level camera can be the master of all situations, I think it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

[keith_illg]

I chose the Sony over the Rebel/30D/D70. I know some people think the SteadyShot is gimicky, but I love it. I tried shooting with my coworkers 30D with a 75-300mm and had a hard time getting a good shot at 300mm compared to mine at the same length. (Could be all the caffeine too) I also like the Dynamic Range Optimizer feature.

 

As for lenses, I already have 5.

 

Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens (included),

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro ($170),

Minolta 70-210 f4 (eBay for $150),

Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 (Adorama $329.99),

and my just arrived

Minolta 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 (NIB $445)

 

So, the Sony lenses are more expensive, but many of their exact Minolta counterparts can be had for a good savings. Also, it seems most retailers are still asking MSRP for the Sony gear, which will hopefully change now that many have been available for awhile. True, availability of new/used Canon and Nikon lenses is higher, but that didn't bother me.

 

The flashmount is kind of annoying at first, but I have a converter on the way so I can borrow Pocket Wizards from people. =)

 

I hope to soon add the Sony/Minolta 56/5600 flash, Sony/Minolta 50mm f1.4 or Sigma 30mm f1.4, and the Sony/Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro!

[keith_illg]

I should add, I mostly shoot scenic shots but am working on improving my portrait skills and macro shooting. I shoot 90%+ hand held, and typically shoot low light without a flash. (love the 2.8, can't wait to try the 1.4)

[joz]

Minolta 70-210 f4 (eBay for $150), Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 (Adorama $329.99), and my just arrived Minolta 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 (NIB $445)

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Keith, you got a steal ! 70-210/4 is a wonderful zoom lens. The 28-75mm is great traveling lens.

[alex_massengale]

Both are good cameras but I think the SSH makes the Sony a better value. Yes Sony lenses

cost a lot but there are some great old Minolta lenses out there for resonable prices. And

having used both, I like the feel of the Sony better. It has a much better grip and feels

tougher. The Canon feels very light and plasticky in comparsion.