Cameras *no point and shoots*

Pedro

Pedro

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
Ok it is finally time to jump in to the DSLR market. I have limited myself to buying from Sony...

before you gasp,

1: always had good luck

2: FIL has Minolta lense collection that is nothing to scoff at (seriously)

3: See #2

4: FIL has an A300 and although I haven't played with it much. seems pretty good for what I am looking for.

Guide me Oh photo peeps!

default_rolleyes.gif
<-- Makes me chuckle every time I see it

 
Are you wondering what to buy? I have a Nikon D70s, and i LOVE that camera! i guess you post might be a little confusing....

 
Just bought a Nikon D90...and I love the thing. Haven't played around with the Sony rigs at all.

My paw-in-law also has a badass Nikon lens collection that fits the new toy, so I totally understand wanting to go that way.

 
Please don't get a Sony...for point and shoots, they're great, but their DSLRs just don't stack up against what Nikon and Canon have to offer.

That being said, the A350 and A700 are going to be what you're looking at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
last camera i bought was in a cardboard box and wrapped in plastic. lol is that considered a point and shoot? and when i gave it to the lady at the counter she didnt give it back. i was utterly devistated.

 
Please don't get a Sony...for point and shoots, they're great, but their DSLRs just don't stack up against what Nikon and Canon have to offer.

That being said, the A350 and A700 are going to be what you're looking at.
Click to expand...
the A350 is only in the Digital Rebel arena.

I hear you on the A100 or A200. but from the reviews I have been reading the A300-350 stand up pretty evenly with the Cannon I haven't seen a Nikon comparo.

but remember I am sitting on a lense cache close to $10k

 
If you have that much worth of lenses, I'd go ahead and get an A350 body only. Or maybe an A700 if you have a little bit more coin to splurge.

That's what I'd do if I HAD to get a Sony.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have that much worth of lenses, I'd go ahead and get an A350 body only.
That's what I'd do if I HAD to get a Sony.
Click to expand...
what is your issue with the Sonys? I remember reading some horrid reviews on the A100 from the Nikon and Cannon fanbois. but most of that trickled away with the introduction of the new bodies and now the latest A350 seems to have no bad reviews other than a few niche items.

 
A deepset hatred of Sony...hahaha.

That's really about it...although their cheaper DSLRs are junk. I would get a Rebel over anything under the A350...and I don't even like the Rebel. I've shot with 3 of them, one with a stock lense, and the other two had much more expensive lenses. The stock was an absolute joke, and with expensive lenses, it became slightly tolerable.

 
i dont know why all of you bash the sony but the a700 is a great camera for the money and sony does have a pro series camera in the a900 witch is full frame and the most pixels ay 24.6. I run a sony A100 and my pictures go all over the place i have pics in a napa magazine, i got pic on this forum header and i got some going into the lewiston sun journal for aurburn adult hockey league. its not what you shot with its how you use it. if you dont know how to use all the features it has to offer then its a total waste of money...I like the sony because the body has the built in antishack witch is really nice if your not using a tripod all monalta lens from back in the day make a great stop gap till you can afford better lenses.

 
i dont know why all of you bash the sony but the a700 is a great camera for the money and sony does have a pro series camera in the a900 witch is full frame and the most pixels ay 24.6. I run a sony A100 and my pictures go all over the place i have pics in a napa magazine, i got pic on this forum header and i got some going into the lewiston sun journal for aurburn adult hockey league. its not what you shot with its how you use it. if you dont know how to use all the features it has to offer then its a total waste of money...I like the sony because the body has the built in antishack witch is really nice if your not using a tripod all monalta lens from back in the day make a great stop gap till you can afford better lenses.
Click to expand...
default_additional_sillylol.gif


have you had any issues with the camera? and what else have you shot with?

 
i done 3 weddings car shots wild life pics tons of hockey

-----Added 4/30/2009 at 04:15:19-----

thing i dont like is at high iso not very good and definitely recommend an external flash.

-----Added 4/30/2009 at 04:25:55-----

icecabin.jpg


weddingpic007.jpg


weddingpic193.jpg


 
I've been looking at the Nikon D40x and D60.

I found a D60 for $550, body and one lens, but I can't really justify spending money on anything other than a car at this point.

^those A100 pics (2 and 3) look good though, I have to admit.

The only problem with the D40 and D60 is that they don't have autofocus motors built in, you need to use a nikon autofocus lens with built-in motor. Not sure what Sonys have or don't have autofocus.

 
weddingpic193.jpg


Not to be an ass, but I couldn't tell who was the wife or the husband... I had to look at the rings.
default_smile.png


Nice camera.

 
Not to be an ass, but I couldn't tell who was the wife or the husband... I had to look at the rings.
default_smile.png


Nice camera.
Click to expand...
Just cause you wear the diamond, doesn't mean every other married dude does!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top