Hi all,
I can't comment on that one specifically, but we are very happy with the Alpha 100 that we bought a few years ago (2006). Having said that, we're probably switching to Canon or Nikon next time round, just because they are so much more focused on the market it feels like it would be a better choice in the long run in terms of lenses etc.
I highly recommend Nikon, say Nikon D90 or D300s is a very cost effective choice. Nikon is better at the accuracy of the focus compared with other brands.
Also Nikon DSLR supports geotagging. I use my Easytagger (www.e-geotag.com) to record the gps information directly into the exif of the photo. Then I can see the geographical information and also the trails of the trip online. That is cool for the trip.
The sony A380 gets an from dpreview (which is basically the site for DSLR reviews), due to issues such as poor battery life, far too strong noise reduction leading to blurry photos at higher iso than the absolute lowest and general unwieldiness.
Consider a instead, which this a380 tries to compete with, should be nearly equal in price and doesn't really have significant downsides for a camera in its class. A would also be a good choice.
A would be a significant step up from all of those, and would really start to offer a good level of direct control.
(Note: I'm generally pretty anti-Sony due to their tendency to include crapware, broken DRM (up to the level of rootkits) and far too many proprietary technologies in its products, but they have made a couple of nearly decent DSLRs in the last couple of years. The A380 just isn't one of them.)
[ 09-Jun-2010, at 10:42 by Sander ]
Thanks guys
The sony A380 gets an from dpreview (which is basically the site for DSLR reviews), due to issues such as poor battery life, far too strong noise reduction leading to blurry photos at higher iso than the absolute lowest and general unwieldiness.
Consider a instead, which this a380 tries to compete with, should be nearly equal in price and doesn't really have significant downsides for a camera in its class. A would also be a good choice.
A would be a significant step up from all of those, and would really start to offer a good level of direct control.(Note: I'm generally pretty anti-Sony due to their tendency to include crapware, broken DRM (up to the level of rootkits) and far too many proprietary technologies in its products, but they have made a couple of nearly decent DSLRs in the last couple of years. The A380 just isn't one of them.)
yeah, I've been considering the Nikon D5000 too, and it does seem that it can be had for a reasonable price - http://ramblax.co.uk/p~p-84704409.aspx - I'll ponder on it
I go with the negative comments and reviews on it. I know a couple of people who have bought Sony DSLR's and they're not exactly raving about them, although they are relatively cheap.
My open opinion is, if you wanted a top quality TV - go for a Sony. If you want a top quality DSLR, go for Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc.
Much the same as if Nikon started making TV's, there'd be quite a few eye opening comments - I'm sure. Stick to a name that's among the very finest at what it's had years at doing best.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm sure Sony offer good value for money with their cameras and there's bound to be many people that are happy with what they've bought - but Sony and cameras, to me - go together like Stella Artois having a go at making custard.
Thanks for the comments (I think you're underestimating the potential awesomeness of beer-flavoured custard there, though )
I'll go out this weekend and have a look at them in shops, see what they're like in my hands.
You've got me thinking about that custard now.
Then again....
0 Response to "Sony DSLRs?"
Post a Comment