Talk me out of buying a Sony a450...

I

ivandobski

Suspended / Banned
Messages
522
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, after much consideration I'm 99% sure I want an a450. Mainly because it seems just as good as the competition (d5000 mainly) but has a much higher burst rate, 7 compared to fps. This should, I assume, be a good thing when it comes to capturing outdoor sports and the like.

However if anyone knows of any specific weaknesses or better options then could you let me know?! Fwiw I don't want 2nd hand as i'd rather buy new and get a warranty and support etc.

Cheers,
 
I think the main reason people opt out of Sony cameras is because there is a smaller lens selection than Nikon or Canon. Some of the Sony lenses are really top notch, but they can also be more pricey than a new/second hand Nikon/Canon counterpart, there are a lot less Sony lenses on the second hand market than Nikon/Canon ones too. If you are looking to expand your kit over time, Sony is still an option, but it would probably be cheaper and easier to go Nikon/Canon. Also, does that 7fps rate really matter that much? With a bit of practice you should be able to nail it in one shot, so being able to hose 7 shots at a time is a bit pointless. Although its still useful to know it's there.
 
I know nothing about the Sony, but there is a lot more to shooting sports successfully than a fast frame rate. AF performance and lens quality, never mind skills, probably all play a bigger part. I'd look carefully at lens options and lens prices before jumping on the Sony bandwagon. How many pro sports togs shoot Sony? Once you start down the DSLR road you are potentially embarking on a journey that will cost you many thousands of pounds and you probably would not want to find yourself half way down that road and with nowhere to go. You may not have aspirations that will lead you that far, but it is still something to consider carefully.
 
The thing is, if you like it and it does all you need it too then go for it :thumbs:

I was chatting with a mates Dad the other day and he has a Sony A700 which he loves dearly. One advantage he pointed out was that it has the Sony version of IS/VR stabilisation in the body. He was using the Zeiss 16-80 lens on it - I was quite impressed with it.

Not being a Sony owner (someone will probably be along shortly to correct/agree with me here) but I think you can use a good selection of the older Minolta lenses on it too.
 
I cant really talk you out of it. On paper Nikon and Canon are better, but I played with a D3X, a 1Ds Mk3 and a Sony A900 in a shop, and took some basic images, and much preffered the feel of the Sony out of all of them. I dont like the limited lens selection, and theres less ability to find decent second hand lenses.
 
You're right in that the 7fps will be compensating for a general lack of talent on my part! I'm hoping that i'll be twice as likely to get something worth keeping...

I have read that Sony lenses are cheaper than nikon/canon equivalents as the IS is in the body not the lens, is this not the case?
 
With sports/action photography you will often find that IS is not used at all, since the shutter speeds are high enough (or should be) that camera shake is not an issue. Furthermore, the purpose of IS is to stabilise the camera. If you are following trcky action then you want the lens to go where you point it, not have the IS fighting you to try and keep it where it is.

In any event, my point was more about length and speed, not IS. What are the options like for a 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 in the Sony lineup?

It may not matter much now whether you choose Sony, Canon or Nikon, even Pentax, but what about in a year, or two, or three, when you've outgrown your starter kit and want to move forward?

As for the 7 FPS, if you are struggling to learn the ropes, I'm not sure that shooting crap (in the nicest possible sense :)) at 7FPS will be any better than shooting it at 5 FPS or 3. Quality before quantity, unless you like filling your cards with rubbish and then spending hours sifting through hundreds of iffy shots to try to find something worth keeping. Spray and pray - not a technique to aspire to.
 
So why is the nikon equivalent considered to be a better camera? (other than availability of 2nd hand lenses) As a camera straight from the box what does it do that the Sony can't?

Having played with canons they're definitely not for me by the way - I'm ergonomically unsuited!
 
KIPAX said:
absoloute complete and utter rubbish!!
Click to expand...

Well personally, I think I'd never use it unless I suddenly got a passion for motorsport and other really fast action sports and went pro. The only time I can see it of any use is if one is under pressure to produce a selection of images to be able to pick from later. Personally I'd say it would be best to learn to get decent images on the one off before going for the hose route.. I am also under the impression that ivandobski is starting out in the camera world, so that time that he will NEED that extremely high fps will probably be a while yet.
 
ivandobski said:
So why is the nikon equivalent considered to be a better camera? (other than availability of 2nd hand lenses) As a camera straight from the box what does it do that the Sony can't?

Having played with canons they're definitely not for me by the way - I'm ergonomically unsuited!
Click to expand...

i have a sony camera (not a fanboy) and really rate them. they are only slightly behind on canon and nikon but at the end of the day who really cares!

the camera is a tool and the best camera to use is the one you feel is right!
 
ivandobski said:
I have read that Sony lenses are cheaper than nikon/canon equivalents as the IS is in the body not the lens, is this not the case?
Click to expand...

On further inspection, it seems that a lot of them are of very similar price. My mistake there!
 
SamuelHearn said:
I'd say it would be best to learn to get decent images on the one off before going for the hose route...
Click to expand...

Dont do much sport do you .. otherwise you wouldnt be talking so much complete and utter........
 
I'm not very good but I find 5fps from my A700 sufficient at motorsport events - typically I only fire a burst when something is spinning. Image stabilisation isn't really relevant for motorsport, don't think it would be that helpful for other sports either tbh. It's better for landscapes and people in low light if no tripod.

Don't be put off by the "no glass" argument - it means "limited range of the really esoteric and expensive glass." (see below). First consider how much you are going to want to spend on lenses and then see if availability is a problem. If you are looking at buying £7000 lenses then go Canon / Nikon.


tdodd said:
In any event, my point was more about length and speed, not IS. What are the options like for a 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 in the Sony lineup?
Click to expand...

200/2 - no. 200/2.8 (Minolta, about £500-600 s/h) is the nearest. However the Sony 70-200/2.8 is very good
300/2.8 - yes, but costs about £3.5k-4k. No idea about Canon / Nikon prices for their equivalents
400/2.8 - no.
500/4 - announced, not yet available and no prices so far
600/4 - Minolta, about £3-4k s/h

If the OP is talking about a £400 crop body I'm not sure he'll be buying any £4k+ glass next week.

How many autofocus Zeiss lenses are there for Canon and Nikon?
 
ivandobski said:
but has a much higher burst rate, 7 compared to fps. This should, I assume, be a good thing when it comes to capturing outdoor sports and the like.
Click to expand...

yes it would..

I have a 4 thousand pound camera sat in front of me.. its a profesional camera aimed mostly at sports and has 10fps .. the camera before it also sat here that cost me 2.5k used has 8 fps.. Manufacturers dont add this facility and make it better with each model for people who dont know how to shoot.. they add it because they know it has a use and especialy in sport..

Even a simple picture of a player running towards you.. easy capture.. But the difference between his eyes being open or shut is massive and no amount of practice can beat a blink of an eye.

A lot of sport has a split second peak point thats impossible to predict..

How about a player who tackles another player for the ball.. you take one shot of player kicking the ball.. but what happens if he follows through and the other player end up in the air... a great picture.. but missed because you only took one shot.. What about a cricketer hitting the ball.. great shot. but if you only take one then you miss the ball hitting the stumps...

Theres a lot more examples of good usage of this mode. in all manner of sports. I personaly take 2 but if i sense the need for more i will.. but 2 just in case when its peak action...

As you ahve indicated an interest in sport i would advise you not to listen to anyone who tells you to practice and get the shot in one..... if your taking a picture of a plant pot then yes.. but peak sporting action wether its kids on the park or wembley stadium... you use whats available..
 
There seem to be many more Nikon & canon camera owners than any other - so if you get a Nikon or canon - when you go on TP meets, some very kind toggers often let you try out their lenses & kit on your camera - :thumbs:

And there's always plenty of advice :)
 
KIPAX said:
Dont do much sport do you .. otherwise you wouldnt be talking so much complete and utter........
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't useful, it is infinitely useful in some circumstances! I'm just saying, if it is a first venture into cameras, it would be best to learn about getting a shot decently exposed, composed, timing etc etc etc.. And then once confident at all that, to start doing high fps? IMO if someone can get a good shot once off, they will get 7 good shots in burst. If they can't get a good shot once off, then they will just get 7 duffers, that's one thing people overlook.. High fps DOES have its place, and it is very useful.. But it is by no means the holy grail, I would not recommend a first camera just because of its ability to shoot at 7fps. That's just my opinion, lets forget it and be friends :D
 
SamuelHearn said:
I'm not saying it isn't useful, it is infinitely useful in some circumstances! I'm just saying, if it is a first venture into cameras, it would be best to learn about getting a shot decently exposed, composed, timing etc etc etc.. And then once confident at all that, to start doing high fps?
Click to expand...

that isnt what you said..

Also, does that 7fps rate really matter that much? With a bit of practice you should be able to nail it in one shot, so being able to hose 7 shots at a time is a bit pointless. Although its still useful to know it's there.
Click to expand...

which i stand by reply ..... complete and utter tosh

if you want to back peddle then all well and good.. but my reply was to the terrible advice you gave to someone interested in shooting SPORT!

Your now saying it has its use..the OP will be convinced .. so thats OK and we can move on :)
 
Well thanks for the short sharp debate guys. This is definitely something I'm approaching as an interest not a career so won't be buying high end lenses anyway.

The idea of aiming to get the shot in one makes sense but obviously having 6 back up shots either to compensate or to catch any bonus, unexpected results is luring me in!

I think that for want of an equivalent out of the box usp on the d3000/5000 I'll be going Sony.
 
Stepping over Samuel's beaten body for a sec to address the op.....

Have you actually been to a camera shop and tried either of these cameras? If you don't know what you're doing then it's folly to buy a camera blind just because it looks good on paper.

I nearly made that mistake when I went for my first DSLR, but when I tried the two cameras I had narrowed my (magazine test-based) choice down to I didn't like the feel of either one and ended up buying a camera I hadn't even considered.

It might sound impressive that your new camera does 7fps, however if it ends up sitting unused in a drawer because you find it uncomfortable to use then it may as well only do 1fps.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Have you actually been to a camera shop and tried either of these cameras? If you don't know what you're doing then it's folly to buy a camera blind just because it looks good on paper...
Click to expand...

post 9 would suggest he has done some testing :) but if not tried them all then perfect advice yes ...
 
"does that 7fps rate really matter that much?" But does it matter that much for an amateur.... The circumstances I am talking about where someone will absolutely, positively NEED that 7FPS or more are are ones that a pro would find themselves in, I've never seen or heard of anyone amateur going "I CANT GET A SINGLE GOOD SHOT BECAUSE I CANT SHOOT MORE THAN 7 IN A SECOND" because it is possible for people to get great shots whatever the fps limitation of their camera is. I never said it isn't useful, I simply stated that isn't essential to getting a good shot.

I'm not speaking tosh, people get good shots at 10fps, people get good shots on the once off. It is not crucial for an amateur.
 
SamuelHearn said:
I'm not speaking tosh, people get good shots at 10fps, people get good shots on the once off. It is not crucial for an amateur.
Click to expand...

Read my response further back where i give examples of using xfps and tel me what the heck difference being an amtuer is? eg why would an amtuer not want a picture of cricket stumps being hit by the ball? you cant get that with practice in one shot.. only luck..


to tell someone interested in sport photogrpahy that they should learn to do it in one shot and xfps is no use.. is bad advice... which is what you did and what i replied to.

now your saying an amatuer should use one shot and a pro use fps?


I dont believe in spray and pray to get a good shot.. but i do believe that in sports there is a reason for a fast fps.. the reason is good if your an amatuer or a pro.. it doesnt matter.. its still there for a good reason..


your wrong.. i am right.... :)
 
Yep, I've tried all the entry level camera for size, can't stand the feel of the canons, liked the nikons and sonys. I really liked the Samsungs but I think they'll have all the aftermarket lens issues of the sonys (if not moreso) whilst not having the advantage of the 7fps.

Obviously I may well be wrong on this!
 
I used to use an a700. Lovely camreaand great shots when it got the focus right but for sports it was a let down. Autofocus isn't good enough. I'm not sure if this has improved in newer models but canon af seems way better to me (and I presume nikon's is too). For anything but sport I would have no problem with Sony. And that old minolta glass is lovely
 
KIPAX said:
now your saying an amatuer should use one shot and a pro use fps?
Click to expand...

I did not say such a thing :lol: What I mean is, when someone new to cameras picks up their first SLR, the 7FPS will not make them an instant god, they may as well practice getting decent pictures on the once off rather than having 7 times more to delete. When they get good, a few more frames per second will aid them in the quest for good images, be it 3fps or 10fps. That was the root of what I was originally saying, it seems we got a bit sidetracked.
 
ivandobski said:
Yep, I've tried all the entry level camera for size, can't stand the feel of the canons, liked the nikons and sonys. I really liked the Samsungs but I think they'll have all the aftermarket lens issues of the sonys (if not moreso) whilst not having the advantage of the 7fps.

Obviously I may well be wrong on this!
Click to expand...

If you like the Nikon/Sony, get the one that feels best. They are all great cameras, and to be honest there's not a lot between the specification.
 
I have a Sony A450, I upgraded to it from the A200, mainly for the much improved high ISO performance, but into the bargain you get much faster and more accurate AF and pretty good fps.

Don't forget that the 7fps is in speed priority mode - once focus and exposure are decided on the 1st frame, that's where they stay. With continuous AF, the A450 is 5fps. I would have thought that capturing fast moving action you will want the AF functioning constantly.

Also, the in body stabilisation is excellent, but as already stated, shooting fast moving subjects is not where it is useful.

I think that when stacked up against the opposition, the A450 is excellent VFM. It is often stated that there is a lack of lenses for the Sony range, but nobody seems to be able to put their finger on what exactly is missing. Quite a few Sony and third party choices new, and still lots of good Minolta glass about.
 
sometimes you have to buy what you can afford and stick with it, till you can afford a better one , I doubt if professional photographers started with the camera they ended up with,if you like what the Sony can offer, then it should be your choice.
 
ianmarsh said:
I used to use an a700. Lovely camreaand great shots when it got the focus right but for sports it was a let down. Autofocus isn't good enough. I'm not sure if this has improved in newer models but canon af seems way better to me (and I presume nikon's is too). For anything but sport I would have no problem with Sony. And that old minolta glass is lovely
Click to expand...

I agree with Ian. I've shot a lot of sport over the past few months, mainly on an α500. I don't know if the α450's any better, but the autofocus on the α500 isn't up to the job. It's not too bad if the sun's shining, but in flat light it's a struggle to get more than a few sharp shots from a game. The loss of quality at higher ISOs is something to think about too if you're going to shoot sport. On a winters day, you can very quickly find that you're at ISO1600....

I do like my sonys generally, and I'll keep at least one. I'm starting to take sports photography more seriously now though, and I'm looking at getting a Nikon or Canon soon.



www.duncolm.co.uk
 
hi

just to say my mum has had a sony and it broke easy so i use nikon and i find they are the best cameras. but if i was you dont go for a cheap camera go for a camera you feel comfy with when using as that is what matters nothing else.
 
Well just to mix everything up, i currently use a Sony A700 for motocross(mainly) and the AF copes fine with this, the colours out the camera are great, and the 5fps is great for getting a shot that you want. I have had various images printed upto 30x20" and the were perfect, and had various images printed over the passed year n abit(local papers, tmx news, moto magazine online, etc).
Yes i would love the AF of the 1D series, but when i first started(with an A200) i couldnt afford to buy one of these, and after buying my sigma 70-200 f2.8, i have stuck with the sony. :D
 
ivandobski said:
Hmmm, the AF and low light concerns have given me food for thought...
Click to expand...

Which brings us back, at least in part, to the choice of lens. An f/2.8 lens (or faster) with a decent USM (or equivalent) AF motor should run rings around a slow f/4-5.6 consumer zoom, especially in tough light. Not only should the AF be improved but you could also gain a couple of stops on aperture, which will take pressure off your ISO and perhaps permit faster shutter speeds. You'll also get a brighter viewfinder and be able to shoot with manual exposure without the aggravation of aperture changing with focal length. Even better, it will improve separation of subject from background. So look at the SYSTEM, not just the body.

You may start off with modest aspirations, but I urge you to look ahead to what the future may hold.

I said in the beginning that there was more to this than FPS.
 
ivandobski said:
Hmmm, the AF and low light concerns have given me food for thought...
Click to expand...

The a700 (and both the FF Sonys) have an extra AF sensor that activates on lenses that are f/2.8 and faster. I have no problems at all with AF in low light with any of my fast lenses. I'm sure the Canon & Nikon users here can tell us which of the crop bodies offer something similar.

The A450 doesn't have the extra sensor incidentally, nor do the A500 or A550.
 
I had a sony alpha 350, at the time i was thinking the same as you,.. its as good as the rest if not better.. so i went and got it ... a year later i was sick of the fact i could not buy addiditional lenses for it that i could afford..

so in march i sold it .. bought a Nikon D5000..
 
i too use sony,and own an A700.i've used this for motorsport and some rugby and football matches coupled with the sony 70-200 G SSM with great results,and no problem with keeping focus locked on moving subjects,as mentioned..the A700 has the extra AF sensor with F2.8 lens'and faster..
 
I use a sony A200 and coupled with the cheap 50mm 1.8f its taken some good shots (in my opinion) at various car events and places like the zoo etc.

I'm at a point where i would like to expand my glass, but as the A200 suffers in low light, i may now be switching to another brand.

For budget/begginer the sony range is very good, but its when you start looking for that little bit more from it all that imo nikon and cannon start to offer better packages.

Where they really lack is in the secondhand market and i think this is why a lot of people complain about lens choice for the sony's... sigma and tamron both do a good range of lenses and sony themselves have some nice lenses... sony dont do lenses like the vr's etc as its not needed (in body) - this can all be switched off though, i.s doesnt have to be switched on all the time.

Depends on what you want from the kit in the future though as Tim says.
 
evilonion said:
I'm at a point where i would like to expand my glass, but as the A200 suffers in low light, i may now be switching to another brand.
Click to expand...

A700. Doesn't suffer in low light.


Where they really lack is in the secondhand market and i think this is why a lot of people complain about lens choice for the sony's... sigma and tamron both do a good range of lenses and sony themselves have some nice lenses.
Click to expand...

My Sony 70-200 SSM was second hand, my just bought (arrived yesterday) Zeiss 135/1.8 is second hand (thanks puddleduck!), my Minolta 300/4 was second hand, my Zeiss 16-80 was second hand ....

Of course sourcing second hand a-mount glass takes more effort and time than for canon or nikon mount, I would not seek to deny this. Also there are holes in the "mid range" of lenses (no new 35/2, no 85/2 ever), so if you want either of those focal lengths you are faced with the Sony 35/1.4 G which is excellent but expensive and the Zeiss 85/1.4 which is amazing, but expensive.

If I was looking to be a professional sports photographer I'd change to Canon or Nikon, as good as I think my camera is and as much as I like the Zeiss lenses in particular (which I'd have to give up as Zeiss don't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon) there is no question that the availability of £5k+ exotic glass is going to win out. This will never happen though, photography is a hobby and I treat it as such. I am yet to run into a situation where I can't get a lens or accessory that I want to suit what I'd like to achieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top