Nikon d1x vs alpha a100

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Funky, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Funky

    Funky TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    ok well, ive been looking into it, and im just woundering why the d1x and cameras like it are so expensive, the d1x has a useable 5 MP but its nearly 3 times as much as the sony a100 that has an effective 10.2, im not just compairing Megapixles because as weve seen, they hardly mean anything atall. there has to be something to this im not seeing. being as ive only owned minolta and sony equipment im not sure why cameras like the d1x and d2x are so criticaly aclaimed. any insight would be really helpful

    thanks

    zack
     
  2. zioneffect564

    zioneffect564 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i've had that same question im thinking because its a lot more durable and the faster fps shooting and its a nikon over a sony i dont i'd like some light shed on this situation
     
  3. dewey

    dewey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    The Space Coast of Florida
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You're comparing a pro series camera with a consumer series camera - it's kind of like the most expensive Hyundai is still much cheaper than the cheapest Porsche. ;)
     
  4. jwkwd

    jwkwd TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Western N.Y.
    I won't knock digital equipment, seeing as I don't have it. But comparing pro level to consumer level to me is like why I will grab a heavy old film camera, instead of an automatic this and that. Why? Because when I push the button, I know it is going too work. IMHO
     
  5. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes but there is a slight difference there... that heavy old film camera probably works without batteries... try doing that with a pro dSLR :lol:

    The pro-level cameras generally offer much stronger materials and construction, weather proofing, faster continuous shooting, better and more customisable metering, more controls, better buffering and faster continuous shooting... like you said, basic megapixel count isn't really an issue here.
    You mentioned that you've only used Minolta equipment... well if you've used their film SLRs, try comparing a Dynax 5 with a 7 and a 9.
     
  6. jwkwd

    jwkwd TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Western N.Y.
    ^ Very true indeed ^ And yes the construction, weather proofing etc. costs a lot of money. And with the reference to cars. When you slam the door on a Chevy/geo compared to whatever expensive model Chevrolet makes, there is certainly a difference. Same company, different quality.
     
  7. Funky

    Funky TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    to be honesty with you, just because somethings water proof and has a faster shutter release doesnt make it pro, i know they sell it on their pro line but in all honesty it doesnt make it pro. so the general concensis is that its water resistant and has a faster shutter release, and maybe better metering...which can be over come if you know what your doing. hmmm seems like even if your a pro going for the d1x isnt a good idea.
     
  8. Steph

    Steph No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Steventon, Oxfordshire, UK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Some of the features on so called pro-cameras are actually essential to professional photographers. The average amateur photographer will not take his camera out in the rain whereas a pro may need to and therefore requires a weather-resistant camera.

    Some pros (such as professionnal sport photographers) do need a high fps (frames per second) rate to make sure they get the picture they want.

    Also, the build quality of pro cameras is much higher. They are made of metal as opposed to plastic for most consumer cameras. When you are a pro and you use your camera almost everyday as a tool to do your job, I think it makes perfect sense to have a sturdier camera.
     
  9. xfloggingkylex

    xfloggingkylex TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    hehe. Go to your local camera store and hold a professional series camera and you'll instantly know why they are pro level. Even the D200 weighs 29.3 oz compared to your Alpha which weighs 19 oz. May not seem like much, but that little weight matters in your hand.

    If you have ever held the rebel XT, it weighs 17.1 oz and feels like a toy. The difference from my friends XT (even with the battery grip) to my K10D's 25 oz is really incredible.

    Compare that to the D2Xs which weighs an incredible 38.4 oz and instantly you know that pro cameras are made beefier and more durable.

    As for Canons pro line, you also get APS-H sized sensors (1.3x crop) or even full frame, which by itself is worth the cost.


    Also, as far as metering, the fancy meters of pro series cameras IS important. Yeah, all you really need to get good shots is an accurate spot meter, but think about the pro who doesnt have time to make sure metering is correct and needs to snap a shot NOW, not in a couple seconds. Also the AF systems are advanced allowing for great accuracy of moving objects (wild animals, birds, cars, football players).

    Does everyone need a pro camera? definitely not. Are the upgrades worth it to everyone? of course not, but the fact is pro cameras do have advantages over consumer cameras.
     
  10. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes like everyone else I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would say that not all professionals need the features of a 'pro' camera. But some do. For example a studio photographer might not need those extra features, but a sports photographer or photojournalist probably needs faster fps and the ability to shoot long bursts. (I was referring to faster FPS, not faster shutter release). Similarly they will want a camera that they don't have to constantly think about protecting and will easily withstand a few knocks... as for weather sealing, yes many pros need it and frankly I'm no pro but I would like some water-proofing too when I spend several hundred, never mind thousand on a camera. And how many consumer cameras these days have PC sync sockets? The pro ones do.

    It's good that you're happy with your A100. But consider the fact that Sony are now working on a mid-level and a pro-level dSLR to complement the A100. That's not just a marketing thing; if they want to attract certain types of professionals and advanced amateurs then they need to offer a certain type of camera. Going back to the film cameras, I like my Dynax 5, mainly because it's light and small and I can carry it around without knowing it's there. But I prefer to use the 7, partly because it's not as light or small and therefore offers better balance with heavier lenses and/or flash attached. In addition to which it offers a PC socket, mirror lock-up, faster top shutter speed, faster FPS, more metering options... plus many many dedicated buttons and dials most of which can be customised. This allows me to customise the camera to suit the way I work rather than have it tell me how to work. Now if I was off to the jungle even all this would not be enough; I'd upgrade to the Dynax 9 for weather proofing and a camera body that can safely be dropped and bounced around. In other words different people want different cameras for different purposes... and for some professionals, buying a 'professional' camera is not only a good idea but essential.
     
  11. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    137
    I've worn out a few cameras in my day. The reason most pros buy expensive cameras is not that they are rich. It is not that they need special features. It is that they need reliability and durability. When you are on location and ready to shoot, your equipment had better work. Often, there is no second chance. Usually, there are no acceptable excuses.

    I remember an automotive ad shoot I did once at Death Valley National Park. The manufacturer flew me and my equipment as well as an art director to the desert for the shoot. They brought a vehicle up to the park from Las Vegas and hired a couple of models for the day. Everybody had to wait until the light was right. Then we had to scramble to get the shots done before dusk. Imagine If I had had a malfunction. Shrugging my shoulders to the ad director wouldn't have accomplished anything. I was using my Mamiya RZ 67 system and I had two bodies, spare batteries, spare lenses, a second 645 system for the camera equipment. When it has to work, it simply has to work. No excuses.

    I remember when I used to shoot horse shows many, many years ago. I was normally in the middle of the arena and it was a very dusty environment. I used Nikon F2's in those days. Nothing stopped them. At the end of the day, I would open up the cameras and blow out the dirt and dust. You wouldn't believe how dirty they would get. Every time I changed film I worried that the camera would jam. A delicate camera wouldn't have gotten through it. The F2's just chugged along happily.

    A pro will put more wear and tear on a camera in a few months than most amateurs will in a lifetime. The better the camera stands up to wear and tear the cheaper it is in the long run and the more reliable it is, the fewer lost accounts. The D2X is simply more rugged and reliable than a Sony A100. It's that simple.
     
  12. Funky

    Funky TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    i guess some good points were made, but none to make me want to go out and buy a pro series camera, im not backing the a100 100% but to be honest, for studio work its fine. when i get into more demanding work later this year maybe its best if i go invest in something a little more sturdy, because it is a fact the a100 is plastic and metal. but is it really better having something thats heavier? i mean honestly? i know its blance and everything but lugging something around that has a good 4 pounds on it is kinda crazy.

    i do have another question. ive always been a minolta man myself but the selection of lenses is fairly crap. i guess its cheap because everything i buy is minolta autofocus but is it worth changing systems when i go on my expidition? i know im going to need something slightly...or alot more durable but what? is it time to change systems? what camrea should i go for?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

nikkon d1x with sb900

,

nikon d1x vs sony