Sony a390?

[The Whole Whirled]

Hey everyone, I'm new here so if this is in the wrong section then I'm sorry.

well I am looking to buy my first DSLR, and originally I was planning on buying the Nikon d3000, but then the Sony a390 caught my eye. I also looked at the Nikon d3100, but for the same price i could get the a390 with two other lenses, due to a local sale.

Can anyone offer some insight on this? I also need advice on what other lens to buy, seeing as I don't necessarily have to go with that sale. I was thinking of a Tamron or a Sigma, but I;m not completely sure.

Oh and I am not a complete photography noob, I just never had my own DSLR. I have worked with a Nikon d40 extensively though.

Any help is appreciated!

 

[chito beach]

Of the 3 I would say the D3100. it has better ISO performance and Jpeg performance The nice thing about Sony is the in camera steady shot which can save you thousands in lens costs. If you look to Sony At least look at the A560 to get the better sensor performance dont let 2 cheap lenses sell you on a camera. Oh and by the way I shoot a Sony camera. the A55

 

[The Whole Whirled]

Of the 3 I would say the D3100. it has better ISO performance and Jpeg performance The nice thing about Sony is the in camera steady shot which can save you thousands in lens costs. If you look to Sony At least look at the A560 to get the better sensor performance dont let 2 cheap lenses sell you on a camera. Oh and by the way I shoot a Sony camera. the A55

Thank you, I should have mentioned I usually shoot in RAW. do you know which would be better with that in mind? And I did loo kat the a560, but for down the road if I did buy the a390. I probably should have mentioned I am a high school senior with a sort of tight budget!

 

[chito beach]

Of the 3 I would say the D3100. it has better ISO performance and Jpeg performance The nice thing about Sony is the in camera steady shot which can save you thousands in lens costs. If you look to Sony At least look at the A560 to get the better sensor performance dont let 2 cheap lenses sell you on a camera. Oh and by the way I shoot a Sony camera. the A55

Thank you, I should have mentioned I usually shoot in RAW. do you know which would be better with that in mind? And I did loo kat the a560, but for down the road if I did buy the a390. I probably should have mentioned I am a high school senior with a sort of tight budget!

what is your budget?

 

[The Whole Whirled]

Of the 3 I would say the D3100. it has better ISO performance and Jpeg performance The nice thing about Sony is the in camera steady shot which can save you thousands in lens costs. If you look to Sony At least look at the A560 to get the better sensor performance dont let 2 cheap lenses sell you on a camera. Oh and by the way I shoot a Sony camera. the A55

Thank you, I should have mentioned I usually shoot in RAW. do you know which would be better with that in mind? And I did loo kat the a560, but for down the road if I did buy the a390. I probably should have mentioned I am a high school senior with a sort of tight budget!

what is your budget?

Well, for the body + 18-55 kit lens I was looking at around 500-550, maybe a little more. But I wouldn't ant to go much over because I wanted to get a decent wide or super wide lens for nature shots also, which would run another 200-250 maybe. I haven't done much research on the lenses though.

 

[chito beach]

Thank you, I should have mentioned I usually shoot in RAW. do you know which would be better with that in mind? And I did loo kat the a560, but for down the road if I did buy the a390. I probably should have mentioned I am a high school senior with a sort of tight budget!

what is your budget?

Well, for the body + 18-55 kit lens I was looking at around 500-550, maybe a little more. But I wouldn't ant to go much over because I wanted to get a decent wide or super wide lens for nature shots also, which would run another 200-250 maybe. I haven't done much research on the lenses though.

The nice thing about Sony is that all the cameras in the line from the A100 up to the A900 FF camera can all use the same lenses. Also Minolta AF Maxxum lenses work perfectly on the Alpha bodies which gives you many inexpensive quality options.

Both Sony and Pentax have in camera Image Stabilization which means that all lenses are stabilized

 

[The Whole Whirled]

what is your budget?

Well, for the body + 18-55 kit lens I was looking at around 500-550, maybe a little more. But I wouldn't ant to go much over because I wanted to get a decent wide or super wide lens for nature shots also, which would run another 200-250 maybe. I haven't done much research on the lenses though.

The nice thing about Sony is that all the cameras in the line from the A100 up to the A900 FF camera can all use the same lenses. Also Minolta AF Maxxum lenses work perfectly on the Alpha bodies which gives you many inexpensive quality options.

Both Sony and Pentax have in camera Image Stabilization which means that all lenses are stabilized

So if I did go with the Sony, would a Minolita lens be a better first lens than a Tamron or a Sigma?

 

[chito beach]

Well, for the body + 18-55 kit lens I was looking at around 500-550, maybe a little more. But I wouldn't ant to go much over because I wanted to get a decent wide or super wide lens for nature shots also, which would run another 200-250 maybe. I haven't done much research on the lenses though.

The nice thing about Sony is that all the cameras in the line from the A100 up to the A900 FF camera can all use the same lenses. Also Minolta AF Maxxum lenses work perfectly on the Alpha bodies which gives you many inexpensive quality options.

Both Sony and Pentax have in camera Image Stabilization which means that all lenses are stabilized

So if I did go with the Sony, would a Minolita lens be a better first lens than a Tamron or a Sigma?

many of the Minolta and Sony lenses are Sigma made. Any lenses made for Minolta Maxxum will fit and work correctly

 

[The Whole Whirled]

The nice thing about Sony is that all the cameras in the line from the A100 up to the A900 FF camera can all use the same lenses. Also Minolta AF Maxxum lenses work perfectly on the Alpha bodies which gives you many inexpensive quality options.

Both Sony and Pentax have in camera Image Stabilization which means that all lenses are stabilized

So if I did go with the Sony, would a Minolita lens be a better first lens than a Tamron or a Sigma?

many of the Minolta and Sony lenses are Sigma made. Any lenses made for Minolta Maxxum will fit and work correctly

Thank you so much for the help, the Minolta lenses seem much cheaper than the other lenses i was looking at.

 

[chito beach]

So if I did go with the Sony, would a Minolita lens be a better first lens than a Tamron or a Sigma?

many of the Minolta and Sony lenses are Sigma made. Any lenses made for Minolta Maxxum will fit and work correctly

Thank you so much for the help, the Minolta lenses seem much cheaper than the other lenses i was looking at.

The 390 would be a good starter camera, and moving up to a higher performance camera later will not break the bank. The only issue with the 390 is in low light situations it does not have stellar ISO performance, about anything above 800 is pretty noisy.

 

[The Whole Whirled]

many of the Minolta and Sony lenses are Sigma made. Any lenses made for Minolta Maxxum will fit and work correctly

Thank you so much for the help, the Minolta lenses seem much cheaper than the other lenses i was looking at.

The 390 would be a good starter camera, and moving up to a higher performance camera later will not break the bank. The only issue with the 390 is in low light situations it does not have stellar ISO performance, about anything above 800 is pretty noisy.

I've heard about the ISO noise but I figured that I wouldn't be shooting in the dark much anyway. And since every Alpha series can use the same lenses, moving up in the photography world will most definitely not break the bank!

 

[chito beach]

Thank you so much for the help, the Minolta lenses seem much cheaper than the other lenses i was looking at.

The 390 would be a good starter camera, and moving up to a higher performance camera later will not break the bank. The only issue with the 390 is in low light situations it does not have stellar ISO performance, about anything above 800 is pretty noisy.

I've heard about the ISO noise but I figured that I wouldn't be shooting in the dark much anyway. And since every Alpha series can use the same lenses, moving up in the photography world will most definitely not break the bank!

I started with the A100 and still have it. I have really enjoyed it. Sony just does not have the sex appeal of Canon and Nikon.

 

[kassad]

Here is a great database on lens for the Sony.
A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras)

 

[The Whole Whirled]

Here is a great database on lens for the Sony.
A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras)

Thanks for the gallery! It is very helpful. I am almost positive I am going with the Sony now.

 

[Derrel]

I keep hearing excellent things about this new Sony A55...like lightning fast, SOLID, class-leading autofocusing performance when shooting video. I saw an on-line comparison of the A55's video autofocusing against the Nikon D7000, and the Sony blew the Nikon's doors off for unobtrusive,fast, accurate, non-hunting autofocusing when shooting a video clip of a woman moving forward toward the camera, then side-to-side.