should i switch??

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5692994.htm

Argos says it is a tilt shift but I'm slightly sceptical that it does exist too :-)

I chose sony over the others as a) it has in body IS b) was substantially cheaper than canon/nikon for the same features in a body c) I already had 2 KM fit lenses and d) I had a canon powershot and it was the worst camera I've ever bought so that put me right off canon. I didn't really want to buy sony as there have been reliability issues with their tvs and the tape deck of theirs I had needed repair within a few months of ownership so it was definitely a head choice. If panasonic had made a dslr that had better lens choices I'd have bought theirs as they've made cameras I have been happiest with. Lenses weren't an issue as I was quite content with the old 28-300 and 105 macro I already had.

I think the Carl Zeiss glass covers a lot of the areas that canon L glass goes and the Sony G covers a lot of the rest. Don't think you can get the sigma giant green torpedo in sony or pentax fit though :D

I suspect sony haven't bothered pursuing the pro market that hard as they know even if they produce a killer body and a killer lens range a lot of pros won't switch because of brand image and not wanting to be different.
 
You can't say it's anything to do with brand image. Do people actually think they're cool because they shoot Canon or Nikon? No.

You said it yourself, one of the reasons you bought the sony was that it was, in comparison, cheaper. I agree about the in body IS but that's only a small part of a much bigger picture.

And you can't judge Canon SLRs on a p&s you bought years ago, in the same way I can't judge Sony SLRs on an old Betamax VCR I had in the 80s (which actually was a great machine!)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Since when?? Without trying to start a topic within a topic, this is simply untrue. Canon has a whole specialist section specifically for the crop format in the EF-S lenses. There are amazing lenses for crop only, such as the 10-22 usm, 17-55 f/2.8 usm, 60mm f/2.8 Macro usm, 15-85 usm etc etc. To say Canon (or Nikon) is based solely around thier FF bodies is utterly baseless as they have invested very heavily in the crop format, more so than most others.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying that they aren't invested in APS-C gear, they clearly are- but their top end (at least from a marketing perspective) is L series lenses and 1d/5d bodies. Their L series have to be compatible with full frame cameras, which means if you shoot them on crop you have a lot of extra weight in glass you don't need

The 10-22 and 17-55 are optically L grade, but they don't have the sealing of L series, nor the build quality.
Not that I own any L series lenses anyway.
I'd love for the 10-22 to be weather sealed, that would make me happy. A sealed wide angle zoom, and a 2.8 (sealed) APS-C telephoto with the same size as the 70-200 f4. Something like the sigma 50-150, but with IS, sealing and canon build quality


with pentax the system is designed around 1.6 crop cameras- their equivalent of the L series (da*) consists of a 16-50 2.8, 55 1.4, 50-135 2.8- all weather sealed, and the two zooms are substantially smaller than their canon full frame equivalents.

what i'm saying is that canon as a system is designed to appeal to a different user than pentax. IMO it would be silly to buy a pentax for sports, but to buy a 5mk2 with a 70-200 is silly if you only want to take it to the zoo. Pentax makes a pocket friendly set of pancake primes, and some quality WR APS-C kit (they are also missing a sealed ultrawide).
 
srichards said:
I suspect Sony haven't bothered pursuing the pro market that hard as they know even if they produce a killer body and a killer lens range a lot of pros won't switch because of brand image and not wanting to be different.
Click to expand...
As far as Professionals go, I don't think it is brand image as I think many Pros just think 'whatever gets the job done'. Once it is a job the fascination with the gear seems to go, from the impression I get reading what they say. :shrug:

I think if there is something substantially better they will switch, as some did when Nikon bought out the D3, because of the AF and low light capabilities. There were big gains to be had, getting a usable image where a Canon camera may not be able to. They generally switched from Canon though because they are the alternative, not only for lenses (and maybe flash systems for some), but also for the Pro backup these manufacturers offer. The A900 certainly tempted a few studio photographers I think with the 24mp resolution, but the studio market is small in comparison to the sport market, where most of the cutting edge developments are implemented first. It has be good quality to challenge Canon or Nikon, and I can't see anyone doing that now. They are too far ahead for Pro sports.

Switching systems is a big thing to do for an individual, though I'm always surprised that there are so many people flipping from system to system on various forums with many £000's invested, but a pro could have many times more invested, so there needs to be a big improvement to entice them to change. It can't just be a camera, it has to be all that goes with it for a pro, lenses equivalent or better to what you have, and the Pro backup.

The individual user doesn't get that, but then their livelihood probably doesn't depend on everything being in place to do the job. :shrug:

Choose carefully, and be sure that brand you choose can offer everything you need to go with your ergonomics, otherwise it will get very (much more) expensive. ;) :lol:



That lens on the Argos site doesn't look like any Tilt/Shift lens I've ever seen. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Canon gets my vote, and I shoot Nikon, always have...

Comes down to consumer confidence and the strength of Canons R&D and commitment to future tech. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Canon's next generation of FF sensors more than competes with the latest Pentax, Leica and Hasselblad medium format offerings, as in the H4d-31/S2 etc. The sensors are barely much bigger in the cheaper models
 
The argos 'tilt shift' does look a tad suspect. Either the web junior has been copying descriptions from the wrong item or they've put in the wrong image entirely.
 
JonesNav said:
.... and borrow a minolta telephoto every now and again.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone picked up on this, my advice is thus:

Sony Nikon Pentax Olympus and the other one are pretty much on an even keel right now. Go with the brand your friends have as it will cut down on gear cost by a huge ammount. If you have access to sony kit stick with sony and save your pennies for the future.
 
mrjames said:
with pentax the system is designed around 1.6 crop cameras
Click to expand...
only Canon are 1.6x crop on APS-C. Nikon, Pentax & Sony are all 1.5x crop.
& quite a few Pentax lenses are FF still.


srichards said:
The argos 'tilt shift' does look a tad suspect. Either the web junior has been copying descriptions from the wrong item or they've put in the wrong image entirely.
Click to expand...

it's the "easy choice" 85/2.8 SAM (a lens which I don't think either Canon or Nikon have an equivalent to, FF under £200 but very good optically for the price & of course stabilised) - as such it isn't tilt/shift.
 
Last edited:
Ooh. That sounds quite appealing. Might have a wander over to dyxum :thumbs:
 
Some interesting discussion here! I've owned both Sony and Canon DSLRs:

Sony plus points

Built in IS (although I found it very unreliable with longer lenses)
Cheap but well specced entry level bodies
Most models have excellent high ISO capability
New models have effective AF liveview

Canon plus points

Better selection of cameras available with rugged build quality (new and used)
Cheap routes into full frame (1DS, 5D)
Greater compatibility with old manual lenses
More new and used kit available
In-lens IS more effective than in-body
Entry level bodies have larger viewfinders

I don't really get the arguement that there's loads of old Minolta lenses about on the 2nd hand market. Canon's AF lenses started appearing not long after Minolta's, so there's plenty (actually, more) Canon lenses on the 2nd hand market. I'd rate the old Minolta cameras at the same level as the same vintage Canon lenses.

For those shooters who do not intend upon buying lots of lenses or upgrading to semi-pro bodies, the Sony system offers great value for money. Personally, I prefer the feel of the Canon system.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I don't really get the arguement that there's loads of old Minolta lenses about on the 2nd hand market. Canon's AF lenses started appearing not long after Minolta's, so there's plenty (actually, more) Canon lenses on the 2nd hand market. .
Click to expand...
yes, in absolute terms there are more s/h lenses available but there are also more people looking for them so it balances out.

as for IS you have to take it on a case by case basis.
For example Canon's 100-400 IS is only rated for 2 stops whereas you should easily get 3 out of a current Alpha plus the 70-400 G. & there are several Canon (& Nikon) lenses of which there is no IS version.
& indeed on a person by person basis as some people feel sick (like motion sickness) with a stabilised viewfinder whereas some people prefer it.
And with Sigma now releasing their OS lenses in Alpha mount you can have the choice of which IS system. :)
 
heidfirst said:
And with Sigma now releasing their OS lenses in Alpha mount you can have the choice of which IS system. :)
Click to expand...

This is a good move by Sigma IMO, giving users the choice. As for in-body IS, I honestly couldn't get a consistant three stops out of any lenses I tried on my Sony bodies...I managed 2.5 stops with shorter lenses but at the most got 1 stop with lenses 300mm and longer.

Going back the OP, I would suggest you consider what you want in the future, whether you will buy new or used and cost it up :)
 
Decca said:
Only if you shoehorn a Nikon Dk-21M on to them :p
Click to expand...

Lol! As far as I remember, the entry level Sony cameras have smaller viewfinders to accomodate a two mirror system to enable liveview AF. This is not true for the SLT models of course, but that is a very different experience.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Lol! As far as I remember, the entry level Sony cameras have smaller viewfinders to accomodate a two mirror system to enable liveview AF.
Click to expand...
there is only 1 current body that is still like that, the A390.
If you look at e.g. the A580/A560 versus the 600D they are pretty much identical.
as you say the SLTs actually give a bigger, brighter image (more like an FF) but a different experience as EVF rather than OVF.

I don't know why you struggled to get over 1 stop with lenses 300mm plus as I expect to get ~2.75 stops on the A700+70-400 (or indeed the Sigma 100-300/4)? :thinking:
That's a 4 year old body & the SS has improved a bit since then.
 
Last edited:
Wow .. Some great advise here so thanks to everyone!! A lot to take in for a novice like me but it's great to see different opinions on my original post.

My mate who lends me his minolta zoom lens is in the Market for a new nikon body so has said he will sell me his lens at mates rates .. At least now I can add to my kit at minimum cost and explore my Sony further before making any huge changes.
 
The a560 and a580 do look better than the a380/a390 with a 0.8x magnification factor, but the 600D is 0.85x.

As far as SSS is concerned, I've used an a100, a200 and a450 and noticed no improvement with the technology. Do you get 2.75 stops every time with the longer lenses? I really found it hit and miss and read an article somewhere else which investigated longer lenses on Pentax bodies. That article matched my experiences, but there's others on here like yourself who are clearly getting much better results than I did. Anyway, we're going OT! :D
 
manualfocus-g said:
The a560 and a580 do look better than the a380/a390 with a 0.8x magnification factor, but the 600D is 0.85x.
Click to expand...
yes but it's a 1.6x on the 600D crop versus 1.5x on the A560/A580.
To compare it's 1/crop factor X magnification which gives .531 v .53333, in fact the A560/A580 is very fractionally bigger.

As far as SSS is concerned, I've used an a100, a200 and a450 and noticed no improvement with the technology. Do you get 2.75 stops every time with the longer lenses? I really found it hit and miss and read an article somewhere else which investigated longer lenses on Pentax bodies. That article matched my experiences, but there's others on here like yourself who are clearly getting much better results than I did.
Click to expand...
On average (sometimes more, sometimes less), yes.
& I've also used the 100-300 APO, 100-400 APO & 500 Reflex.
I'm not sure if it's the same with the current Sony implementation but KM used to say that AS/SSS was at it's poorest ~200mm & performance improved as you moved away from that either above or below.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Ok, I'm gonna stick my neck out here, and this may upset some people. I don't mean to and I apologise if I do.

Please read and digest these first two paragraphs before coming to an emotional conclusion if you are a Sony user.

I dont understand why someone would choose the Sony system over Canon / Nikon in the first instance. There I said it!
Click to expand...

I agree :D If I was starting again now I would still get Canon I just believe that they have the best choice of lenses new and secondhand for what I do,
Wildlife and Macro:)
Can you get an equivalent in Sony for the Canon 70-200 F4 , 100-400 F5.6 and 100mm IS macro ?
Pete
 
LCPete said:
Can you get an equivalent in Sony for the Canon 70-200 F4 , 100-400 F5.6 and 100mm IS macro ?
Click to expand...
70-200/4 Not quite. 70-200/4 ~£500
For under £600 you can get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 that will also be stabilised (n.b. the screw-driven Sony mount version of the Tammy focuses faster than the micro-motor Nikon mount version & I presume that the Canon mount version is similar to the Nikon mount).
So for £75 you gain a stop + stabilisation.
Alternatively you can have the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG HSM II for ~ £675.
edit: or for £100-150 s/h you can have the Minolta 70-210/4

100-400 L IS. The Sony 70-400 G outperforms it - it's best in class currently.

100mm L IS Macro. Any lens (Macro or otherwise) is stabilised on a Sony so, yes.
 
Last edited:
heidfirst said:
70-200/4 Not quite. 70-200/4 ~£500
For under £600 you can get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 that will also be stabilised (n.b. the screw-driven Sony mount version of the Tammy focuses faster than the micro-motor Nikon mount version & I presume that the Canon mount version is similar to the Nikon mount).
Alternatively you can have the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG HSM II for ~ £675.
edit: or for £100-150 s/h you can have the Minolta 70-210/4

100-400 L IS. The Sony 70-400 G outperforms it - it's best in class currently.

100mm L IS Macro. Any lens (Macro or otherwise) is stabilised on a Sony so, yes.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that the Sony 100mm macro is 2/3 the price of the canon and rated very similar in quality by DxO. :-)

I must admit, there was a time when I'd have liked the option of more f4 zooms. Trouble is, I'd have sold and replaced them with 2.8s by now, so it's a bit of a moot point. It was said elsewhere on this forum that constant f4s aren't quite as handy these days, given the high-ISO performance of current sensors. I think that's a fair point, in which case the very good 70-300G creeps into the equation as an alternative to a 70-200/4. At worst you lose a stop, but my cameras are at least a stop better than when I bought them, due to improvements in 3rd party RAW converters in the last couple of years.

Really, it's just swings and roundabouts. The best answer to the OP is, if you've made a significant investment in lenses, don't switch. If you haven't, go with whatever feels best to you.
 
heidfirst said:
70-200/4 Not quite. 70-200/4 ~£500
For under £600 you can get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 that will also be stabilised (n.b. the screw-driven Sony mount version of the Tammy focuses faster than the micro-motor Nikon mount version & I presume that the Canon mount version is similar to the Nikon mount).
So for £75 you gain a stop + stabilisation.
Alternatively you can have the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG HSM II for ~ £675.
edit: or for £100-150 s/h you can have the Minolta 70-210/4

100-400 L IS. The Sony 70-400 G outperforms it - it's best in class currently.

100mm L IS Macro. Any lens (Macro or otherwise) is stabilised on a Sony so, yes.
Click to expand...

Did not know about the Sony 70-400 G it does look very good.
looks like Sony are getting serious about DSLR which is good for everyone:)
means Canon and Nikon will have too keep improving too
The Canon macro gives 2 stops at 1:1, dont believe that in body will be as good but I know thats not important for everyone but it is to me:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top