No I have never shot with a D300s, I do have the D2X, D7000 and D800 and love them, I also have Sony cameras including an A77 and love them. I don't want to argue with you on one versus the other (DSLR vs SLT) but you would be supprised at the versitility and I recomend you either rent one for a weekend or go to the photo store and handle it, you might be supprised.
Wabbit wrote:
Brucej67 wrote:
Nikon D300s:
Continuous Shooting up to 7 fps
High speed shooting and fast responseessential to versatile performance in a wide variety of shooting disciplines.
D-Movie HD Video
Capture striking 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips, enhanced by NIKKOR interchangeable lens quality and versatilityfeaturing external stereo Mic input and AF operation.
Sony A77:
World's fastest up to 12 fps continuous
The translucent mirror makes it far easier to capture the decisive soccer kick or your baby at her absolute cutest. Shoots up to 12 frames per second at full-resolution 24.3 megapixels with continuous auto focus (AE locked after first frame). This is the world's fastest shooting speed for interchangeable lens APS-C cameras, as of August, 2011.
HD Movies4 at 60p, 60i, or 24pCapture spectacular HD Movies4. This is the worlds first DSLR to offer a choice of super-smooth 60p, standard 60i or cinematic 24p, all at Full HD 1920x1080 resolution. AVCHD codec delivers stunning picture quality. MP4 codec offers smaller files for easier upload to the web.
Wabbit wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
OnDSnap wrote:
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to buy a DSLR, tried selling one of my spare Nikon's to him...5100 to be specific. However he seems to have his heart set on the Sony A77...solely based on things he's read. If there are any Sony A77 users that may lend a word or two whether he should or should not make the purchase any why I would greatly appreciate it., I've been trying to talk him into either Nikon or Canon but can't seem to budge him. Thanks for any advise as to why he should or shouldn't buy the Sony A77, also any recommended lenses for the Sony. He' s not shy on spending for good glass.
Thanks so much..
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to... (
show quote)
Nikon uses a Sony Alpha sensor in the D5100 so since you're a Nikon loyalist that should prove something to you about Sony quality. I have a Sony Alpha 55 and several friends with D5100s. I consistently take indoor and outdoor shots at parties and get togethers that are just as good or better than theirs.
It's mostly dependent on the operator anyway. There are people on UHH who can take better shots with $350 bridge cameras than others with $1500 dSLRs.
There is no factual reason to downplay or criticize Sony in favor of Nikon other than your personal bias because even the Alpha 55 has features and specs exceeding the D5100 and output results that are right on par. The Alpha 77 far exceeds the 55 in every way.
Sony invented and pioneered digital still photography. Sony bought and owns Konica/Minolta so their lenses are Minolta quality and Zeiss in the higher end units. Sony started building dSLRs with decades of Minolta experience behind the products and is putting massive research effort into very high ISO with little or no noise and other technologies such as burst speed and mirrorless that lead the pack in some cases.
Sony Alpha 77 has proven itself to be just as awesome as anything else in its class. Minolta lenses are compatible so there is a large selection of used and new-old-stock available and cheaper than Nikon by far. Image stabilization is in the body so non-VR lenses can be used too. Sony makes flashes and accessories, as well as other manufacturers making compatible TTL flashes. I have two Vivitar 383 flashes for mine.
And... I predict that Sony will fight its way to to dSLR and mirrorless market dominance eventually unless Canon or Nikon comes out with something very outrageous and patented like an all new radical technology.
Your daughter's friend has made a very good choice with apparently unbiased research.
quote=OnDSnap My daughter's life long friend has ... (
show quote)
Hey Doc ..... you obviously never tried a D300s for fast moving action ..... Sony doesn't even come close .....
quote=marcomarks quote=OnDSnap My daughter's lif... (
show quote)
Nikon D300s: br br Continuous Shooting up to 7 fp... (
show quote)
Hey Doc ..... like I said, You Obviously Never tried a D300s for fast moving subjects ..... your specs look good on paper but fall short in practice .....
Frame rate means squat if they're not in focus .....
Try tracking flying birds with your Sony, any Sony and it'll turn you into a believer ..... the Sony can't even hold a candle to it .....
quote=Brucej67 Nikon D300s: br br Continuous Sho... (
show quote)
Because most (not all) professional photographers are hooked on one of the top two (Nikon or Canon). There are good reasons why sport photographers use Nikon or Canon, (1) Sony is relatively new and most photographers have a lot of money tied up in expensive lens and gear (2) Nikon and Canon carry the brand image and are here to stay.
[quote=ephraim Imperio]
Brucej67 wrote:
Nikon D300s:
i haven't seen a lot of professional sports photographer using the A-77 cameras. If if it is that fast, sports photographers should be using them.
Look into Eye-Fi it works with the iPhone. site:
http://www.eye.fi/ecobin wrote:
On the Nikon Website there's an area where you can ask Nikon Support for information. I requested information on how to preview a photo on an iPhone 5 instead of using the rangefinder or the LCD screen on my D800e. It took them 3 days to respond and here's the response, "As far as connectivity with an Iphone 5, we don't have any information regarding that because the Iphone 5 your trying to connect to isn't a Nikon Product." Isn't that helpful! And incorrect grammar to boot.
Has anyone done this with either an iPhone or iPad?
On the Nikon Website there's an area where you can... (
show quote)
Nikon D300s:
Continuous Shooting up to 7 fps
High speed shooting and fast responseessential to versatile performance in a wide variety of shooting disciplines.
D-Movie HD Video
Capture striking 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips, enhanced by NIKKOR interchangeable lens quality and versatilityfeaturing external stereo Mic input and AF operation.
Sony A77:
World's fastest up to 12 fps continuous
The translucent mirror makes it far easier to capture the decisive soccer kick or your baby at her absolute cutest. Shoots up to 12 frames per second at full-resolution 24.3 megapixels with continuous auto focus (AE locked after first frame). This is the world's fastest shooting speed for interchangeable lens APS-C cameras, as of August, 2011.
HD Movies4 at 60p, 60i, or 24pCapture spectacular HD Movies4. This is the worlds first DSLR to offer a choice of super-smooth 60p, standard 60i or cinematic 24p, all at Full HD 1920x1080 resolution. AVCHD codec delivers stunning picture quality. MP4 codec offers smaller files for easier upload to the web.
Wabbit wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
OnDSnap wrote:
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to buy a DSLR, tried selling one of my spare Nikon's to him...5100 to be specific. However he seems to have his heart set on the Sony A77...solely based on things he's read. If there are any Sony A77 users that may lend a word or two whether he should or should not make the purchase any why I would greatly appreciate it., I've been trying to talk him into either Nikon or Canon but can't seem to budge him. Thanks for any advise as to why he should or shouldn't buy the Sony A77, also any recommended lenses for the Sony. He' s not shy on spending for good glass.
Thanks so much..
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to... (
show quote)
Nikon uses a Sony Alpha sensor in the D5100 so since you're a Nikon loyalist that should prove something to you about Sony quality. I have a Sony Alpha 55 and several friends with D5100s. I consistently take indoor and outdoor shots at parties and get togethers that are just as good or better than theirs.
It's mostly dependent on the operator anyway. There are people on UHH who can take better shots with $350 bridge cameras than others with $1500 dSLRs.
There is no factual reason to downplay or criticize Sony in favor of Nikon other than your personal bias because even the Alpha 55 has features and specs exceeding the D5100 and output results that are right on par. The Alpha 77 far exceeds the 55 in every way.
Sony invented and pioneered digital still photography. Sony bought and owns Konica/Minolta so their lenses are Minolta quality and Zeiss in the higher end units. Sony started building dSLRs with decades of Minolta experience behind the products and is putting massive research effort into very high ISO with little or no noise and other technologies such as burst speed and mirrorless that lead the pack in some cases.
Sony Alpha 77 has proven itself to be just as awesome as anything else in its class. Minolta lenses are compatible so there is a large selection of used and new-old-stock available and cheaper than Nikon by far. Image stabilization is in the body so non-VR lenses can be used too. Sony makes flashes and accessories, as well as other manufacturers making compatible TTL flashes. I have two Vivitar 383 flashes for mine.
And... I predict that Sony will fight its way to to dSLR and mirrorless market dominance eventually unless Canon or Nikon comes out with something very outrageous and patented like an all new radical technology.
Your daughter's friend has made a very good choice with apparently unbiased research.
quote=OnDSnap My daughter's life long friend has ... (
show quote)
Hey Doc ..... you obviously never tried a D300s for fast moving action ..... Sony doesn't even come close .....
quote=marcomarks quote=OnDSnap My daughter's lif... (
show quote)
I agree with almost everything except "Sony invented and pioneered digital still photography", Kodak invented it but did not capitalize on it.
marcomarks wrote:
OnDSnap wrote:
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to buy a DSLR, tried selling one of my spare Nikon's to him...5100 to be specific. However he seems to have his heart set on the Sony A77...solely based on things he's read. If there are any Sony A77 users that may lend a word or two whether he should or should not make the purchase any why I would greatly appreciate it., I've been trying to talk him into either Nikon or Canon but can't seem to budge him. Thanks for any advise as to why he should or shouldn't buy the Sony A77, also any recommended lenses for the Sony. He' s not shy on spending for good glass.
Thanks so much..
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to... (
show quote)
Nikon uses a Sony Alpha sensor in the D5100 so since you're a Nikon loyalist that should prove something to you about Sony quality. I have a Sony Alpha 55 and several friends with D5100s. I consistently take indoor and outdoor shots at parties and get togethers that are just as good or better than theirs.
It's mostly dependent on the operator anyway. There are people on UHH who can take better shots with $350 bridge cameras than others with $1500 dSLRs.
There is no factual reason to downplay or criticize Sony in favor of Nikon other than your personal bias because even the Alpha 55 has features and specs exceeding the D5100 and output results that are right on par. The Alpha 77 far exceeds the 55 in every way.
Sony invented and pioneered digital still photography. Sony bought and owns Konica/Minolta so their lenses are Minolta quality and Zeiss in the higher end units. Sony started building dSLRs with decades of Minolta experience behind the products and is putting massive research effort into very high ISO with little or no noise and other technologies such as burst speed and mirrorless that lead the pack in some cases.
Sony Alpha 77 has proven itself to be just as awesome as anything else in its class. Minolta lenses are compatible so there is a large selection of used and new-old-stock available and cheaper than Nikon by far. Image stabilization is in the body so non-VR lenses can be used too. Sony makes flashes and accessories, as well as other manufacturers making compatible TTL flashes. I have two Vivitar 383 flashes for mine.
And... I predict that Sony will fight its way to to dSLR and mirrorless market dominance eventually unless Canon or Nikon comes out with something very outrageous and patented like an all new radical technology.
Your daughter's friend has made a very good choice with apparently unbiased research.
quote=OnDSnap My daughter's life long friend has ... (
show quote)
I totally agree with you good lens and auto-focus fine tune make a world of difference. What is your impression on the Pellix mirror, and do you feel it is vulnerable to scratches or dirt? When I am out with my A77 and there is a mild wind I am usually worried about changing lens for fear that foreign matter might get on the mirror and scratch it.
Rjbelsten wrote:
I have the Sony a77 with three zeiss lenses. I believe that all major camera manufactures cameras are about equal. All are good cameras. The difference is in the glass. I recommend purchasing the best glass that you can. The bodies can be upgraded to take advantage of the glass.
I have both Sony and Nikon cameras and know the merits of each. On the Nikon I have the D2X, D7000 and D800, and on the Sony I have the A700, A850, A900 and A77. No one should buy a camera with the idea of trading it in, and you should hold the camera in your hand before buying it. Now as to the A77 it has a lot of plus features, it is an SLT (Pelican mirror) all but a small percent of light passes through the mirror to the sensor and a small amount is directed to the electronics and enhanced for the viewfinder. This process works great, but has one vulnerability which is the mirror, if it is scratched then it is as good as if the sensor was scratched. Unlike what the previous person said there are as many lens available for Sony Alpha cameras as there are for Nikon or Canon, and Sony can use the older Minolta auto-focus lenses. The choice is usually a personal preference and each manufacturer makes quality cameras. I personally love my Sony cameras as much as my Nikon cameras.
OnDSnap wrote:
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to buy a DSLR, tried selling one of my spare Nikon's to him...5100 to be specific. However he seems to have his heart set on the Sony A77...solely based on things he's read. If there are any Sony A77 users that may lend a word or two whether he should or should not make the purchase any why I would greatly appreciate it., I've been trying to talk him into either Nikon or Canon but can't seem to budge him. Thanks for any advise as to why he should or shouldn't buy the Sony A77, also any recommended lenses for the Sony. He' s not shy on spending for good glass.
Thanks so much..
My daughter's life long friend has been looking to... (
show quote)
I belong to D1iscussion
http://www.d1scussion.com/ which is a site for Nikon users only (and most are professional photographers), I recently posted a thread on my D800 and the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 being +9 out of focus (since both were bought at the same time it surprised me that it would be that far out) and the replies were numerous and quite interesting to read.
MT Shooter wrote:
Brucej67 wrote:
On the 50-500mm lens did you try to fine tune the auto-focus? I agree with you, but bieleve that the fine tuning improves the focus between 400mm and 500mm.
MT Shooter wrote:
I HAD the 50-500 and was unimpressed as it was definitely soft from 400-500mm. Sold it and a few months later tried out the 150-500mm OS version. It amazed me as it was tack sharp all the way out and the OS was totally dependable. I kept it and used it exclusively on one of my D7000 bodies. After getting the D800E I quickly found out it was just as sharp on that sensor, and the AF was even faster operating than on the D7000. Its a wonderful lens and a much better buy than any other long zoom on the market, even in low-light focusing!
I HAD the 50-500 and was unimpressed as it was def... (
show quote)
On the 50-500mm lens did you try to fine tune the ... (
show quote)
Yes, I did the AF fine tune and it made no appreciable difference. Manual focus was no better, the lens was still soft. Luckily I sold it for what I had paid for it since I bought it on sale. The 150-500 has required no messing around with at all and was tack sharp right out of the box.
quote=Brucej67 On the 50-500mm lens did you try t... (
show quote)
On the 50-500mm lens did you try to fine tune the auto-focus? I agree with you, but bieleve that the fine tuning improves the focus between 400mm and 500mm.
MT Shooter wrote:
I HAD the 50-500 and was unimpressed as it was definitely soft from 400-500mm. Sold it and a few months later tried out the 150-500mm OS version. It amazed me as it was tack sharp all the way out and the OS was totally dependable. I kept it and used it exclusively on one of my D7000 bodies. After getting the D800E I quickly found out it was just as sharp on that sensor, and the AF was even faster operating than on the D7000. Its a wonderful lens and a much better buy than any other long zoom on the market, even in low-light focusing!
I HAD the 50-500 and was unimpressed as it was def... (
show quote)
I have the Sigma 50-500mm lens on both a D7000 and a D800 and in order to get perfect focus I had to fine tune the auto-focus. This is not unusual to fine tune the lens, I had to fine tune the auto-focus on the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 and it wouldn't focus till +9 on back focus.
FutureLook wrote:
I decided to go with the 150-500mm after reading several reviews on both lenses. Both lenses are soft at around 500 but it maintains very decent sharpness in the middle which helps when cropping. I have the D7000 and the D800. Shot it with both with pleasing results. The 50-500 sells for $1,695 while the 150-500 cost is $1,095.
Visit my website at
www.futurelookphotography.com
I respectfully disagree with you, coming from Europe I see more equity in their system than ours. Our politicians may be corrupt but it doesn't negate the social issue of serving the people equitably.
pigpen wrote:
Brucej67 wrote:
Yes everything has a cost, but when it is uniformly distributed that is fair. What is not fair is our system where I am paying for those who don't have coverage, don't want to work (welfare) and non-legal residence when I have insurance. Look at our system, we have Medicare for the elderly as well as medicate and you don't think that is a broken NHC, think again. We pay the insurance companies large sums of monies just so they can second guess the medical profession and make more profit. Soon if we don't fix our health care system we will be in the same state Greek is in and that is sad.
Croce wrote:
viscountdriver wrote:
Quite right.Our huge fuel prices are through taxes as is a bottle of whisky but our NHS is free and that's how most of us like it.
NOTHING is Free. If you do not think you pay for your "free" healthcare, you are not in the UK, you are in La la land.
Yes everything has a cost, but when it is uniforml... (
show quote)
All government control and laws do is cause illegallity. All it does is open the door for fraud. When in Quebec City, I was looking at some wonderful art done by a street vendor. The piece I was interested in was $350 (Canadian). I noticed she had a credit card machine, as that much out of pocket would have been difficult. I told her I would come back later, and asked her if her cc machine was working. She pulled me aside, told me it was working, however, if I paid in cash, she would take $230. She then went on to explain to me that about 49% of her income went to taxes. So which is better, 20-22% of $350, or 49% of nothing?
For every law, or measure of control, people will find a way out of it. Most people are honest, but this type of control will cause even the most honest among us to change. So, when people opt to pay the fine (
TAX), rather than for healthcare, and they won't be denied coverage in the ER, and if they refuse to pay even the tax, where does that leave you? STILL PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!
I'll be the first to say that the healthcare issue is ugly, and does need dealt with, but national healthcare is not the answer. I am for people have access to healthcare, but I am AGAINST anything that gives government more control over our lives and wallets.
quote=Brucej67 Yes everything has a cost, but whe... (
show quote)
What hapend to the trams, busses and trains?
jamm wrote:
public bus transport is rubbish in the uk also railways are an expensive joke .jimmy
Yes everything has a cost, but when it is uniformly distributed that is fair. What is not fair is our system where I am paying for those who don't have coverage, don't want to work (welfare) and non-legal residence when I have insurance. Look at our system, we have Medicare for the elderly as well as medicate and you don't think that is a broken NHC, think again. We pay the insurance companies large sums of monies just so they can second guess the medical profession and make more profit. Soon if we don't fix our health care system we will be in the same state Greek is in and that is sad.
Croce wrote:
viscountdriver wrote:
Quite right.Our huge fuel prices are through taxes as is a bottle of whisky but our NHS is free and that's how most of us like it.
NOTHING is Free. If you do not think you pay for your "free" healthcare, you are not in the UK, you are in La la land.
Wish we had an NHS all we have are crooked politicians scaring the public into thinking that is socialism which everyone attributes to communism.
viscountdriver wrote:
Quite right.Our huge fuel prices are through taxes as is a bottle of whisky but our NHS is free and that's how most of us like it.