DSLR Newbie Question D40/Alpha 200/or E-330

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
A200 over a D40 any day of the week.

 

[Heidfirst]

ajwray, you'll probably find that when you register the body that you'll get a code for 20% off accessories (not lenses though) via Sonystyle. n.b. that doesn't always make it cheaper tha available elsewhere.
& for a Sony orientated forum I recommend www.dyxum.com

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I am afraid he may find the Sony camera will actually need its warranty on a regular basis.

that's not the impression that I get from Sony forums - if anything it seems that Sony's qc may be better than several others at least on the Alpha line.

 

[shortylickens]

Since two people have argued with me I guess I will share my story.
The DSC-P50 I got a while back needed service. I had a heck of a time getting them to accept it. When they did it was a long time before they acknowledged recieving it. An even longer time finding out what they were going to do about it. After a lot of hassle they finally just decided to send me a new one from their dwindling supplies. They were actually glad to be offloading the last of the P50's. As I understand it there werent many P30's or P70's left either.

Also had an F717. Didnt hear about the factory recall until after it was over. Why did I investigate the factory recall? The thing broke on me. Sensor went bad and every pic came out loaded with purple blobs. After a ton of BS they finally said they wouldnt do anything for me. This took about 6 months to get resolved, and the resolution was crap. Before the 717 went bad I had also purchased a basic 480p camcorder with built in hard drive. The drive is starting to have issues now (wont records, sometimes loses files) but I really dont feel like dealing with Sony again, especially in this economy. I know they will do everything they can to stiff me.
Why did I buy the second camera if the first was such a pain in the butt?
Probably because of people like you, who think Sony's tech-support is world class and I must have just had the one difficult case. Also because at the time I got it, the F-717 had excellent image quality and good features for a reasonable price. It was on sale at the time and no other brand or model in the same price range could compete.

The camcorder was purchased before my "final straw" with Sony. From now on no more Sony products for me, at least not cameras.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Since two people have argued with me I guess I will share my story.
The DSC-P50 I got a while back needed service. I had a heck of a time getting them to accept it. When they did it was a long time before they acknowledged recieving it. An even longer time finding out what they were going to do about it. After a lot of hassle they finally just decided to send me a new one from their dwindling supplies. They were actually glad to be offloading the last of the P50's. As I understand it there werent many P30's or P70's left either.

Also had an F717. Didnt hear about the factory recall until after it was over. Why did I investigate the factory recall? The thing broke on me. Sensor went bad and every pic came out loaded with purple blobs. After a ton of BS they finally said they wouldnt do anything for me. This took about 6 months to get resolved, and the resolution was crap. Before the 717 went bad I had also purchased a basic 480p camcorder with built in hard drive. The drive is starting to have issues now (wont records, sometimes loses files) but I really dont feel like dealing with Sony again, especially in this economy. I know they will do everything they can to stiff me.
Why did I buy the second camera if the first was such a pain in the butt?
Probably because of people like you, who think Sony's tech-support is world class and I must have just had the one difficult case. Also because at the time I got it, the F-717 had excellent image quality and good features for a reasonable price. It was on sale at the time and no other brand or model in the same price range could compete.

The camcorder was purchased before my "final straw" with Sony. From now on no more Sony products for me, at least not cameras.

It's not that I'm arguing with you, it's just that your post came across as "sour grapes"-ish.

I had multiple customer service issues with Gigabyte, fairly analogous to your issues with Sony. Hence, for me, I neither buy Gigabyte nor recommend them.

In a couple of "technology" reliability surveys I'm seen, Sony's cameras rank pretty close with Canikon, Pentax, etc. in terms of reliability.

Personally, I tend to avoid Sony, as (not to get off topic) I feel they are customer-abusive - rootkits, proprietary formats, DRM, chronically-breaking Trinitron TV's, etc. But, ya know, the OP got a heckuva deal with his A200, and I wish him all the best with it!

 

[ajwray]

sorry to hear your experience with Sony hasn't been the same that I have had. As I have said, I live right by the service center and the only time "I dropped my Sony" camera and was truthful they fixed with no questions asked and it took less than a week.

I think we can all appreciate having an issue with a vendor but that shouldn't take us OT in regard to a specific deal.

Thanks again for all the help and the follow up suggestions. It is appreciated.

 

[Munky]

Why are people advising a DSLR newb to shoot RAW and then waste time with post processing? I almost always get great results with Normal JPEG on the D40, and I'd likely quit photography if I had to do it all in RAW. A camera that only looks good in RAW only looks good on paper, until you get serious about shooting, start taking a hundred pics a day and then realize how much less tedious it would be with JPEG, with comparable results in the end. In-body IS also looks good on paper, until you try lens-based IS which you can actually see working while composing the shot. Did I forget to mention that the A200 has a pathetic 1/125 X-sync speed with IS enabled? If I go out in broad daylight, and want to use the built-in flash to provide fill, the A200 is the LAST camera on earth I'd consider using, when others can do 1/200, and the D40 does 1/500.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: munky
Why are people advising a DSLR newb to shoot RAW and then waste time with post processing? I almost always get great results with Normal JPEG on the D40, and I'd likely quit photography if I had to do it all in RAW. A camera that only looks good in RAW only looks good on paper, until you get serious about shooting, start taking a hundred pics a day and then realize how much less tedious it would be with JPEG, with comparable results in the end. In-body IS also looks good on paper, until you try lens-based IS which you can actually see working while composing the shot. Did I forget to mention that the A200 has a pathetic 1/125 X-sync speed with IS enabled? If I go out in broad daylight, and want to use the built-in flash to provide fill, the A200 is the LAST camera on earth I'd consider using, when others can do 1/200, and the D40 does 1/500.

What "people" advising shooting RAW? One person in this thread advised shooting RAW, and only in high-ISO situations.

Yes, it can be beneficial to initially shoot JPEG, and play with RAW, and then decide which is most appropriate. Blown highlights are more easily corrected in RAW, as is WB issues, and even finer points like sharpness. It's all a matter of taste, and how much time you want to spend "developing", versus "shooting".

I don't know about the color/contrast/saturation options in the D40, so, speaking for myself, I can make RAW shots taken with my Pentax look better than JPEG shots.

In-camera IS is wonderful. From what I hear, in-lens IS can be even better. And it's true that in-camera IS does not help reduce the camera shake when viewing thru the VF. That's a fairly minor point, IMO. Others may disagree.

So, the D40 has a 2 stop advantage in x-sync vs the Sony... which gains 2 stops due to IS.

 

[Munky]

If you read dpreview, you'll see the A200's JPEG engine is not only noisy at high ISO, but also soft and lacking detail even at low ISO. Which means you're pretty much stuck using RAW all the time. But seeing how the OP already got the camera, it doesn't matter at this point.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: munky
If you read dpreview, you'll see the A200's JPEG engine is not only noisy at high ISO, but also soft and lacking detail even at low ISO. Which means you're pretty much stuck using RAW all the time. But seeing how the OP already got the camera, it doesn't matter at this point.

You touch on one of my major issues with DPReview... they complain about IQ for a particular camera, because they test only at "default" settings. Like many cameras, the A200 allows for color/saturation/contrast and NR adjustments. It would certainly be helpful to newbies if DPReview would suggest settings that result in better-looking images.

 

[Alyx]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The Sony does benefit from in-body IS, which will help reduce noise by allowing the photographer to use a lower ISO. Of course, IS will only help if the subject is still.

With mentioning indoor and kids so close together I'm assuming kids running around indoors. I don't think they hold still for nothin!

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: munky
Why are people advising a DSLR newb to shoot RAW and then waste time with post processing? I almost always get great results with Normal JPEG on the D40, and I'd likely quit photography if I had to do it all in RAW. A camera that only looks good in RAW only looks good on paper, until you get serious about shooting, start taking a hundred pics a day and then realize how much less tedious it would be with JPEG, with comparable results in the end. In-body IS also looks good on paper, until you try lens-based IS which you can actually see working while composing the shot. Did I forget to mention that the A200 has a pathetic 1/125 X-sync speed with IS enabled? If I go out in broad daylight, and want to use the built-in flash to provide fill, the A200 is the LAST camera on earth I'd consider using, when others can do 1/200, and the D40 does 1/500.

I have a 16GB card with my D40.
Hi quality, full-size JPG's I get about 4500 shots.
RAW's I get about 2100.

The battery will die long before I can actually take 2100 shots, so 4500 is entirely moot.
Even if it only provides marginally higher quality its worth it. That tiny bit of extra quality might be enough for a good photochopper (not me) to make a legendary pic. And ACDSee can process RAW's in bulk if I need it to, so I always have the option to convert later on and save hard drive space. Since I have 1 terabyte I dont care about that either.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

In-camera IS is wonderful. From what I hear, in-lens IS can be even better. And it's true that in-camera IS does not help reduce the camera shake when viewing thru the VF. That's a fairly minor point, IMO. Others may disagree.

both in-body & in-lens stabilisation have their own pros & cons.
some, such as the stabilised viewfinder, can be argued from either side.
Overall they perform broadly similarly.

I still stand by my statement that I would take an A200 in preference to a D40 any day of the week.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I have a 16GB card with my D40.
Hi quality, full-size JPG's I get about 4500 shots.
RAW's I get about 2100.

The battery will die long before I can actually take 2100 shots, so 4500 is entirely moot.
Even if it only provides marginally higher quality its worth it. That tiny bit of extra quality might be enough for a good photochopper (not me) to make a legendary pic. And ACDSee can process RAW's in bulk if I need it to, so I always have the option to convert later on and save hard drive space. Since I have 1 terabyte I dont care about that either.

The only times I found RAW useful is when I needed the extra DR in high contrast scenes, or in low light conditions when every bit of detail mattered. Under more reasonable lighting, I'd have to be starring real hard at 100% magnification to notice any difference in detail, and even then, it's not always noticeable. Of course, I also believe the photographer matters much more than the camera used when it comes to shooting photos. Same thing for photochopping.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: munky
The only times I found RAW useful is when I needed the extra DR in high contrast scenes, or in low light conditions when every bit of detail mattered. .

I shoot RAW so I never have to worry about white balance. And since I'm far from nailing the exposure every time, RAW gives me some room for error.

I also feel that with RAW, there is a significant more amount of color information that holds up while PP. Where my JPEGs' colors just seem to degrade after a few changes.

 

[Alyx]

Yes, JPEGs degrade very very fast in post production. That is the reason to use RAW over JPEG, I didn't even realize there is a per pixel difference... Seems any difference is going to be from the small changes second by second between shots.

Want to see the JPEG problem? Take a picture of any gradient (blue sky going toward a white/to bright area) and then try changing white ballence or any color on it and you'll find nasty looking bars through the shot and uneven changes.

 

[jpeyton]

There are less reasons not to shoot RAW these days.

Hard Disk Storage: ridiculously cheap
Computational Power: ridiculously cheap
Flash Memory Cards: ridiculously cheap

And most importantly...

Workflow: instantaneous reversible RAW processing

Lightroom (and other programs) let you copy RAW files directly from your memory card into your image library with no immediate processing needed. Those files can be viewed immediately, post processed (if needed), and exported to JPEG (or any other format) with a few clicks.

And without a doubt, RAW files have more leeway for post processing. RAW processing engines are getting better all the time.