sony A350 vs D80

[sabbath999]

I don't know why you would want to be that far away for sports shooting. The pro line Sony 300mm 2.8 (450mm equivalent at 35mm) would certainly do the job in most situations. The Sony G lens zoom from 70mm to 300mm certainly is good for cross country activities.

Tilt shift is great for shooting buildings close-up with a wide angle but not everyone has the need or the interest in that kind of shooting. DX0 software certainly solves the problem for those that do occasional work in that area and don't want to spend a lot of money on a tilt-shift lens.

You also did not mention the Minolta lenses made during their relationship with Leica or the Tokina zoom lenses 70mm to 400mm (to 600mm 35mm equivalent) which fit the Maxxum and Sony Alpha line.

The handholdable 500mm Minolta (750mm 35mm equivalent) at f. 8 is a one of a kind that is being used considerably in nature photography in Africa.

I don't think you have really looked carefully at what is available for the Sony Alpha cameras.

Tegan

You want to be that far away for auto racing, boat racing, auto racing, surfing pictures, baseball, football (shooting tight), etc. Pro sports shooters use 400's and 500's all the time.

No, I didn't mention the out of production minolta lenses... nor did I mention the VAST collection of out of production Nikon and Canon lenses. This is a forum, not an encyclopedia of the history of lenses.

As far as the f/8 500... you go right ahead. I've seen one. Knock yourself out, I wouldn't put one of those things on my camera.

I do not know of ANYBODY who would say that the Sony and out-of-production Minolta pro lenses are, as a line, superior to the Nikkor system of lenses, when considering selection, image quality, build quality and availability of both new and used lenses... and Canon is at least as good as Nikon in its lens family as well.

I am sure the few pro lenses that Sony puts out are actually quite excellent.

 

[Bifurcator]

Hmmm Long lenses for the Sony A300/350/700:

• 18~200 f/3.5~6.3 f/3.5~6.3
• 18~200 f/3.5~6.3 f/3.5~6.3 DiII LD
• 70~200 f/2.8G SSM
• 70~300 f/4.5~5.6G SSM
• 70~300 f/4.5~5.6DG
• 70~300 f/4.5~5.6Di LD
• 200~500 f5.0~6.3Di LD
• 100~300 f/4.0EX DG HSM
• 120~400 f/4.6~5.6 DG OS HMS
• 150~500 f/5.0~6.3 DG OS HMS
• 50~500 f/4.0~6.3EX DG HSM
• 200~500 f/5.0~6.3Di LD
• 500 f/4.5EX DG HSM
• 300 f/2.8EX DG HSM

Oh no... a whole page of xx~300mm lenses. I'm tired of typing already though. But of the Sony body line-up I only like the A700 - But I'm just the kind of guy who would buy a D3/D700 for shooting flowers in the park too so...

 

[Bifurcator]

But isn't the A300 and A350 more the price of the D40 (~$500) http://www.preferredphoto.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=9842470&l=Froogle and http://www.preferredphoto.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=9949334&l=Froogle So why the comparison to the D80 - which is more around the $800 mark?

Oh, you mean because the Sony has more features than all the lower end Nikons? Yeah, typical.

 

[roadkill]

Nikon

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I am not sure how any AF would be "easier to use and see". AF is fast or slow, quiet or noisy, but hard or easy to see.???

skieur

It's alot easier to see the AF brackets and where the active AF sensors really are because they go BOLD and light up red, instead of having a bunch of barely visible cock-eyed lines around the viewfinder that are sometimes tricky to move around.

 

[AdrianBetti]

Welp. Here are a lot of images taken with the Sony A-100. Some were with the kit lens and some were with a Tamrom 2.8 28/75. The images say more than words I spose'.

http://picasaweb.google.com/photosbyadrianbhttp://picasaweb.google.com/home

 

[mike11165]

sorry been gone for a while, thanks for all the great feedback, lots of info for sony and against, but one thing that wasnt mentioned that was a key selling point, was the 14 megapixel being great for a camera in that price range, is that a nice feature or overblown marketing?

 

[Montana]

Overblown Marketing unless you plan on wallpapering your kitchen with your prints.

Derrick

 

[JustAnEngineer]

I'd be concerned about the ugly sensor noise and/or overly-blurry noise correction at high ISO with the low-end Sony alpha cameras. The α700 doesn't have this problem, but it costs a lot more, too.

The Sony SAL1870 lens looks to have very bad chromatic aberration problems compared to kit lenses from Nikon or Canon.

Would the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II be a good choice to match to the Sony alpha?

 

[epp_b]

14.2 mega pixels vs. 10.2-

There's a point at which megapixels become meaningless (personally, I think that point is around 6, unless you're printing billboards). Trying to cram more pixels into the same-sized sensor will actually degrade the image quality.

it has image stab. and auto focus built into the body where the d80 would need much more expensive lenses that contain Nikon's VR because the d80 doesnt have imag stab

This one is a matter of opinion. I really like having VR in the lens rather than the body because I can see it happening, which is very confidence-inspiring. How it works when it's built into the body is by moving the sensor around. This method only affects the resultant image and cannot be seen actually happening through the viewfinder.

Also, the D80 does have AF built into the body, so it will work with both Nikon AF lenses using the screwdriver coupling and Nikon AF-S/AF-I lenses using built-in focus motors.

You should also consider that your selection of full-featured lenses will be more limited with Sony. Nikon's been in the business for a lot longer and has a lot more lenses for you to choose from.

Lastly, I don't know what sort of warranty you get with Sony, but Nikon bodies are covered for 2 years, and lenses for 5 (yes, FIVE YEARS!!).

Not trying to persuade you either way (OK, maybe just a wee bit towards Nikon ), but just some points to ponder.

 

[skieur]

There's a point at which megapixels become meaningless (personally, I think that point is around 6, unless you're printing billboards). Trying to cram more pixels into the same-sized sensor will actually degrade the image quality..

Not really! Consider the fact that the industry has just developed a process that will create a gigapixel camera chip. Obviously the industry would NOT be heading in that direction if what you said were remotely accurate. "cramming more pixels on to the same-sized sensor" is a gross over-simplification of more complex changes and improvements.

skieur

 

[monkeykoder]

Not really! Consider the fact that the industry has just developed a process that will create a gigapixel camera chip. Obviously the industry would NOT be heading in that direction if what you said were remotely accurate. "cramming more pixels on to the same-sized sensor" is a gross over-simplification of more complex changes and improvements.

skieur

People believing marketing hype about megapixels is a good reason to keep upping the megapixels.

 

[Buszaj]

I wouldn't worry about the megapixels unless you're blowing you photos up big time. About the image stabilization system, Sony's will work with all the lenses, but not as effective, Nikon lenses with the VR will be much more effective.

 

[rouz]

hi everyone, i just bought my Alpha 100 Sony SLR. Does any one know how i can make a proffessional pictures with it ? such as Portrait or those things...

 

[blash]

For 99% of non-professional shooting situations, Live View is a worthless rip. It chews up battery life and it's easier to perceive things like focus through an optical viewfinder. Live View most of the time is merely an organizational tool for professional shooters who have complicated studio set-ups.

In-body image stabilization is also a rip. For shorter lenses, like wide-angle and normal lenses, image stabilization does very little for handheld shooting, and Nikon has plenty of VR lenses in the long range (more than Sony from what's been posted above).

On the other hand, with Nikon or Canon you get a better library of glass from which to choose later, better flash systems, etc. etc.

The salesman is just trying to upsell you to get a better commission.