Comments & insight on kit purchasing

ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Moderator
Messages
28,468
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys, I'm a photographer looking to return to SLR use and considering a number of options in the new and used camera market. I still have some reasonable film kit (35mm and roll film) and have used a number of digital cameras on and off over the last 10 years. My photography tends towards people, travel, landscape and urban, and primarily publishing to the web (i.e. not producing giant poster-size prints). I don't need a zillion modes, and am happy to work semi-automated or manual. I wish to avoid Canon (don't take it personally) because I don't like the colour rendering and find the control layout slightly unintuitive. I want to go SLR because I find that form of viewfinder works best for me, but I don't mind an EVF is it's good.

Cash, however, is not over-plentiful, and there's several options that spring to mind that I'd like advice about.

The first of these is the Sony A58. Presently heavily discounted, this would take my existing Minolta lenses and *seems* speced a little above most entry level cameras. There are negatives, like the composite lens mount and smaller buffer for continuous shooting, and particularly a tendency in some examples to back-focus. However it would get into instant-outfit territory without laying down wads of cash.

The second option is to go Nikon & build up gradually. I could probably manage a D3200 with kit lens, but for around the same price I could also get a D90, which is much more workmanlike. For me, the question here is how much has technology moved on, and would a 4 year old enthusiast camera feel limiting compared to a new beginner model? I'd guess probably not, but I don't know any D90 users (AFAIK).

So comments and advice welcome. Cheers.

:)

*edit*
I have been through the reviews - DPReview etc, but it's not the same as advice from real-world users.
 
Last edited:
You'll need to define your budget more precisely for useful responses

But for maximum compatability with any lenses from your film gear it would be Sony NEX, or Canon - it's all down to the register distance.
 
Last edited:
My advise is to get a good older pro Canon body. 1Ds II and 1D IIN are total bargain and colour rendition is amazing (not to be confused with whacky colours of Rebels and XXD series)

If you want Sony I would dig out A900, but you are then buying into a very changing system (see A7 and A7r)

I can't stop laughing at your suggestion that D90 is workman like. It is a plastic consumer body just like D3200 with little special about it. If you like nikon the way forward is something like D3 or D700.
 
A used D300 is around the same price as a used D90, (maybe a little more) and plenty of them about.

Sony A58 currently £279 on ebay by the way (camera store, UK stock , new).

Very different options though - one is a current model but entry level (great value for money though) while the other is obviously an older but much higher spec in terms of build quality and extra buttons etc.

As you already have Minolta lenses A57 might be another option if you can find a used one for similar price to the A58?
 
OK, thanks for commenting - £350ish is my budget, hence the options listed. Sure it's not pro-level, but then I don't have pro-level cash handy.

I have a sneaking feeling I may be in the wrong place.
 
applemint - thank you.

I'm avoiding the A57 because of the slightly low quality EVF.
 
ancient_mariner said:
OK, thanks for commenting - £350ish is my budget, hence the options listed. Sure it's not pro-level, but then I don't have pro-level cash handy.

I have a sneaking feeling I may be in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

For that kind of money you can still get yourself a reasonable start up kit :thumbs: remember to allow a little bit for a memory card...but it's important to remember is a marathon not a sprint so you can always save to get other bits later on :D
 
Well I got myself a Nikon D3100 with kit lens and a 35mm 1.8G secondhand for just over £300 and it does most things I need it too. Will be getting a decent zoom lens once funds allow.
 
Thanks MWHCVT. I have the memory cards - just sold a Fuji HS30 because image quality just wasn't adequate. I should have gone SLR earlier in the year, but wanted something with a longer lens for a one-off trip to Zimbabwe. Yes, you're right about taking time, I may have to sell a guitar or 2 to pay for things.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks MWHCVT. I have the memory cards - just sold a Fuji HS30 because image quality just wasn't adequate. I should have gone SLR earlier in the year, but wanted something with a longer lens for a one-off trip to Zimbabwe. Yes, you're right about taking time, I may have to sell a guitar or 2 to pay for things.
Click to expand...

Oh dear talking of setting guitars, your already starting to get that bug back...before long you'll be checking the going rates of an arm an leg ;) from the things that you've listed as your main interests photographically it looks like at least now your not looking at a longer lens in fact you could probably get away with just the one lens at the moment a standard level zoom or maybe a prime lens in the 28-85 range....something to consider is that your likely with your budget to be looking at a crop camera so any focal length that your used to from your SLRs with have a different FoV

Oh and Matt is fine :thumbs:
 
If you already have minolta lenses then a Sony is the no brainer really. Small buffer size will be an issue on most of the modern base model cameras.

Second hand a65 is also another option to look at.
 
Thanks Matt. Now, lets see - does this work like Harmony Central used to? :thumbs:

edit - nope.

Suz - an A65 is about £100-£150 too high for me, even used. :(
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
applemint - thank you.

I'm avoiding the A57 because of the slightly low quality EVF.
Click to expand...

I may be completely biased but I didn't find too much of a difference between the two EVFs. The most obvious difference was the a58s blacks were deeper. I moved from the first generation a33 EVF to the 2nd generation a57 EVF - That was a big leap forward in size and quality but I didn't get that feeling using the OLED EVFs. I bought my a57 when the a58 came out and compared them both thoroughly, I felt that the a57 was the better camera. You can pick up the a57 as a refurb from Sony for under £280 (I cant remember the exact price, it's disappeared from their website).
 
Thanks Chris. Maybe this particular EVF I need to try.
 
ancient_mariner said:
applemint - thank you.

I'm avoiding the A57 because of the slightly low quality EVF.
Click to expand...

I have only used the A57 so cannot compare with the OLED evf of the A58 but the A57 one is fine for me - then again it may be a case of not knowing what I am missing. I have heard some people say they notice a massive difference and others say they hardly notice any difference so it may be an individual thing. :)

With the A58 I would miss the horizon level, better lcd and faster fps of the A57, along with a few other things - but it depends what your priorities are I guess. I know from reading the reviews and comments on amazon US some people think the better evf and newer sensor makes the A58 preferable, eg the Kirk Tuck review: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SLT-A58K...VMK/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
 
What Minolta lenses do you have?

Several people are suggesting that Sony is a good choice because you can re-use the lenses - which is a valid point, but it does depends on what you have.

Some are still great today, while others show their age.

If you are happy for S/h, and would prefer to avoid the EVF, another Sony option would be an A700 - if you want a great handling 'traditional' - good OVF, dual control dials, alloy body, etc.

The A580 is another well regarded model - the last of their OVF models.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks Matt. Now, lets see - does this work like Harmony Central used to? :thumbs: edit - nope. Suz - an A65 is about £100-£150 too high for me, even used. :(
Click to expand...

They pop up in the Sony outlet store for 350 and sometimes in classifieds on here for 300. So they're not way out of budget :)
 
Hi Toni and welcome.

For your given end use, a much older camera would probably do. From the sound of it, 6MP will be enough for you (for now!) and a body capable of that will be well under budget, leaving £250 or so for a couple of reasonable lenses.

I would suggest that you get hold of a copy of Amateur Photographer (next week's issue has a free torch as an incentive...) and look at the adverts for 2nd hand dealers in the back to see what's available. My choice would probably be a Nikon D70 with an 18-70 kit lens and a fast 50mm prime - f/1.8 should be enough and cheaper than the f/1.4. Personally I would avoid the later bodies that have no in body AF motor since the lenses you'll need to AF on them will wipe out any savings you may make on the body purchase. Google is your friend when looking for specifications and reviews!
 
Thanks again guys - this is all helpful and helping me distil down ideas too.

None of the lenses I have are absolutely top notch (70-210 f4 and 50 f1.7 Minolta, cheap 28-70 zoom and Sigma 18mm ultra-wide) though the 'beer can' is likely better than a kit long zoom and the 50mm is reasonably sharp.

The things I want from an SLR are good handling, clear viewfinder for composition, easy control over focussing and exposure and an ability to control exposure in camera 'live' (so live view will be important). In that respect EVF may actually be better than OVF, provided the image is clear enough for accurate manual focussing (that was certainly not the case for the HS30 I sold, and another of the reasons I didn't keep it).

Thanks both Suz and Jonathan - I will investigate the A65, A580 and A700 further.
 
Hi Nod - thanks for that. I've not bought AP for more than 25 years, so it will be fun to see if it's hugely changed.

6-8 MP would probably be fine, although more would be nice if it were relatively noise-free. It's easy to get a little over-concerned with pixel-peeping, but noise is a real bugbear to me, and one of the reasons (that I failed to mention above) for grabbing something with a bigger sensor.

Someone on another forum was suggesting a used Nikon D300, which seems like a good tool. Any comments on that?
 
Last edited:
a57- a70 - a580 I have in my time owned all of these very useful bodies and you have some Sony fit lenses and Sony is a good make, I have 2 now :D

an a65 can be had 2nd had for around £300 -I know Ive just sold one on this forum


Les :thumbs:
 
ancient_mariner said:
None of the lenses I have are absolutely top notch (70-210 f4 and 50 f1.7 Minolta, cheap 28-70 zoom and Sigma 18mm ultra-wide) though the 'beer can' is likely better than a kit long zoom and the 50mm is reasonably sharp.

The things I want from an SLR are good handling, clear viewfinder for composition, easy control over focussing and exposure and an ability to control exposure in camera 'live' (so live view will be important). In that respect EVF may actually be better than OVF, provided the image is clear enough for accurate manual focussing (that was certainly not the case for the HS30 I sold, and another of the reasons I didn't keep it).
Click to expand...

Not top notch perhaps but having tried many of the cheaper Minolta lenses, I think most are a bit over-hyped /over-rated on dyxum and elsewhere - including the beercan and 50 1.7 to some extent. But those 2 lenses and the 35-70 f4 'macro' (constant f4 version) are the ones I liked the most of all the lenses I tried and all 3 are certainly capable of stunning sharp images even on modern 16-20mp cameras.

They do benefit from shooting raw to remove occassional CA/purple fringing - usually one click to remove in LR5 and also to add a bit of contrast.

Selling them might get just enough to replace them with modern equivalents (Sony or Tamron 55-200 and Sony 50mm 1.8) if you bought used but I don't think there would be much benefit or gain to be had really - (beercans go for around £70 to £80 and the 50mm 1.7 for around £70). Given a total budget of £350 and that at least those 2 are actually pretty decent lenses, going for something like an A58 does make sense. The new version of the kit lens that comes with the A58 is also said to be an improved version of the one that came with the A57.

An evf certainly offers the advantage of instantly seeing the effect of exposure changes in the viewfinder as well as being able to display a histogram in the viewfinder. Live view AF on the Sony SLT's is also much faster than on a camera like the D90 or D300. For manual focusing you can use focus peaking and/or magnify the image in the evf which you cannot do with an ovf.

If noise is a concern then the A58 should be a couple of stops better than the D300 in that regard - if you are often using ISO 1600 and 3200 then I would avoid the D300. The A58 is apparently slightly better at ISO 3200 than the A57 and I am happy to use my A57 up to ISO 3200 - I do post process and use noise reduction in lightroom, but if the exposure is accurate then the noise is usually not too bad.

There are a couple of reviews of the A58 here which might be helpful:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2013/06/05/2020-vision-sony-alpha-58-review/
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/my-new-camera-is-pretty-damn-good-not.html
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what-does-iso-6400-look-like-on-a58.html

One thing too note - if you do long exposures on a tripod the A58 does not have a socket for a corded remote and has no infra red remote ability. So you are stuck with the workaround of using the self-timer or buying the very expensive proprietary Sony remote - although perhaps generic Chinese no brand versions will turn up at some stage?

Is there a camera shop or even a Sony centre or a Currys near you where you could look at an A58 as it's certainly advisable to try out the evf first to see how you get on with it?
 
Last edited:
Hi Mark, thanks everso for that. I did wander down to Oxford Currys this afternoon to have a play, and was quite impressed with the A58 (more than I expected). The EVF was pretty unobtrusive, in that I wasn't really aware that it wasn't an OVF. It handled my beercan well too, focussing quickly and cleanly on whatever I pointed it at, and I was also able to manually focus without difficulty. It also felt pleasingly light after I'd dug out the old Minolta outfit and the humped it round for 30min (how ever did I carry that stuff all day?).

I did a sequential comparison with the Nikon D3200, and felt much more comfortable with the Sony than the Nikon: it felt better made, the articulating screen was a big advantage and the slightly larger body sat better in my hands. The kit lens on the Sony was also much better made than that on the Nikon, which had a wobbly front element/focus ring. Nikon control layout was better and ditto menu system, but that's down to familiarity.

I'm mildly torn now between this with all the technological advantages of a recent system and the fact that it's a new body without wear, as opposed to something like an A700 which will be 3-5 years old, probably with 35,000+ activations and older technology that was brilliant then, but looks a little average now.

Or as Nod suggested I could just buy a much older camera for little money and build up, but there are times it's really nice to have something recent.
 
BTW I've read the Photoclubalpha review already, and he discussed on DPReview how he had problems with focussing and eventually he realised the camera was back-focussing (which is not an isolated problem). The fix seems to be to physically adjust the focus mechanism, either yourself or sending it away, Sony seem to have washed their hands of the issue stating faulty cameras to be 'within tolerance'. Or that was the last I read anyway.
 
Hmmm.. Relatively noise free raises the bar a bit! IMO (and I've owned both) the older and lower resolution D70 handles higher ISOs better than the D200 although neither is that good over 800. Both are better up to 800 than colour print emulsions used to be (and both print better than they look like they will if you pixel peep!) Sorry I can only comment on Nikon bodies I have owned and used so can't compare the D300's high ISO performance. Can't be worse than the D200's.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm mildly torn now between this with all the technological advantages of a recent system and the fact that it's a new body without wear, as opposed to something like an A700 which will be 3-5 years old, probably with 35,000+ activations and older technology that was brilliant then, but looks a little average now.
Click to expand...
Largely irrespective of manufacturer the same amount of cash is going to let you buy an older, better handling (more physical controls) body or a newer lower end body but with improved imaging pipeline & possibly AF.
How you will display (screen or print & what size) & likely need of high ISO also should be part of your decision. A 12MP A700 for instance will be more than adequate for most people in terms of size of image display but you are probably looking at ISO 1600 max (it just depends upon how picky you are re. noise v detail).
Have a think about how important the experience of capturing the image is to you as compared to the final image (i.e. even though the camera may be capable of producing technically better photos if you don't enjoy using it as much you are less likely to).
 
Last edited:
Thanks Scott, you make some good points about handling. Back in the spring I juggled things around and ended up buying a Fuji HS30EXR superzoom: we were off to Africa to see friends, and I wanted something with a long lens for wildlife that would also be easily portable and deliver good image quality. My previous digital camera was a Samsung 6 year old S850 with a 1/1.7" 8MP sensor compared to the 1/2.3" 16MP in the Fuji.

The Fuji was great to handle for what it was: light, not too big, terrific zoom range (ordinary zooms seem pathetic by comparison) and with a reasonable EVF. I loved using it, but the image quality was so much worse than the Samsung, and worse than my wife's Panasonic compact. There may be a lot less to choose between IQ with the various DSLRs, and I guess that's a part of the internal debate for me that makes an older camera with fewer features still viable.

Nod - I think I've pretty much settled in my own mind now that I'm going down the Sony/Minolta route. Having lenses already is part of it, but also, even though the Canon & Nikon top end lenses are likely better, I doubt I'll ever stump up the hundreds of pounds required to buy them.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
BTW I've read the Photoclubalpha review already, and he discussed on DPReview how he had problems with focussing and eventually he realised the camera was back-focussing (which is not an isolated problem). The fix seems to be to physically adjust the focus mechanism, either yourself or sending it away, Sony seem to have washed their hands of the issue stating faulty cameras to be 'within tolerance'. Or that was the last I read anyway.
Click to expand...

Best option might be either to buy from somewhere with a good return policy like amazon (though they are £50 more expensive than that Cardiff camera shop on ebay at the moment!) or otherwise looking at a used A65 as suggested which should be a similar price to a new A58 and also has the better oled evf and is obviously a higher spec camera all round (in fact similar to the top of the line A77 but with a few things missing like micro focus adjust and weather sealing: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-alpha-a77-vs-a65-slt-hands-on-preview-17300 ).

About £300 to £350 should get you one used although they don't crop up that often with Sony being a lot less popular than Nikon and Canon obviously.

I have heard a few comments about noise being a problem with the 24mp Sony's though (A65 and A77) but not having ever used either of them I don't know anything much about that..
 
daugirdas said:
My advise is to get a good older pro Canon body. 1Ds II and 1D IIN are total bargain and colour rendition is amazing (not to be confused with whacky colours of Rebels and XXD series)

If you want Sony I would dig out A900, but you are then buying into a very changing system (see A7 and A7r)

I can't stop laughing at your suggestion that D90 is workman like. It is a plastic consumer body just like D3200 with little special about it. If you like nikon the way forward is something like D3 or D700.
Click to expand...

My D90 is currently crying sadly in the corner!
 
Thanks Mark, I'm checking the reviews now.

I liked the idea of an alpha 700, but the lack of live view & rear screen articulation put me off.
 
Out of interest, would I be correct to assume that using 35mm lenses on an APS-C camera effectively reduces the amount of light coming through as well as increasing effective focal length: so my f4 lens becomes more like f5 etc?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks Mark, I'm checking the reviews now.

I liked the idea of an alpha 700, but the lack of live view & rear screen articulation put me off.
Click to expand...
A580?
Doesn't handle as well as an A700 (I have both) but it has Live View, tilting screen, video & one of the most successful DSLR sensors yet made.


No, your f4 remains f4. Depth of field does change though.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Scott.

OK, this is where I *may* wish to kick myself. Dropped into LCE in Chesterfield when I finished my delivery this afternoon and handled a used A700 (which I decided not to buy - fantastic viewfinder, great handling, but it's heavy alongside the other things I mentioned). They also have an A550 in there, and I didn't try it. Nuts. That's a 2 hour drive each way. Oh well.
 
Bought a Sony A58 in LCE Leamington this morning. It may not be the *best* camera, but it should be good enough for now, and takes all my old 35mm lenses.

Now to learn to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top