Change my mind before buy the 400D

Wow - this picture wouldn't be a keeper for me

Forget about ISO800-1600. No camera will give you great results.

You'll need a good flash like Metz 54MZ (I paid around 300US for mine) and a good portrait lens - beercan 70-210 F4 (currently 150-200 US) is my favorite. You'll have to have EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM ( $1,119.95 from Adorama) to get comparable results with Canon system.

You'll get amaizig portraits with Sony A100 or KM 5D.

I wish I have any photo sharing account to show :-(

--
K M 5 D, 5 0 p r i m e s F 1 . 7 and 1 . 4,
7 0 - 2 1 0 F 4
28 - 75 F 2 . 8
75 - 300 F 4 . 5 - 5 . 6
1 8 - 7 0 F 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 ,
S i g m a 2 4 - 1 3 5 2 . 8 - 4 . 5
M e t z 5 4 M Z - 4

DarkPicture said:

Thanks a lot for all your comments friends,

Thats what worries me a lot, things like:

1. " just go with heart ".
2. "cool additions but forget about ISO 1600, stick to 100-400 all
the time"
3. Posts like this one

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=21122415

which in resume says "We had noise by 30 years so what??".

4. "get pictures in RAW and you can fix it Photoshop"
5. "become guru in Noise Ninja and you will have nice pictures"

Click to expand...

I use Noise Ninja with a profile for my camera. I do no tweaking at all although you can if you want.

DarkPicture said:

Thanks Two Truths for all the information, but still i feel some
emptiness and insecurity on the Sony matters.

Ive made just my decision so ill go secure, I'll stick to the
classical Canon way.

Click to expand...

You'll likely to be happy since you are leaning that way from the start. Good luck.

DarkPicture said:

Best regards and thanks for all.

Click to expand...

--
fjbyrne

God, what an awful picture.

• Bad background (windows are always a bad idea)
• Bad arrangement (somewhere close to the middle)
• Bad alignment of the view (notice the window border)
• Bad focus (somehow blurred)
• Bad measurement (too much white creates too much gray with "P")

What can be done better if the setup must be like this?

• Imperative to use flash (indirect if possible)
• Exposure compensation
• About +1 to +1.5 in P mode (as in snow)
• Meter the skin tone and -0.5 (dark skin) and use M with these values
• Go closer to the "subjects", rearrange couple to stand closer
• Increase distance couple/window

This picture is definitively an example, how not to do it. Not that I am a professional, but this is a shot I took that I like very much:



Picture either taken with STF 135/2.8 or AF 85/1.4, with fill flash and quite open aperture.

Kind regards, Josef.

I always keep mine in it's leather case; gives it a bit of padding.
Also, bear in mind that anything to do with a camera is "sensitive"!
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Well, I shoot darker than you are likely to, and I have no complaints.
I have also been asked to host an exhibition in April next year.

http://www.dyxum.com/
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

You better also do a good search on issues like this in the Canon forum...

Every camera will have its pros and cons. So far I have been deciding between the 400D and A100 too, and for me the balance is going to the Sony. Sure the Canon beats it at ISO1600 but if that is about the only pro for the Canon... (next to maybe the current lens line up - but give Sony some time...)

Just some quick ones that come to mind that the Sony has over the Canon:

• SSS
• Better viewfinder (somewhat bigger and brighter)
• Spot metering
• spot metering area indication in viewfinder (hello Nikon...)
• Mass storage device mode
• DRO
• Much better kit lens; quality and range
• Mirror lock up with the self timer
• MUCH better ergonomics (just hold them and you'll know enough)
• Better battery life with better remaining load indication
• Auto rotating status screen for portrait shooting

And I only have to give up a better ISO1600 performance to get all this...? Well that should be a no brainer don't you think?

RW

P.S. the Sony isn't winning awards for nothing you know...

I started looking at the Canon some while ago as I have a couple of lenses from my 35mm ESO300. Anyway - I then saw the Sony A100 released and didn't think much about it. Then the Pentax K10D was announced and I started looking at the Pentax range. Eventually went into the shop last weekend and held a Pentax K100D - it didn't feel right to me so I tried a Sony A100. Felt great in my hands and the more I read about it the more I like it. My only concern is the "kit" lens (good enough for a 10MP sensor?) and whether a "cheap" flash (like the Sigma DG500 ST) would work OK with it.

As you say - the Sony offers a lot more for less than the Canon. C's 17-85 IS lens costs 80% of the cost of the Sony kit!

--
John

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp will give u information about all minolta lenses, reviews and more.

Cheers,

N
--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter

I agree entirely; just tonight I had both cameras to handle, and I could not see why one would pick the Canon 400D over the Sony Alpha 100.

It feels too light, too flimpsy to me, like a toy. It does not have the features that make a powerful tool.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Sony's image processor does not manipulate your images at any ISO settings. This account for quicker write-in. Most other image processors like those in 400D, D80, etc. manipulate the images before saving it to the card.

So, A100 at higer ISO, is noisy which by ISO standard is correct. 400D processor interpolates the "noise" and smooths it by adding "fuzz". Much like the Smudge Tool in PS.

This is how some digital cameras "screw" buyers.

Actually i've already investigated about this issue too, but what concerns me is the image quality comparison at higher isos:

This is the Sony A100 best can do, in decent conditions, iso1600 :



This is the Canon 400D at 1600



The difference is not abysmal but its evident.

And asking professional canon user about the % of time they use iso 800 > they respond:



That means the use of high isos 800 > are above of 50% of the time.

That leads to another question, if Canon or Nikon users are shooting/exploiting high iso abilities, what are mostly shooting Sony users??

Doing some research evidently is hard to find low light conditions samples apart for what was presented here now, in the internet.

If you want the ISO1600 performance go Canon. I am only saying there are much more important criteria for buying a Camera. I showed you a dozen of features where the Sony kicks the 400D's ass. Features that for me are more important than a little worse ISO1600 performance (like I can actually hold the Sony camera...).

Regarding your "pro-story". This is of course highly coloured by which people you interviewed. Since you are not giving a single research parameter these graphs don't mean anything; other than that you probalby interviewed sport photographers and then your result are a kind of predictable don't you think. But now ask landscape photographers instead and your results would be quite different.

All I am saying is that yes the high ISO perfomance of the 400D is pretty good. But that is about everything it has over the Sony A100, since on almost all other features the Sony kicks ass.

And I do not care what the pros are saying since I make my decisions on my own criteria and not theirs, it will be mine camera you know

RW

DarkPicture said:

Actually i've already investigated about this issue too, but what
concerns me is the image quality comparison at higher isos:

This is the Sony A100 best can do, in decent conditions, iso1600 :

Click to expand...

I would not have said so, no. The below is my test image, showing a plain deck of playing cards lit by dim natural lighting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/306447787/

DarkPicture said:

This is the Canon 400D at 1600



The difference is not abysmal but its evident.

And asking professional canon user about the % of time they use iso
800 > they respond:



That means the use of high isos 800 > are above of 50% of the time.

That leads to another question, if Canon or Nikon users are
shooting/exploiting high iso abilities, what are mostly shooting
Sony users??

Click to expand...

I am shooting mostly ISO 800 - 1600.

DarkPicture said:

Doing some research evidently is hard to find low light conditions
samples apart for what was presented here now, in the internet.

Click to expand...

I have presented you with tonnes!

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Hi Stuart,

Delkin now has both Pro and standard Pop-Up shades for the A100 on their US site. Delkin EU site will have them on Saturday.

I've been making do with a KMD5 shade up to now, not too good a fit, but it certainly stops the muck from piling up on the LCD.
Jobrywadd

I thought you bought your camera on Monday

Seeing that you are still replying here, let me point out the obvious shortcomings of the graphs that you point out.



Your graphs seem to indicate that users only use the range from ISO 400 onwards, which is very contrary to my personal usage and many friends who use the camera (even indoors).

If you added the ISO 80/100/200 numbers you will have a number atleast an order of magnitude more (from usage patterns that i know). So my guess if you put in low ISO numbers ur 50% inference will come down to about 3-5% which is what my usage usually is.

Secondly, the exposure to 1/10s will be low on Canon because of lack of stabilization. Always remember once you have the tool you are trying to figure out best possible use for that tool for your purpose.

That said i do use ISO 800 indoors and it works pretty well. I have printed out 16x20 inch from ISO 800 pictures at costco and they came out great.

My experience with alpha has been that properly exposed image is pretty good, however in an underexposed image noise penalty is high. A100 will pretty much beat any camera on ISO 100 detail resolution, there are a few thread floating around discussing that. AS is of great value shooting indoors and you will realize that as soon as you use it. I find many more keepers with AS on than not as i can now let the shutter go down to 1/10s, it will give you 2 or more stops. This ofcourse will help only in situations with no motion blur, and places where u cant use the tripod. Higher ISO 1600 will give you one extra stop on the other end when u must stop the motion with the shutter speed, and have no recourse to shooting slow. In doing that usually expose +0.3, sharpness -2 helps a lot in ISO 800-1600. These are not settings that u need to set often. Since this situation occurs when i want to choose shutter speed, i do it once and i am usually done for rest of the session.

I tend to focus on pictures without considering the technical aspects too much. Each tool has their pros and cons, choose urs and then use those tools to achieve the photographic results that you want.

Cheers,

Enjoy your photography,

N
--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter

junMel said:

Sony's image processor does not manipulate your images at any ISO
settings. This account for quicker write-in. Most other image
processors like those in 400D, D80, etc. manipulate the images
before saving it to the card.

So, A100 at higer ISO, is noisy which by ISO standard is correct.
400D processor interpolates the "noise" and smooths it by adding
"fuzz". Much like the Smudge Tool in PS.

This is how some digital cameras "screw" buyers.

Click to expand...

That's not true but I understand what you're getting to.

The Sony Alpha 100 does apply in-camera processing to JPEG pictures produced with the camera, it is just that the Sony applies less processing than some other cameras.

The Sony Alpha has less strong anti-aliasing and less strong high ISO noise reduction than the Nikon D80, Pentax K10D, or Canon 400D. The Canon 400D also has a cleaner sensor, although I think the difference there is very slim.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/