New Hobby
New Hobby
I took up photography.
So if you're bored check this page every once in a while:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eninala/
It adds pictures in like a stack, so the older ones are at the bottom of the page.
So if you're bored check this page every once in a while:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eninala/
It adds pictures in like a stack, so the older ones are at the bottom of the page.
My equipment:
Sony A100
Konica Minolta 24-105mm/3.5-4.5 AF D
Konica Minolta 50mm/1.7 AF
2 gig CompactFlash (for a grand total of ~130 RAW photos)
Adobe Photoshop CS2 for OS X (volume licensed)
Need a tripod at some point for long-exposure night photos. Someday.
AF = Autofocus
D = Distance Encoding (lens acquires distance information and uses it to calculate flash exposure...if I ever bother learning flash photography)
Sony A100
Konica Minolta 24-105mm/3.5-4.5 AF D
Konica Minolta 50mm/1.7 AF
2 gig CompactFlash (for a grand total of ~130 RAW photos)
Adobe Photoshop CS2 for OS X (volume licensed)
Need a tripod at some point for long-exposure night photos. Someday.
AF = Autofocus
D = Distance Encoding (lens acquires distance information and uses it to calculate flash exposure...if I ever bother learning flash photography)
I looked at 4 cameras before deciding on the Sony. I checked out the Canon 400D Digital Rebel XTi, the Nikon D80, and the Pentax K10D.
My criteria were
1) Image quality
2) Feature set
3) Lens selection
4) Cost
5) Feel
In terms of image quality, the Nikon is the best, especially in low light due to its excellent noise reduction at higher ISO settings (800+). At ISO 400 and below, the Sony is not noticeably inferior to the Nikon, and actually has better resolution than the Canon. The Pentax has a terrible image processor, so you have to shoot exclusively in RAW format to get good images.
With feature set, the Pentax comes in first, with body-based image stabilization, LCD preview, weather-sealed body, and some other stuff I don't remember. Sony is next, with body-based image stabilization, dynamic range optimizer (helps reduce highlights and shadows), sensor dust removal, and all the other stuff you'd expect in a camera like this. Nikon has pretty much the standard feature set. Canon is the worst in this category, since they have so many cameras they purposely leave out some standard things like spot metering and manual white balance adjustment so that you'll get one of their higher-end models instead if you want that.
Canon is clearly the best in lens selection. Nikon is next, Sony is third. But I can use the old Konica-Minolta lenses since Sony bought their camera department, and if someday I am good enough for it to matter, I have the option of getting Carl Zeiss lenses since they have a deal with Sony now.
Canon is the cheapest, then Sony and Pentax. Nikon is the most expensive.
I liked the way the Sony felt in my hands WAY more than any other camera. The Canon is way too small, I couldn't get a good grip on it at all. The Nikon and Pentax were pretty good too.
Basically decided against the Canon because my feeling about Canon is that as the market leader (and having the most extensive system--lenses, flash units, etc) they were purposely making their intro-level DSLR camera inferior just because they could get away with it. I decided against Pentax because I didn't want to ALWAYS have to shoot in RAW, and their system is no more extensive than Sony's. I decided on Nikon mostly because of the cost; in order to get image stabilization I'd have to spend an obscene amount of money on each lens. With Sony it's on the body, so I every lens I attach has it. I planned on not getting a tripod for a few months and shooting handheld exclusively until then, so I get good use out of the image stabilization which lets me shoot at lower ISO and slower shutter speed than I have a right to be doing. So basically, between Nikon and Sony, the deal-maker was the IS, with $$$ being the cherry on top.
The drawbacks on my Sony are that it's not good at high ISO settings due to inferior noise reduction (I stay at ISO 400 or below, even indoors, unless I have no choice), so sports photography is probably not in my future). And there aren't many places out there that I can rent lenses if I ever come across that need. With Canon and Nikon, if I wanted a telephoto lens for the weekend I could rent one. Not so easy with Sony. But it's not as if I'm going on any safaris anytime soon.
So basically Sony's strengths matched up well with my needs, and its weaknesses were in things I don't care too much about.
My criteria were
1) Image quality
2) Feature set
3) Lens selection
4) Cost
5) Feel
In terms of image quality, the Nikon is the best, especially in low light due to its excellent noise reduction at higher ISO settings (800+). At ISO 400 and below, the Sony is not noticeably inferior to the Nikon, and actually has better resolution than the Canon. The Pentax has a terrible image processor, so you have to shoot exclusively in RAW format to get good images.
With feature set, the Pentax comes in first, with body-based image stabilization, LCD preview, weather-sealed body, and some other stuff I don't remember. Sony is next, with body-based image stabilization, dynamic range optimizer (helps reduce highlights and shadows), sensor dust removal, and all the other stuff you'd expect in a camera like this. Nikon has pretty much the standard feature set. Canon is the worst in this category, since they have so many cameras they purposely leave out some standard things like spot metering and manual white balance adjustment so that you'll get one of their higher-end models instead if you want that.
Canon is clearly the best in lens selection. Nikon is next, Sony is third. But I can use the old Konica-Minolta lenses since Sony bought their camera department, and if someday I am good enough for it to matter, I have the option of getting Carl Zeiss lenses since they have a deal with Sony now.
Canon is the cheapest, then Sony and Pentax. Nikon is the most expensive.
I liked the way the Sony felt in my hands WAY more than any other camera. The Canon is way too small, I couldn't get a good grip on it at all. The Nikon and Pentax were pretty good too.
Basically decided against the Canon because my feeling about Canon is that as the market leader (and having the most extensive system--lenses, flash units, etc) they were purposely making their intro-level DSLR camera inferior just because they could get away with it. I decided against Pentax because I didn't want to ALWAYS have to shoot in RAW, and their system is no more extensive than Sony's. I decided on Nikon mostly because of the cost; in order to get image stabilization I'd have to spend an obscene amount of money on each lens. With Sony it's on the body, so I every lens I attach has it. I planned on not getting a tripod for a few months and shooting handheld exclusively until then, so I get good use out of the image stabilization which lets me shoot at lower ISO and slower shutter speed than I have a right to be doing. So basically, between Nikon and Sony, the deal-maker was the IS, with $$$ being the cherry on top.
The drawbacks on my Sony are that it's not good at high ISO settings due to inferior noise reduction (I stay at ISO 400 or below, even indoors, unless I have no choice), so sports photography is probably not in my future). And there aren't many places out there that I can rent lenses if I ever come across that need. With Canon and Nikon, if I wanted a telephoto lens for the weekend I could rent one. Not so easy with Sony. But it's not as if I'm going on any safaris anytime soon.
So basically Sony's strengths matched up well with my needs, and its weaknesses were in things I don't care too much about.