tcole1983 said:
;) I bought a Nikon didn't I?

Haha, yeah I'm not quite sure what the "argument" is about either? :^)

Drab said:
No, I'm serious.

I didn't dis their quality, nor features. I didn't say they were "below" Nikon or Canon - in fact I said you'd likely get more bang for your buck with Sony.

They're a smaller-player, and regardless of how up-and-coming they might be, the first-party market for them is smaller, and the third-party one significantly so.
Can you get shoe-mount Pocket Wizards / Radio Poppers for them? Much less TTL ones?
How's the third-party support for their raw format? Not great.

I could go on and on. The point is the universe Sony DSLR's inhabit is a smaller, and therefore more limiting one, than that of Canon or Nikon. Would this affect you? I have no idea, it clearly wouldn't affect many people. I stand by my belief they are in a whole other "ballgame" than Nikon or Canon - if you want bang-for-the-buck go Sony. If you want to rest assured that whatever comes down the pike - be it hardware or software - will be made compatible with your system, go with one of the big two.

;) I bought a Nikon didn't I?

tcole1983 said:
I can't tell if you are joking or not. Have you picked one up lately? It was a strong competitor for me when I was looking. Had my friend not talked me into the Nikon I probably would have got a sony. They have the $2500, 24.6 MP A900 and lenses that cost just as much as any other brand. Like Niko said they don't have as much in the professional level, but I wouldn't count them as below Canon or Nikon.

No, I'm serious.

I didn't dis their quality, nor features. I didn't say they were "below" Nikon or Canon - in fact I said you'd likely get more bang for your buck with Sony.

They're a smaller-player, and regardless of how up-and-coming they might be, the first-party market for them is smaller, and the third-party one significantly so.
Can you get shoe-mount Pocket Wizards / Radio Poppers for them? Much less TTL ones?
How's the third-party support for their raw format? Not great.

I could go on and on. The point is the universe Sony DSLR's inhabit is a smaller, and therefore more limiting one, than that of Canon or Nikon. Would this affect you? I have no idea, it clearly wouldn't affect many people. I stand by my belief they are in a whole other "ballgame" than Nikon or Canon - if you want bang-for-the-buck go Sony. If you want to rest assured that whatever comes down the pike - be it hardware or software - will be made compatible with your system, go with one of the big two.

Drab said:
Without even getting into your confusion over whether Nikon uses Sony sensors or not, source of sensors has nothing to do with my statement.

The "Sony World" is not the same ballgame as the "Nikon / Canon World".

They are completely different markets (despite Sony's vague attempts) and you are paying for (and receiving) the differences.

I can't tell if you are joking or not. Have you picked one up lately? It was a strong competitor for me when I was looking. Had my friend not talked me into the Nikon I probably would have got a sony. They have the $2500, 24.6 MP A900 and lenses that cost just as much as any other brand. Like Niko said they don't have as much in the professional level, but I wouldn't count them as below Canon or Nikon.

I don't like Sony DSLRs but they do make some great and expensive lenses too. Lenses like the Zeiss f1.8 135mm.

Minolta WAS a big time player and a worthy competitor to Nikon and canon. So don't underestimate Sony. They haven't really gone after the "pro" market yet. They've only tested the waters with the a900.

Without even getting into your confusion over whether Nikon uses Sony sensors or not, source of sensors has nothing to do with my statement.

The "Sony World" is not the same ballgame as the "Nikon / Canon World".

They are completely different markets (despite Sony's vague attempts) and you are paying for (and receiving) the differences.

The D3/D3S/D700 are not Sony sensors. Those sensor are made by another company. Supposedly the D3100 isn't a Sony but I'm not convinced of that yet because technically the D3X isn't a Sony sensor either even though it starts life at Sony.

As for the cost of their most recent lenses, the materials these lenses are made with, the coatings and such, have risen in cost too. So a "cheap" FX lens would probably compromise in areas such as being all plastic and not having all of the same special coatings as the more expensive glass.

Drab said:
I was unaware, honestly, Sony even played in the same ballparks as Nikon.

The used (and new) market for Nikon lenses and accessories is (at least) an order of magnitude larger than that for Sony DSLRs. It is one of the main reasons Sony must price their products more aggressively.

IMHO one needs to decide at some point (preferably before buying a body) just what world they want to inhabit. Is the narrower scope of possibilities offered by the Sony (or other second-tier) system more than adequate for your needs? If so you'll likely get more technical-bang for the buck. Or are you willing to pay a little more to play on the big field (Nikon, Canon) where you run a better chance of getting all your potential needs addressed?

As far as I have seen all Nikon's use sony sensors. And as Niko said...I think a good majority of the old Minolta lenses are compatible. I actually really liked the alpha camera that I tried when i was looking.

...but back on topic I have been thinking about it and maybe if Nikon offered a faster lens without the build quality of the pro lenses? Cut down on some of the costs and make a more affordable fast lens...kind of like the 35 1.8.

Sony cameras can use some of the older Minolta AF lenses. Sony bought Minolta and changed the name of their mount to the Alpha mount. Well actually Alpha was always the Minolta name in Japan but in the US it was called the Maxxum. Sony just unified everything as the Alpha mount when they took over Minolta. So the Sony lens and accessory selection is pretty big too.

Three other things to keep in mind:

1. Third-party lenses. Would I like a Nikkor 12-24 when the time comes? Yes. I'm more likely, on the balance, to get one of the two comparable Tokina wides. Each focal length has third party equivalents that range from nearly equal to godawful, so there's some research involved, but also a considerable savings sometimes.

2. Rentals. If there's something you'd like to try out (macro photography, for instance) without plunking down the cash on expensive gear, rent it out. If it's something you see yourself needing or wanting to do a lot of, consider buying. But if it's something you may only use once in a great while, or where you can get acceptable results in post (PC lenses and fisheyes both come to mind), why spend top dollar buying?

3. Alternatives: Will you get the same results from an extension tube, a filter, a close-up filter or a teleconverter that you will from a dedicated lens? Generally speaking, no. But here again, if it's something that's just to experiment or get a feel for whether you'd like to take something to a higher level, it can be a much cheaper way to go about it.

tcole1983 said:
Maybe...I might have gone with another camera maker instead. I think the comparable Sony camera I looked at was able to use all the old lenses. Although I know just like anything else you have to pay to play. I guess it doesn't matter because I will save my money still to get the lenses I want or at least some of them.

I was unaware, honestly, Sony even played in the same ballparks as Nikon.

The used (and new) market for Nikon lenses and accessories is (at least) an order of magnitude larger than that for Sony DSLRs. It is one of the main reasons Sony must price their products more aggressively.

IMHO one needs to decide at some point (preferably before buying a body) just what world they want to inhabit. Is the narrower scope of possibilities offered by the Sony (or other second-tier) system more than adequate for your needs? If so you'll likely get more technical-bang for the buck. Or are you willing to pay a little more to play on the big field (Nikon, Canon) where you run a better chance of getting all your potential needs addressed?

Drab said:
Yes, the bar serves expensive drinks, but you're complaining about the low cover charge?
If they raised the cover so that you couldn't afford to even enter at all would you feel better?

Maybe...I might have gone with another camera maker instead. I think the comparable Sony camera I looked at was able to use all the old lenses. Although I know just like anything else you have to pay to play. I guess it doesn't matter because I will save my money still to get the lenses I want or at least some of them.

Drab said:
Yes, the bar serves expensive drinks, but you're complaining about the low cover charge?

Haha, good one Drab :^)

tcole1983 said:
I have a D5000 and I haven't ever noticed any CA on any picture. Not to say it isn't there, but it hasn't been noticeable in any pictures I have taken.

As I alluded to above, your D5000 automatically corrects for the 18-200's CA if shooting jpg, and a Nikon workflow does if shooting RAW.

Why have cheaper bodies that can't use the cheaper older lenses and then keep releasing AF-S lenses (the only fully functional lenses for the entry level bodies), but obviously out of range for some that is buying the D3000 or D5000.

Yes, the bar serves expensive drinks, but you're complaining about the low cover charge?
If they raised the cover so that you couldn't afford to even enter at all would you feel better?

Drab said:
If you don't see CA in the corners of your 18-200 I assume you have a D90 or newer body. (Or just somehow avoid shooting high-contrast subjects.)
They're pretty well controlled on that lens, but they definitely do exist.

I have a D5000 and I haven't ever noticed any CA on any picture. Not to say it isn't there, but it hasn't been noticeable in any pictures I have taken.

kanuck said:
Don't forget about the 28-80mm G lens for under $100! Very sharp and light.

It won't focus on any of the bodies lower then the D90 which is kind of my take on it. Why have cheaper bodies that can't use the cheaper older lenses and then keep releasing AF-S lenses (the only fully functional lenses for the entry level bodies), but obviously out of range for some that is buying the D3000 or D5000. Also I don't have any complaints about my kit lens for general picture taking. I am just saying that moving to another kit lens isn't going to help at all. It won't give me a faster lens with better DOF or be any sharper. Low light pictures can be done with the kit lenses, but it isn't usually pretty. I hope to change some of that with the 35 f1.8, but it won't answer all my prayers because I won't be able to zoom then.

Don't forget about the 28-80mm G lens for under $100! Very sharp and light.

Electronic.Viewfinder.Interchangeable.Lens (EVIL) camera. Basically a camera that doesn't have a reflex mirror but still has interchangeable lenses. I don't like the ILC (Interchangeable Lens Compact) because that can describes a small DSLR too.

Electronic
Viewfinder
,
Interchangeable
Lens

Basically it is the term for a mirror-less, large sensor, interchangeable lens system.

Some are calling it EVIL (I think it has something to do with something either from Nikon or in the past) and some call them ILC Interchangeable lens compact(Pop photo).

I'm not a fan of either but until something better comes along...

NikoDoby said:
As for the lenses, to me it seems like Nikon might be making room for a new breed of EVIL lenses within the $200-800 dollar range perhaps?

Okay I've got a really stupid newbie question: could someone please very shortly explain to me what is up with this EVIL thing? I'm guessing it's sort of a nickname for Nikon's attempt at 4/3, like NEX?

tcole1983 said:I don't find in CA or distortion with my 18-200 Nikon lens, but I haven't read about many other manufacturer lenses that can say the same.

If you don't see CA in the corners of your 18-200 I assume you have a D90 or newer body. (Or just somehow avoid shooting high-contrast subjects.)
They're pretty well controlled on that lens, but they definitely do exist.

Don't worry about it tcole. Just trying to keep everyone from repeating themselves.
Don't worry about it tcole. Just trying to keep everyone from repeating themselves.

:^)

As for the lenses, to me it seems like Nikon might be making room for a new breed of EVIL lenses within the $200-800 dollar range perhaps?

I am hoping to cover some of my gap that my 18-200 lens can't do with the 35 f1.8 lens. I guess I miss the depth of field and fastness of the expensive lenses. I know I will be disappointed with non-nikon lenses and it has kept me away from them. I don't find in CA or distortion with my 18-200 Nikon lens, but I haven't read about many other manufacturer lenses that can say the same. I am looking toward the 105 f2.8 as my next lens and then possibly the 12-24 f4, but still that is $1500+ for those 2 lenses. I went to a local high school football game last night and was thinking about taking picture. My 18-200 is no where near fast enough to shoot good pictures in the dusk light without cranking the ISO up. Maybe I don't know what I really want, but it seems like there could be a couple more mid-level lenses that don't break the bank instead of having to buy 10 different primes.

Sorry Niko...missed this one. Looks like it came up just before mine. Actually might have been made while I was writing mine.

Let's please keep the "lenses are too dang expensive" discussion to one thread. I'm keeping this thread open and closing the other one

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2438