Digital Rebel vs. Sony 717/828

[evan_parker]

I'm eighteen years old and on the brink of having around $1000 to

spend, and I can save up more if need be. I have a Nikon N80 and love

it to death, but more often than not I find myself going into my

school's lab and using the film scanner... making me think that

having a digital file from the start may be the best way to go.

 

I work at Cord Camera in Westerville, Ohio, which is an authorized

dealer for just about everyone BUT Sony. I get to play with the Rebel

quite a bit, in fact, I have sold two of them. However, they just

don't seem quite up to the same build quality that I expect in a

Camera. Despite people's complaints about N80 vs F100 build quality,

I think that the N80 is still a pretty well built camera, but I'm not

sure if I could put up with anything lower. The Rebel is also a

pretty darn big camera. The picture quality is absolutely phenomenal,

though.

 

I have heard a lot about the Sony 717 on PhotoSig, where many rabid

lovers of this camera reside. Apparently, Sony is making a new

camera, the 828, with a four color sensor, 8MP resolution, and a Carl

Zeiss T* lens. As it is not a dSLR, it also has LCD preview

capability. Lenses are not interchangable of course, but the Zeiss is

a damn nice lens.

 

So help me decide, photo.netters. The 717 is going for pretty cheap

now, but it doesn't have much of a wide end and its going to be

replaced soon. The 828 is sweet, but its probably going to be more

than a Digital Rebel and since my store doesn't carry it, I won't get

a discount. I can get a discount on the Rebel (from $999 to around

$870 with lens probably), but it's not my ideal camera. Or of course,

I could just stick with film and get a new lens.

 

As I'm not going to explain my entire life story here, I just want

everyone to give their opinions on what THEY would do in my

situation. I know everyone's opinion is different, but I'd like to

hear them anyways.

 

Thanks for your time!

[stanley_rogouski]

If you have an n80 and Nikon lenses, why not try to pick up a used D100 for about 1200 dollars?

[maureen_m]

I would go for the Digital Rebel.<p>Considering that the Sony's image sensor (8.8mm x 6.6mm) is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the size of the Canon's (22.7mm x 15.1mm), and the Sony lens has the short focal lengths of 7.1mm - 55mm (the advertised 28-200mm <i>"35mm equivalent"</i> can be misleading), it seems like one would not have much control over DOF.<p>I have had Sony and Olympus small-sensor digital cameras with short focal length lenses, which made it impossible to get a nice background blur behind a sharply focused subject.<p>And just a thought about the Zeiss lens - when I had the Sony MVC CD400 with a Carl Zeiss lens, a "friend"(?) pointed out that lens was <i>designed</i> by Zeiss, but who actually makes it and how well? He pointed out that the Volkswagen Beetle/Bug was <i>designed</i> by Porsche, but that hardly made the VW Bug a Porsche.<p>Just my opinons...

[Rob_L1664876404]

Evan,

 

I have not used the Sony cameras and do not currently own any Nikons. I have, however, recently acquired a 300D/Digital Rebel after 35 years of medium format and 35mm photography (my current 35mm user is a Canon T90). I am VERY pleased with the 300D and kit lens. Yes, there are some features/capabilities missing that the T90 has - but I find I rarely used them (or there are work-arounds). I plan on adding only a couple more lenses (besides the 15-55 that came with the kit). I have ordered a 50mm f/1.8 (80mm effective) for portraits, etc., and would like to get an EF 28-135 IS (45-216mm effective - perhaps in Nov or Dec).

 

I use a Nikon 4000 to scan 35mm film, but rarely need 4000 DPI, since most pics are just for family use. As a result, the base resolution out of the 300D is higher than what I would normally scan at. The image quality is awesome and color balance/rendition is easier in tricky situations with the 300D than with scanning film. I have no complaints about the build quality - but it's not built like the T90 which is referred to as the "Tank." I think that, if I take care of it, it should do this non-pro, advanced amateur a good long time.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Rob

[jack_belen]

Maureen,

 

Do you happen to know how the image sensor size of the Minolta Dimage A1 compares to the Rebel and the Sony that you mentioned?

Thanks,

 

Jack

[dmanthree]

Well, nobody knows what the Sony 828 can do, since it isn't a commercial product, and won't be for some time (late January?). So if you need something now, it's out. And, what the other poster said about sensor size is true; the Sony will never be able to achieve the low noise of the Canon image at equivilant ISO settings. And, you can't change lenses on the Sony.

 

If you have compatible Nikon lenses, get the D100. If exceeding the $1K bogey isn't an option, I'd wait. Once you get the Canon, you'll need lenses, flashes, and so on, so the expenses won't stop at the camera itself.

[evan_parker]

I do have a Nikon fetish, unfortunately for me with the awesome new Rebel. Does anyone have any more information on the much-rumored Nikon dSLR that is supposed to compete with it?

[christian_dupuis1]

Evan, if you wait long enough, Nikon might have a competing product - or, more

likely, bring down the price of the D100 to compete with the Rebel.

 

Stay away from the Sony, if you like having optical flexibility. I had a Lumix with a

Leica Summicron lens, very nice compact zoom but there's no way you'd get a decent

macro - or proper lighting to work with.

 

Getting a point and shoot camera, no matter how good the optics included, makes

you sacrifice on flexibility with options such as shutter speed, rapid capture, external

flash use, and the list goes on and on... I got used to working with a D1, went the

compact route with the Lumix (and hated most of my time with it, looking at the slow

zooming optics of the P&S versus the instant response of the Nikon zooms and prime

lenses).

 

I'm back in the SLR fold with the Rebel. I would have gone Nikon again, but my last

service experience with them left a real sour taste, and the Rebel - with 18-55 zoom

- was almost a thousand dollars (Cdn) less than a naked D100 body.

[majid]

Sony posted some sample shots from the 828, showing high levels of noise, even at ISO 100. Not surprising, the result of packing too many pixels onto too little photon-collecting silicon real estate.

 

The Nikon D70 is rumored for February, but of course, this rumor is not worth the electrons it is printed on.

 

I was in your situation 2 years ago, I had a N6006 with a couple of lenses, I sold them on eBay and bought a D30. Of course, today I would get either a 10D or a Digital Rebel. I have a 10D, and I looked at the Rebel when it was premiered. It is certainly less featured than the 10D, and not as nicely finished, but much lighter. DSLRs are quite heavy and can drag around your neck quickly.

[Brad_]

Fazal, can you post the Sony URLs to the 828 pix you have looked at? Thanks.

[infidel]

I own a Sony 717 and I would not recommend it over the Canon Digital Rebel.

The Sony doesn't seem to handles certain items very well. When ever I

photography anything reflective like Chrome, there is a slight green halo

around the edges. The green can be adjusted in photoshop, but it is

annoying. The memory sticks have given me enough problems to always

have a nagging doubt when I shoot something. I have gotten 'cannot read

format' errors, white streaks running across some images, and jigsaw effects.

(I'm a mac user-OS X only) There is a lag when the shutter is presses, so

don't expect to capture spontaneous moving images. The Sony also can't be

used with strobes or any other flashed other than Sony's, which I have no

experience with. Luckily, the camera has paid for itself with a couple of still

shots so I have gotten back what I paid for it. But if I had the money to spend

again, I wouldn't even consider it.

[serene prodigy]

I have not had a lot of expirence yet with a dSLR but i have had some with an old Pentax I borrowed from my teacher a lot in high schoo. I will have to say that when I bought the Kiss Digital (Aka - Digital Rebel in the states) I fell in love. One thing i like, being a beginer, is the fact that the lens sold with the Kiss digital in japan has a USM monitor, where as the one sold in the states and canada does not. My personal opionion, if you want to get one now and don't mind the thought of getting new lenses, flashes, etc down the road, then get the Rebel.. but if you already have Nikon lenses and the likes, then I would save and get the D100.

[pablo_s]

Let me summarize some of the comparative features of high end P&S vs DSLR:

<P>

<B>Pros of high end P&S</B>: light, LCD preview, good built-in macro capability, fold-and-twist LCDs (great for tricky angle shots), assorted gadgets (like built-in ND filter in G3/G5), silent operation, not intimidating (good for candids/street), lots of DoF even wide open - great for macro and landscape work, zooms are usually faster than film ones (partially compensates lack of useable high ISO setting).

<P>

<B>Cons of high end P&S</B>: light (thus more prone to camera shake),smaller sensor implying noise even at ISO 100, higher ISO ratings not useful, slow and poor autofocusing, manual focusing is impractical, slow to turn on/off, shutter lag, lens barrel distortion at wide angle, fixed lens (you can't go beyond ~300mm at telephoto), reduced aperture range, lots of DoF even wide open - avoid if you're into portrait or general creative photography.

<P>

<B>Pros of DSLR</B>: greater sensor allows for clean pictures up to ISO 800, fast and accurate autofocus, easy to focus manually, quick to turn on/off, very fast overall response with almost no shutter lag, interchangeable lenses (you can choose the ones that suit your particular style and budget), allows you to build your system slowly, easier to recycle since you can change the body and keep the lenses (EF-S being an exception) and viceversa, fast primes for low-light hand-held photography (great for indoor candids, museums, etc), good control over DoF with fast lenses, no distortion (depending on lens), bulky enough so that it's easier to avoid camera shake, "professional" look, more natural to use if you come from film, outstanding image quality (with good lens), 1.6x factor makes it possible to obtain very long effective focal lengths at a moderate price (not an option with P&S or film SLR).

<P>

<B>Cons of DSLR</B>: heavy to carry, LCD only for review, small apertures required for macro and landscape work (meaning a tripod will be often necessary), 1.6x factor means it's expensive to get wide angle coverage (but P&S not better in this respect), more expensive than P&S if you really take advantage of the variety of quality lenses available, possibly MUCH more expensive.

<P>

The bottom line is, only you can answer which system is better for you - it depends on your particular background and interests. I hope my comparison will help you do the choice that is right for you.

<P>

Regards, Pablo.

[david_jones16]

Evan,

 

My 10c worth probably won�t directly answer your question, but it illustrates a similar decision which I made recently to the one you are considering. As it happens when I was in the market to purchase a new camera recently I was in a similar position to you.

 

With the birth of my daughter imminent I wanted to get a higher spec camera to improve print quality, but also wanted to keep digital to keep the cost of film and processing down. I'd seen the 717 (which was heavily discounted at the time, because with hindsight the 828 was on the way). I owned a Sony PC1 for nearly over 2 years, but had been rather disappointed with the results it produced, particularly in non optimal lighting conditions. I especially found that photography at night and in low light conditions practically a waste of time as the small internal flash was just not up to the job. On the plus side as a replacement for middle of the row film based P&S I found that it delivered good results in normal/good light conditions and was generally pleased with it until I saw how much better things could be if I upgraded!. I liked the ability to take short video clips.

 

I read about the 707 and then the 717 and thought that it was then time to take the plunge, the upgrade to 5 MP would enable me to produce better quality, larger prints etc. Apparently the 717 had overcome a lot of the limitations of the PC1, The inclusion of a flash hot-shoe was a big bonus. I was impressed with the (technical) quality of the photos I took during the in-store demo. That was until I was shown the 10D!

 

Until then I had always thought that Digital SLRs were just way too expensive to get to a point where they took sufficiently high quality captures compared to traditional SLRs and film. I had only considered digital an alternative to P&S unless you had nearly 10K to spend. The demo with the 10D changed my mind (the 300D was not announced/available at the time). Until then, like Rob Lytle, I'd stuck with my T90 and FD lenses for "serious" photography.

 

In the end I decided to take the plunge and went for a 10D along with a 17-40 L lens which works well as a standard lens when you consider the 1.6x crop factor of the 10D. I now use the 10D for the majority of my picture taking, using the T90 mainly for B&W film as printing digital B&W is rather hit and miss on bubble jet. I gave the PC1 away to a relative as I had not used it once since buying the 10D.

 

My advice would be to consider what you want to achieve: If you want a very good quality P&S camera which is light, compact and easy to carry around, but also can produce good quality results, then go for a discounted 717. The 828 might seem a lot better on paper, but unless you have money to burn it�s overkill and overpriced for the kind of camera it is. I have seen one, as they are available in the UK (@ about US$1250US!) and it is certainly a desirable �designer� accessory, but for my money it made more sense to go with the DSLR.

If on the other hand, you want/need the control that you can only get with an SLR, then you should go for the 300D or the D100. Which you choose I would think would depend on how quickly you want the camera or can save the extra, taking into account the money you will also have to spend on Canon fit lenses if you do for the 300D. If you already have a decent collection of Nikon lenses, the higher price D100 might actually be a cheaper option for you, especially as it�s already starting to fall in price, and will probably be a lot cheaper the other side of Christmas. As I�m not a Nikon follower, I don�t know about the D70 (or rumored 300D competitor).

 

If I were buying today, I�d have to seriously consider whether the 300D and a few extra lenses would be the way to go even over the 10D. But that�s another argument! I compared the 10D to the Nikon D100 and was torn between the two from the point of view of quality and features, but as the 10D was being disounted, making it (£250/US$375)cheaper I plunged for the Canon. The DSLR market is certainly getting cheaper, but when you consider the accessories for a starter kit, it�s still not there yet. You might be able to get the body for under a $1000, but you realistically need to spend the same again to get a decent spread of lenses, flash etc. But as you work in a camera store you may be well positioned to go for a 300D with the kit lens, then snap up some good used lenses as they come in which would help you keep the cost of building up a Canon system. Assuming that is that the store deals in used equipment.

 

Whatever you decide, I hope you are happy with your decision and enjoy you new purchase. Good luck

 

[ruslangaripov]

Official F828 sample images page is http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/DSC/DSC-F828/sample/index.html

[Brad_]

Ruslan, thanks for the link to the sony pix - I just looked at one in ps.

 

Fazal, can you elaborate further with respect to the high noise levels you mentioned

above? Thanks.

[Brad_]

<I>I have seen one, as they are available in the UK</I><P>

 

Great, which store are they (f828) available at in the UK, David? It is my understanding

there are no production units available anywhere.

[david_jones16]

I did'nt see it at a store, it was a demo unit. Not available retail until Dec. according to

www.sony.co.uk But there are a few mail order companies taking pre orders at round

the £900 mark, which IMHO is a little on the steep side for that kind of camera. I

did'nt actually get to handle it so could not comment on its use.

[majid]

Here is an <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=P841_0_1_35">article</a> that links to the Sony samples.

[Brad_]

Fazal, curious to hear your (or anyone else's) thoughts/conclusions with respect to

the noise in those pics. There was a lot of conjecture and huffing/puffing in that

"article," which really was just someone's blog, rather than a critical review.

[majid]

Yes, you should draw your own conclusions directly from the Sony samples, not any of the comments in the blog. I just thought going through the English blog as an intermediate step would be friendlier than dumping Photo.net readers straight into a Japanese page. The blog has direct links to the two large sample images.

<p>

I think the 818 images are pretty noisy for ISO 100, and compare unfavorably to the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0309/03092401minoltaa1samps.asp">Minolta A1 samples</a>. The bokeh on the 818 seems pretty bad, look at the texture of the out-of-focus glass blades in the ducks photo. The 818 and A1 have comparable sensor sizes, and show the resolution/noise tradeoff Sony designers made. My personal opinion is that trade-off was poorly thought out and driven mostly by marketing megapixel one-upmanship, but to each his own. Comprehensive reviews will of course have to wait for December when production models become available to reviewers. Samples at ISO 400 should be interesting...

[dale_strumpell]

I question your assumption that the Zeiss-designed lens on the 828 will be wonderful.

This is all speculation of course but look at the price of an equivalent lens from Canon

or Nikon. A 28-200 zoom at f2.0 costs a hell of a lot of money. And is big. My point is

that the Sony lens, even though designed by Zeiss, is probably not going to be

anywhere near as sharp as the equivalent Canon or Nikon lens. There's got to be a

reason it is so cheap.

[peufeu]

The Bokeh in the Ducks shot is HORRIBLE ! I was until now wondering wether to buy a Dimage A1 now or a Sony when it gets out, but I just made up my mind. This Sony is unusable for anything with a blurred background ! It looks like images from a mirror lens... I shiver at imagining what it would be taking night portraits with all the background lights having this kind of Bokeh... ARGH !!!