snubbr.com

sony a 200 or nikon d60
Hi,im thinking of upgrading to a DSLR,the one I had my eye on was the sony a 200,after a trip to my local jessops the weekend I was told that the sony was no good, and I should go with the nikon d60 because the lens on the sony was no good and there are not many lenses for it anyway,any help would be great,thanks...

Comments (25)

Bytor wrote:.

Hi,im thinking of upgrading to a DSLR,the one I had my eye on was thesony a 200,after a trip to my local jessops the weekend I was toldthat the sony was no good, and I should go with the nikon d60 becausethe lens on the sony was no good and there are not many lenses for itanyway,any help would be great,thanks..

I would choose the Nikon over the Sony, but perhaps the Canon 450D over both - try that one and see if you like the feel of it..

Alex.

Http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/..

Comment #1

Bytor wrote:.

Hi,im thinking of upgrading to a DSLR,the one I had my eye on was thesony a 200,after a trip to my local jessops the weekend I was toldthat the sony was no good, and I should go with the nikon d60 becausethe lens on the sony was no good and there are not many lenses for itanyway,any help would be great,thanks..

Gracious, that was some scum salesman you ran into. The Sony kit lens might not be the best thing ever, but it is useful for a beginner. You can probably buy the A200 with out the kit lens, so who cares. Sony being somewhat new to the dslr market, doesn't have a boat load of lens, but at your disposable are all of the Konica Minolta Auto focus lenses. Of course Tamron and Sigma make A mount lenses. Go to dyxum.com to see the range of lenses available to the Sony dslrs...

Comment #2

I would also not go with the Sony. Their kit is pretty bad. I don't like the idea of having to go to old Minolta stuff and 3rd party. Just my opinion..

The D60 is a superb camera, as is the entry level cameras from Pentax and Olympus. In my opinion Nikon and Oly have great consumer lenses, with Oly taking the cake for their top quality kit lenses..

You really won't go wrong with a Nikon D40-D60, Pentax K200, Olympus 420-520, or a Canon XTi-XSi. My preference is Nikon, but I'm quite biased. I think a D40 with twin lens kit is the best there is for easy to use starter kit.Cheers, Craig..

Comment #3

I choose Nikon over Sony (if they were the only two brands in the planet, of course .

Having said that, A200 is not a bad camera at all. It has built-in image stabilization, which is something a new DSLR user might find useful. The DP Review results says a lot about it's capability. D60 is much better on image quality, based on my own observation..

Btw, I am a Canon user .

Bytor wrote:.

Hi,im thinking of upgrading to a DSLR,the one I had my eye on was thesony a 200,after a trip to my local jessops the weekend I was toldthat the sony was no good, and I should go with the nikon d60 becausethe lens on the sony was no good and there are not many lenses for itanyway,any help would be great,thanks..

Noogy..

Comment #4

First of all, Nikon buys their sensors from Sony. The Sony has the exact same sensor as the Nikon D60. As far as buying used lenses, Minolta and Carl Zeiss made some of the finest lenses you could want. The kit lens with the Nikon is no prize either. In fact none of the kit lenses are up to the quality of some of the really stellar lenses you can buy new and used for both cameras. Given equivalent glass, the image will be the same..

The Sony has many distinct advantages over the Nikon. 9 point focusing vs 3 point. Built in image stabilization on the Sony so all lenses are stabilized, not just the new expensive VR lenses. Anti dust system for the sensor vs none on the Nikon. With the Sony, ALL the old Alpha mount lenses from 1985 will fit, focus,and stabilize on any Sony body. With the D60, only the newVR lenses will work in auto and be stabilized.

If you want to use those lenses, you need to move up to the D80..

If Sony had kept the name Minolta, we would not be having this discussion. Sony is not the new kid on the block, it has a long heritage from Minolta..

Check out the Sony DSLR forum for images and info...

Comment #5

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

First of all, Nikon buys their sensors from Sony. The Sony has theexact same sensor as the Nikon D60..

Sensor is the same, but the processing engine is not, not even close..

As far as buying used lenses,Minolta and Carl Zeiss made some of the finest lenses you could want.The kit lens with the Nikon is no prize either..

I would totally debate the quality of Minolta lenes for one. Secondly the Sony licensed Zeiss lenses while not bad, are quite exspensive and few. Moreover, Nikon's kit lense are superb in sharpness if not in bulld. In fact, I'd put the 4 Nikon kit lenses against the best consumer lenses Sony has to offer that aren't kit..

In fact none of thekit lenses are up to the quality of some of the really stellar lensesyou can buy new and used for both cameras. Given equivalent glass,the image will be the same..

Not at all so. Sony's processing engine! Sony verses Nikon's viewfinder and other things that contribute to good images..

The Sony has many distinct advantages over the Nikon. 9 pointfocusing vs 3 point. Built in image stabilization on the Sony so alllenses are stabilized, not just the new expensive VR lenses..

What expensive VR lenses do you refer to? The 55-200vr sonic motor zoom at around $250 street? I suppose that's quite exspensive compared to the $230 for the Sony without hypersonic motor..

Or are you refierring to the Nikon 70-300vr zoom at $479 compared to Sony's 70-300 zoom at $799 where you don't have to pay for that VR in the lens. Both have hypersonic motors..

Now, Sony's 18-200 without a sonic motor is around $110 less than Nikon's 18-200vr with a sonic motor, but as you can see, the cost of VR doesn't mean that you have to pay more for Nikon quality glass. Besides a hypersonic motor is worth $110 any day. They are quieter, faster and more accurate..

One of the sharpest lenses in the world is Nikon's 300 f2.8 vr AFS prime at $4400. I can see that's a lot more than Sony's 300 f2.8 prime at only $6000. You see, leaving off the stabablization, Sony charges you and extra $1600. Those VR lenses sure are more expensive. Both have hypersonic motors..

Antidust system for the sensor vs none on the Nikon..

Nikon D60- Nikon Integrated Dust Reduction System includes original Airflow Control System and Image Sensor Cleaning for protection against dust.

With the Sony, ALLthe old Alpha mount lenses from 1985 will fit, focus,and stabilize onany Sony body. With the D60, only the newVR lenses will work in autoand be stabilized..

Of course VR is stabalized, but all AFS and AFI lenses going back 15 or so years will autofocus and meter just fine on the D60, and of course manual lenses that go back to 1959 won't autofocus. They were manual lenses, and they mount just fine on the D60..

While the older lenses back to about 1959 will.

Mount, you will have to use them manually. If you want to use thoselenses, you need to move up to the D80..

And, they'll still be manual on a D80, or D300 or D3. Lenses made before 1977 will have to have a $35 modification to work on those cameras. No modification needed on the D60. A manual lens is a manual lens. The D300, D700 and D3 will meter with them..

If Sony had kept the name Minolta, we would not be having thisdiscussion. Sony is not the new kid on the block, it has a longheritage from Minolta..

Minolta wasn't a bad consumer camera, but what heritage they had, can not be purchased by a big gun like Sony..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #6

One of the most controversial aspects of the D60/D40X/D40 is the lack of an in-body motor and the effect this has on the availability (or lack of it) of lenses that will autofocus on these bodies. In reality a great many of the lenses that most entry-level DSLR purchasers go on to buy (if any) are now available with built-in motors to ensure compatibility with the baby Nikons. No such problem with Sony. Any Alpha mount will auto focus and be image stabilized..

If money were no object this might be a different conversation. We would not be considering an entry level DSLR in the same reference to a $6000 lens. Take a look at some of the available lenses, ratings and prices of what you can pick up for a Sony mount..

Http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp.

There are plenty of lenses for both cameras that will out resolve the sensors, but for value and features, Sony has the edge..

Http://www.dpreview.com/...amp;cameras=sony_dslra200%2Cnikon_d60&show=all.

Look at the resolution comparison. Seems the Sony edges the Nikon..

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page30.asp.

Image comparisons. Can you pick a winner?.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page25.asp.

Both are very good cameras and will outperfor most users. Try them both and buy what feels best in your hands...

Comment #7

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

One of the most controversial aspects of the D60/D40X/D40 is the lackof an in-body motor and the effect this has on the availability (orlack of it) of lenses that will autofocus on these bodies. In realitya great many of the lenses that most entry-level DSLR purchasers goon to buy (if any) are now available with built-in motors to ensurecompatibility with the baby Nikons. No such problem with Sony. AnyAlpha mount will auto focus and be image stabilized..

That controversial aspect is only controversial in an internet forum. As you pointed out, in reality, most anything an entry level owner would want is now are available with built in motors..

If money were no object this might be a different conversation. Wewould not be considering an entry level DSLR in the same reference toa $6000 lens. Take a look at some of the available lenses, ratingsand prices of what you can pick up for a Sony mount..

That's why I mentioned lenses from $250 all the way up to $6000..

You've gone on to pick a few things said good about the Sony vs. the D60 and there are some good things. But overall, time and time, the D60 is shown to be a better choice. Take DPReview for an example. Compare the final rating of both. Look at the pros and cons..

From the DPReview conclusion:.

"Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. While at base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (though not very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dim the lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200's noise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing of fine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's direct competitors can produce visibly better results in challenging light situations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is a good option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeeze visibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to it's out-of camera JPEG counterpart).".

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #8

Take the Nikon D60 with the 2 lens kit! I am a beginning DSLR user and surprised at the ease of use and amazing pictures you get from the D60. Pick up the A200 and then the D60 in your hands. You can even feel the difference! at least I could.Nikon D60 18-55vr & 55-200vrSB400Casio Z750..

Comment #9

Kit lens is fine... Shot these with my kit lens early after I got my Konica-Minolta 5D which has the same lense optially as a kit as the A200.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

DRP tests with camera default settings.. Sony has consistently had softer JPGS as the default setting, but just change a setting of sharpness if you don't want to sharpen in the computer and you will get fine jpegs out of the camera. Or shoot RAW which DPR says is identical to the D60..

Here is the key..

D60 can only use SOME auto focus Nikon lenses.. 3rd party makers have lots of Nikon AF alternative lenses plus the used market that will not AF on the D60... the camera focus motor for using ALL Nikon AF lens is now a feature reserved for their more expensive cameras...

D60 has a feature called Auto Bracketing removed. It is just programming that allows you to set the camera to take 3 exposures at a give setting of over and under exposed.. useful for things like sunsets... I have never owner a camera, even my Canon and Nikon P&S, that didn't have that..

Then there is stabilization.. on ALL Minolta,Sony, Tarmron,Sigma. and old used lenses. So you can pick up a 50m F1.7 for about $100 on eBay like I did, stabilized...

There isn't even a stabilized 50mm prime made for Nikon... Then for sports you can pick up a Minolta 100-200 f4.5 that is small, fast focusing and pretty sharp (it was based on a design Minolta did for the military) Those run about $80.. now you have 18-70, 50 mm , and 100-200 covered all stabilized.. go price that on Nikon..

Here is a shot with that used 100-200mm taken from about 100 ft away...

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Try to find a constant f4.5 100-200mm stablized for $80 for Nikon .

Oh and the A200 has built in wireless flash control if you pick up an external Sony compatible flash...

There is no better entry level camera for the price....

Ken_ 5D(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the 5D yet hmm?)See my stuff athttp://www.cascadephotoworks.comRead the detailed reviews athttp://www.dpreview.comThen read great Sony user info at:http://www.photoclubalpha.com..

Comment #10

Thank you all for you help and for replying,..

Comment #11

From the DPReview conclusion:"Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. Whileat base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (thoughnot very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dimthe lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200'snoise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing offine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's directcompetitors can produce visibly better results in challenging lightsituations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is agood option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeezevisibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to itsout-of camera JPEG counterpart).".

Cheers, Craig.

This is straight out of the A200. No post processing, 18-70 kit lens at ISO 1600, hand held, dim lighting. Not bad for a crappy lens and a camera that has lousy high ISO performance in low light..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

These were shot at ISO 1600 with a 75-300 Minolta lens that I had from my Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera days. Good low cost (stabilized) lens. Once again, hand held, no post processing..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And here is the type of sharpness you can buy for under $100. Taken with a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 also with no PP applied. Great lens for available light and portraits. Check at full size..

Http://www.esnips.com/...7ffa-4abd-9160-ab0a2b0db47b/Minolta-50mm-1.7-ISO-200.

I think you would be hard pressed to post better pictures at as low a cost as you can with the Sony/Minolta combination...

Comment #12

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

From the DPReview conclusion:"Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. Whileat base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (thoughnot very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dimthe lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200'snoise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing offine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's directcompetitors can produce visibly better results in challenging lightsituations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is agood option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeezevisibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to itsout-of camera JPEG counterpart).".

Cheers, Craig.

This is straight out of the A200. No post processing, 18-70 kit lensat ISO 1600, hand held, dim lighting. Not bad for a crappy lens anda camera that has lousy high ISO performance in low light..

Look, I'm not here to put down you pictures, but I'm not sure these help your cause..

These were shot at ISO 1600 with a 75-300 Minolta lens that I hadfrom my Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera days. Good low cost (stabilized)lens. Once again, hand held, no post processing..

I think you'd do better with a tripod. Really. There's a lot of movement going on there..

I think you would be hard pressed to post better pictures at as low acost as you can with the Sony/Minolta combination..

Look, I know you like the Sony. Some folks do. I'm not sure how much a Sony/Minolta rig goes for, but a better lens and camera might help and can't be too much more..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #13

Guidenet wrote:.

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

From the DPReview conclusion:"Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. Whileat base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (thoughnot very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dimthe lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200'snoise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing offine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's directcompetitors can produce visibly better results in challenging lightsituations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is agood option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeezevisibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to itsout-of camera JPEG counterpart).".

Cheers, Craig.

This is straight out of the A200. No post processing, 18-70 kit lensat ISO 1600, hand held, dim lighting. Not bad for a crappy lens anda camera that has lousy high ISO performance in low light..

Look, I'm not here to put down you pictures, but I'm not sure thesehelp your cause..

But that didn't stop you did it as part of a fanatic attack...

The last two are not great.. but the first two are too good to let your biased attack go un answered....

These were shot at ISO 1600 with a 75-300 Minolta lens that I hadfrom my Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera days. Good low cost (stabilized)lens. Once again, hand held, no post processing..

I think you'd do better with a tripod. Really. There's a lot ofmovement going on there..

I think you would be hard pressed to post better pictures at as low acost as you can with the Sony/Minolta combination..

Look, I know you like the Sony. Some folks do. I'm not sure how mucha Sony/Minolta rig goes for, but a better lens and camera might helpand can't be too much more..

The A200 goes for as little as $465 with kit lens. The Lower end is 75-300mm is around $199..

What is the cost of D60 and VR 75-300 lens?.

Cheers, Craig.

Ken_ 5D(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the 5D yet hmm?)See my stuff athttp://www.cascadephotoworks.comRead the detailed reviews athttp://www.dpreview.comThen read great Sony user info at:http://www.photoclubalpha.com..

Comment #14

You call these good?? First two are not bad the last two They look blurry to me. The D60 puts these to shame right out of the box..

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

From the DPReview conclusion:"Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. Whileat base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (thoughnot very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dimthe lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200'snoise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing offine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's directcompetitors can produce visibly better results in challenging lightsituations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is agood option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeezevisibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to itsout-of camera JPEG counterpart).".

Cheers, Craig.

This is straight out of the A200. No post processing, 18-70 kit lensat ISO 1600, hand held, dim lighting. Not bad for a crappy lens anda camera that has lousy high ISO performance in low light..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

These were shot at ISO 1600 with a 75-300 Minolta lens that I hadfrom my Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera days. Good low cost (stabilized)lens. Once again, hand held, no post processing..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And here is the type of sharpness you can buy for under $100. Takenwith a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 also with no PP applied. Great lens foravailable light and portraits. Check at full size..

Http://www.esnips.com/...7ffa-4abd-9160-ab0a2b0db47b/Minolta-50mm-1.7-ISO-200.

I think you would be hard pressed to post better pictures at as low acost as you can with the Sony/Minolta combination..

Nikon D60 18-55vr & 55-200vrSB400Casio Z750..

Comment #15

OrlandoRealtor wrote:.

You call these good?? First two are not bad the last two They lookblurry to me. The D60 puts these to shame right out of the box..

Please post your low light and high ISO images right out of the camera so we can see..

The point of the post was value, not that those are the best pictures that can be taken. I have a lot better shots at lower ISO with better lenses. I wanted you to see what can be done with a couple of the lowest cost lenses available. A Sony Alpha 200 with the 18-70 kit lens, 75-300 Minolta and the 50mm f/1.7 prime will make a very versatile system and set you back less than $800 and probably under $700...

Comment #16

As have been said many, many times before: any entry level DSLR whether they be from the Big Two (Nikon/Canon) or the other competitors (Sigma, Sony, Oly, etc.) will do fine for a begginer. I, too, was once in a quandry..

That said, what made me go to Nikon was two simple things. First, it's ergonomics/fit in my hands. This is probably one of the most important (for me, at least) It felt good in my hands. IQ, ISO noise, VR in lens or in body, are all very debatable through various tests and numbers. But the intuitiveness of how one feels in your hands is very distinct and definitive. So go to your local store and try it out!.

Second, while almost all entry level DSLR can give you decent photos with the proper training and technique, I had to wonder why when in an event (whether it be an NBA game I attended, or a wedding or a graduation picture, or the Olympics) most Pros are using either Nikon or Canon. I read a recent post here where there where 31 Nikon to 21 Canons in the Phelps swim event and there were 90% Canons with 10% Nikon on a PGA tour event.(Not sure if they are true, but that's what I read) > If you are in a quandry, maybe this will help you decide. Since performance are very arguable (and, indeed, very close...in most cases the difference is almost always the photographer and not the gear **come on! we all know that it is never the gear that takes photos, it's the photographer! LOL**).

There has to be a reason why they are the Big Two right?.

Hope this helps. Bear in mind that as long as you take the time to learn the craft, your camera will be a great tool. But that is just it, a tool. In the end, it is you who make sthe photographs memorable..

Respects,.

Doni.

...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde.

Http://xdms.multiply.com/photos..

Comment #17

Doni wrote:.

As have been said many, many times before: any entry level DSLRwhether they be from the Big Two (Nikon/Canon) or the othercompetitors (Sigma, Sony, Oly, etc.) will do fine for a begginer. I,too, was once in a quandry..

That said, what made me go to Nikon was two simple things. First, itsergonomics/fit in my hands. This is probably one of the mostimportant (for me, at least) It felt good in my hands. IQ, ISO noise,VR in lens or in body, are all very debatable through various testsand numbers. But the intuitiveness of how one feels in your hands isvery distinct and definitive. So go to your local store and try itout!.

Second, while almost all entry level DSLR can give you decent photoswith the proper training and technique, I had to wonder why when inan event (whether it be an NBA game I attended, or a wedding or agraduation picture, or the Olympics) most Pros are using either Nikonor Canon. I read a recent post here where there where 31 Nikon to 21Canons in the Phelps swim event and there were 90% Canons with 10%Nikon on a PGA tour event.(Not sure if they are true, but that's whatI read) > If you are in a quandry, maybe this will help you decide.Since performance are very arguable (and, indeed, very close...inmost cases the difference is almost always the photographer and notthe gear **come on! we all know that it is never the gear that takesphotos, it's the photographer! LOL**).

There has to be a reason why they are the Big Two right?.

Hope this helps. Bear in mind that as long as you take the time tolearn the craft, your camera will be a great tool. But that is justit, a tool. In the end, it is you who make sthe photographs memorable..

Respects,.

Doni...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vitalthing - Oscar Wilde.

Http://xdms.multiply.com/photos.

Ummm... how many full Pro News level cameras do Sony, Pentax, Oly Make... ? .

Currently.. ZERO....

Now if you see yourself needing a $4000-8000 body with $2000-$20,000 in lenses.. that argument makes total sense for the moment..

Otherwise it is like saying.. The army uses only Chrysler tanks so you shouldn't buy a Saturn or Subaru to Toyota..

And BTW at some events the camera maker buys thier way in, can you say Canon and NFL?.

Why not stick to what works for what he wants to do with his camera.. and I totally agree about going and trying it out before buying.. I have not found a camera that felt as good our was as quick to change settings especially without moving my left hand from shooting position as the Sony A700....

Happy hunting..Ken_ 5D(Happy A700 owner who hasn't sold the KM 5D yet hmm?)See my stuff athttp://www.cascadephotoworks.comRead the detailed reviews athttp://www.dpreview.comThen read great Sony user info at:http://www.photoclubalpha.com..

Comment #18

I totally agree with you in your points..

The point of my comment was to say that the Entry level DSLR's can ALL give quality photos. It will all depend on the one taking the shots..

The comment about the Pro's choice was a take at sarcasm mixed with a bit of truth: if everything was near equal ( in the entry level DSLR market re: price/performance), what would you choose? **feels lens lust creeping in...haha** >this is of course a personal preference that includes price, bang for the buck, ergonomics, and what not..

The answer, at least, we both agree on: Go out and feel/test the camera before buying! .

Hope this clarifies things..

To the OP,.

Good luck in your choice. I said it before, I'll say it again. As long as you put time into the craft to learn it's various aspects, you will do fine with any of the budget/entry level DSLR out there!.

Respects,.

Doni.

...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde.

Http://xdms.multiply.com/photos..

Comment #19

Ken_5D wrote:.

Look, I'm not here to put down you pictures, but I'm not sure thesehelp your cause..

But that didn't stop you did it as part of a fanatic attack..The last two are not great.. but the first two are too good to letyour biased attack go un answered....

They didn't help his cause. But you're right. It was a biased crack..

The A200 goes for as little as $465 with kit lens. The Lower end is75-300mm is around $199..

What is the cost of D60 and VR 75-300 lens?.

Ah, yes, but not a fair comparison. How about the 70-300 Sony which has a sonic motor and ED glass like the Nikon 70-300vr? Sony's 70-300 is $800 all by itself without that costly in-lens stabillization. Nikon's vr with ED glass and sonic motor is $479 street with that costly in-lens stabillization..

So, get the A200 with not so wonderful kit and the $800 zoom and you're at $1300. The D60 with a pretty good vr kit lens and $479 70-300 vr is $1160..

But the value here might be the the Nikon D60 with the twin lens kit, including the fine 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR for only $847. Both lenses are quite capable and sharp performers..

Now the Alpha 200 with twin lens kit is $700, but we know the 18-70 is a poor performer as is that particular 75-300. In fact most reviews say to opt for a Tamron or Sigma at that price point. No ED glass and a rotating front element..

Now Sony's excellent Zeiss ZA Vario-Sonnar T 24-70mm is superb. It just costs so much and would better be suited to your A700..

I'm not sure why, but Sony's consumer glass leaves a lot to be desired compared to all the others, IMO, admittedly biased. Even Sony's super wide 11-18 is a rebadged Tamron and is considered good, but the poorest of the superwides..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #20

But the value here might be the the Nikon D60 with the twin lens kit,including the fine 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR for only $847. Bothlenses are quite capable and sharp performers..

Now the Alpha 200 with twin lens kit is $700, but we know the 18-70is a poor performer as is that particular 75-300..

Remember, you are losing a whole bunc of reach with that 55-200 compared to the 75-300. Does Nikon have a low cost VR lens in that range?.

Well, keep in mind that those Nikon lenses are kit lenses and compare with kit lenses of all the other manufacturers. They are good, but not great..

Take a look at these links..

Http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm.

Http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=54.

With the Sony, I admit the kit 18-70 lens is not the best kit lens out there and is the worst os the lenses I own, but it has a longer reach than the Nikon 18-55 and you will find that very handy at times. The 75-300 I am talking about (an all the other used 35mm Minolta lenses) are full frame 35mm Maxxum lenses, not DX lenses. With these lenses, you are not using the outer edges of the glass where most distortion occurs and you will not have any vignetting as you might on the smaller DX lenses. All things being equal, the 35mm lens will outperform the DX lens. My 28-80 kit lens from my Maxxum outperforms the 18-70 kit lens from the Sony and you can pick those up for almost nothing..

If you were arguing for a Nikon D80 which can make full use of the used 35mm lenses, some of your arguments would be more valid. Compared to the other Nikons, the D40-D60 are crippled...

Comment #21

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

Remember, you are losing a whole bunc of reach with that 55-200compared to the 75-300. Does Nikon have a low cost VR lens in thatrange?.

You're losing a little reach, but you're gaining IQ. Nikon's 70-300VR is a great lens for around $479. You get a hypersonic ring motor focusing and ED glass. Remember, Sony's sonic motor, ED 70-300 is $800..

Well, keep in mind that those Nikon lenses are kit lenses and comparewith kit lenses of all the other manufacturers. They are good, butnot great..

Take a look at these links..

Http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm.

Wow, Thom really likes the very sharp 55-200VR. He gives it excellent performance ratings. Photozone gives it an optical rating better than most any Sony consumer..

With the Sony, I admit the kit 18-70 lens is not the best kit lensout there and is the worst os the lenses I own, but it has a longerreach than the Nikon 18-55 and you will find that very handy attimes. The 75-300 I am talking about (an all the other used 35mmMinolta lenses) are full frame 35mm Maxxum lenses, not DX lenses.With these lenses, you are not using the outer edges of the glasswhere most distortion occurs and you will not have any vignetting asyou might on the smaller DX lenses. All things being equal, the 35mmlens will outperform the DX lens. My 28-80 kit lens from my Maxxumoutperforms the 18-70 kit lens from the Sony and you can pick thoseup for almost nothing..

Ok, I suppose one can find some old consumer Minolta lenses that work better than what Sony makes. Fine kettle of fish that gets you, having to resort to used items to get near quality..

If you were arguing for a Nikon D80 which can make full use of theused 35mm lenses, some of your arguments would be more valid.Compared to the other Nikons, the D40-D60 are crippled..

Not at all, and we've covered that ground. I agree, the D40 and D60 won't autofocus is some of the old used AF lenses, but that's the point. They don't have to. The lenses made for them do a great job. You don't have to resort to old used lenses to try to get some optical quality..

The only reason I can see to go Sony is if you have a pile of old Minolta lenses you wish to use. Otherwise, I see no benefit. Just my opinion..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #22

You're losing a little reach, but you're gaining IQ. Nikon's 70-300VRis a great lens for around $479. You get a hypersonic ring motorfocusing and ED glass. Remember, Sony's sonic motor, ED 70-300 is$800..

My point wasa lot of people do not want to spend as much or more than the price of the body on a lens. Used lenses are a good value especially for someone just getting into SLR photography. I love going to my local camera shop and looking at the used stuff for lenses that I do not need. That 500mm mirror lens looked pretty interesting. They even give a 30 day money back warranty on them..

Not at all, and we've covered that ground. I agree, the D40 and D60won't autofocus is some of the old used AF lenses, but that's thepoint. They don't have to. The lenses made for them do a great job.You don't have to resort to old used lenses to try to get someoptical quality..

See point above. Maybe everyone can not afford the new stuff. You need to move up to the D80 if you want to use the vast array of great Nikon glass...

The only reason I can see to go Sony is if you have a pile of oldMinolta lenses you wish to use. Otherwise, I see no benefit. Just myopinion..

And that is a darn good reason. The same valid points could be made for Pentax with built in stabilization vs Nikon and Canon too. Canon and Nikon make great professional gear. That does not mean that they necessarily make the best entry level gear. Every model must stand on it's own merits..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #23

AlphaDSLR wrote:.

You're losing a little reach, but you're gaining IQ. Nikon's 70-300VRis a great lens for around $479. You get a hypersonic ring motorfocusing and ED glass. Remember, Sony's sonic motor, ED 70-300 is$800..

My point wasa lot of people do not want to spend as much or morethan the price of the body on a lens. Used lenses are a good valueespecially for someone just getting into SLR photography. I lovegoing to my local camera shop and looking at the used stuff forlenses that I do not need. That 500mm mirror lens looked prettyinteresting. They even give a 30 day money back warranty on them..

Ya know, I love that too. We're both actually in agreement. But we're not typical of a person starting out. They want a good lens on the camera up front..

That's one nice thing about Nikon. You walk into these old used camera stores and pawn shops and there's a ton of old lenses and equipment that fits. Everything, just about fits my D300. You mention a 500 mirror. I have one. The IQ is terrible, but it's fun.

Came with a leatherette case. LOL.

Not at all, and we've covered that ground. I agree, the D40 and D60won't autofocus is some of the old used AF lenses, but that's thepoint. They don't have to. The lenses made for them do a great job.You don't have to resort to old used lenses to try to get someoptical quality..

See point above. Maybe everyone can not afford the new stuff. Youneed to move up to the D80 if you want to use the vast array of greatNikon glass...

The enthusiast who shops for used stuff in old camera stores, generally wouldn't be using a really entry level camera. See point above. .

The only reason I can see to go Sony is if you have a pile of oldMinolta lenses you wish to use. Otherwise, I see no benefit. Just myopinion..

And that is a darn good reason. The same valid points could be madefor Pentax with built in stabilization vs Nikon and Canon too. Canonand Nikon make great professional gear. That does not mean that theynecessarily make the best entry level gear. Every model must standon it's own merits..

Well, we're in total agreement there. If I had a ton of old gear for some brand, I'd probably be looking to purchase a body that could use it. I don't care about Liveview nor Stabillization much, but compatibility and high IQ is important..

The things that make me happy are:Great glassGood buildGood ergonomicsBright Glass pentaprism viewfinderQuick speedLow noiseHuge availability for pro-level top notch glass if I want it..

Things I don't care much about:LiveViewShake the Sensor Dust offIn-lens StabillizationIn-body Stabillization (even more so).

Deal breakers:Bad fit and finishCheap non-sharp lensesCromatic Abberations (purple and other fringing)Plastic slippery feelDim ViewfinderToo many gizmo techie features to suck in point and shooters.

Camera's I really like:Nikon D300 and D700Nikon D2HOlympus 420Higher end PentaxOld screw mount PentaxI'd like the Sony A700 if I could stand the company. LOLCanon 40D maybe.

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #24

Guidenet wrote:.

Camera's I really like:Nikon D300 and D700Nikon D2HOlympus 420Higher end PentaxOld screw mount PentaxI'd like the Sony A700 if I could stand the company. LOLCanon 40D maybe.

Cheers, Craig.

Seems we are really pretty much in agreement. I started SLR photography back about 1970 with a Yashica TL-Super match needle metering. It took the M42 screw mount that was as close to a standard mount as we ever got with cameras. Some of those old lenses were really sharp. You sure got some sharp slides on that Kodachrome with ASA 25-that was before ISO. Could you imagine shooting at ISO 25 with these slow zoom lenses? I stll have that Camera and a Chinon SLR that used the same mount and a few lenses left including an early 70-200 zoom that is all glass and steel.

Had to have it, but it wore me out trying to carry it. After I could no longer buy batteries for these, I moved to a Minolta Maxxum and added lenses. Those automatic cameras sure took you out of the equation of taking a picture. You learn a lot with an old manual camera. After I bought my first P&S 3MP digital, I shot less and less film.

I do not spend near the time shooting as I did when I was younger, so I opted to not put a lot of money in a high end body. The Sony suits my needs. There is rumor of a full frame body down the road and all my lenses will work on that if I decide to dump the cash. Oh, did I mention...they will be stabilized too  ..

Comment #25

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.