The DSLR Thread

R2D2 · 15th July 2012, 13:15

D800 and D4 prices today

D4 - 349,950 (price on 1st June 339,950 and in May '12 - 324,950)
D800/D800E - 169950/184950 (price on 1st June 159950/164950 and in May 149,950/164,950)

Snapshots of D800 prices from 1st June and 14th Jul are attached. An increase of Rs 20-25K in less than 2 months.

Prices of other DSLR models and lenses remain unchanged for now.

iVictor · 15th July 2012, 18:28

Hey experts,

Can ya'll suggest something please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iVictor

Hi guys,

Looking forward to buy my first DSLR. Am excited and quite unsure which one to buy. From various posts on forums, I gather Sony and Nikon are top contenders, not to say Cannon is any less. I'm not a professional user so don't really want the kit, tripod etc stuff. Something to start with, one which is better than my normal cannon cameras, and easy to use.

Of course, not to heavy on cost either. Suggestions please...

clevermax · 15th July 2012, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by iVictor

Hey experts,
Can ya'll suggest something please?

If you're going Sony way, I have a lens for you

One shot from my product shots. You don't need any special lighting setup if you have a good lens and a decent body. Just long exposure is enough. The setup was simple - fluorescent lighting in the room, white paper seamless background. Post processing is very minimal - just tuned the contrast.

Sony A35 + Minolta 50mm f/1.7
ISO100, 25s, f/14.

rajb3125 · 15th July 2012, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I am assuming that the D400 will have the same AF as D4. I have read that the D4 AF is fantastic, and I haven't used the D300 so I could be wrong about the quantum of difference here.

Thats exactly it, we are assuming D400 and then we are assuming D400 with AF from D4 while we all know D300/D300s exists and it has same AF as D3/D700 which is nothing to sneeze about

Shome · 16th July 2012, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by iVictor

Hey experts,

Can ya'll suggest something please?

A35 from Sony is good. I bought it about 6 months back and its been a wonderful experience. I have the stock 18-55 lens. I was a complete newbie and wanted a DSLR within 25 thousand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clevermax

If you're going Sony way, I have a lens for you

One shot from my product shots. You don't need any special lighting setup if you have a good lens and a decent body. Just long exposure is enough. The setup was simple - fluorescent lighting in the room, white paper seamless background. Post processing is very minimal - just tuned the contrast.

Sony A35 + Minolta 50mm f/1.7
ISO100, 25s, f/14.
Attachment 956894

Planning to upgrade to a bigger lens from the stock. Any suggestions?

clevermax · 16th July 2012, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shome

A35 from Sony is good. I bought it about 6 months back and its been a wonderful experience. I have the stock 18-55 lens. I was a complete newbie and wanted a DSLR within 25 thousand.
Planning to upgrade to a bigger lens from the stock. Any suggestions?

You got A35 for very cheap then! I got mine for 32K when the online prices were about 34.5K...! It has got a kit lens which is better then the ones that come with entry level Nikons, in terms of CA & distortions.

What zoom range you are expecting? As already discussed in this thread, see if you can get old Minolta lenses from ebay,Amazon etc in the US.

Shome · 16th July 2012, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by clevermax

You got A35 for very cheap then! I got mine for 32K when the online prices were about 34.5K...! It has got a kit lens which is better then the ones that come with entry level Nikons, in terms of CA & distortions.

What zoom range you are expecting? As already discussed in this thread, see if you can get old Minolta lenses from ebay,Amazon etc in the US.

Damn!!! That was a typo. It's 35K. Got mine from JJ Mehta in Mumbai for about 32K if I remember correctly. I was looking for telephoto lenses...maybe a 200mm. Will go through the thread thoroughly for the comments. Thanks bro.

iVictor · 17th July 2012, 10:44

Thanks clevermax/Shome. What is the stock 18-55 lens? If I understand correctly, for DSLR, I have to buy the body AND lens separately...

DerAlte · 17th July 2012, 12:45

I have some old Minolta lenses that I was using with a XG1 body ages back (must be 25 years old), till I shifted to a Pentax film P&S. Is it possible to use these lenses with a modern DSLR/EVIL/whatever body?

clevermax · 17th July 2012, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAlte

I have some old Minolta lenses that I was using with a XG1 body ages back (must be 25 years old), till I shifted to a Pentax film P&S. Is it possible to use these lenses with a modern DSLR/EVIL/whatever body?

Hidden treasure!
If they are minolta A mount, they can be used in any Sony dslr/slt cameras. If they are MD mount, they can still be used in nex series with a Md to E mount adapter & in Alphas with MD to A adapter. I am doubtful whether there are adapters which can make AF work.

zoombiee · 17th July 2012, 13:15

Sony Alpha 35 is not a SLR. It is a SLT. SLR has a mirror that reflects light to the View Finder. When you click, the mirror moves out of the way and the CMOS chip is exposed to the light. In SLT there is a semi-transparent lens, that reflects light to the view finder and to the CMOS chip at the same time.

SLR advantages -
1) Picture quality is better than SLT as SLT has some light loss

SLT advantages -
1) There is not shudder (SLR have inbuilt corrections for the same)
2) Good for quick succession pictures. Entry level SLRs are about 3 clicks per sec while SLTs do 7-8
3) What you click is what you see which may not be true with SLRs
4) Very light weight and lesser number of moving parts.

I did quite a bit of testing from my end and ended up buying a Cannon 1100D as the picture quality was simply much better than the Sony Alpha.

clevermax · 17th July 2012, 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombiee

I did quite a bit of testing from my end and ended up buying a Cannon 1100D as the picture quality was simply much better than the Sony Alpha.

I have used 1100D and Alpha 35. I beg to disagree here. Both offers equally good image quality in all the ISO ranges.

See the example here - 1100D @ IS400, but Alpha has it better even at ISO800. Both pictures taken by me.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post2638493

With multi-shot noise reduction possible in SLTs, the pictures become almost noise free even at ISO800, a picture at the same ISO from 1100D can't be even compared with.

Here are some examples of how noise free the images are, with multi-shot NR, I've only shown starting from ISO800 onwards only

Crops:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3059528...in/photostream

Full image for reference @ISO800
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3059528...n/photostream/

zoombiee · 17th July 2012, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by clevermax

I have used 1100D and Alpha 35. I beg to disagree here. Both offers equally good image quality in all the ISO ranges.

See the example here - 1100D @ IS400, but Alpha has him even at ISO800. Both pictures taken by me.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post2638493

With multi-shot noise reduction possible in SLTs, the pictures become almost noise free even at ISO800, a picture at the same ISO from 1100D can't be even compared with.

I agree with you. However I still liked the 1100D pic than the alpha 35 pic. The 1100D pic look more rich. I am not sure if thats good or bad, but I prefer it that way.

clevermax · 17th July 2012, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombiee

I agree with you. However I still liked the 1100D pic than the alpha 35 pic. The 1100D pic look more rich. I am not sure if thats good or bad, but I prefer it that way.

1100D made it a bit warmer in AWB, I don't know why. Otherwise, I don't know what makes it richer. The same can be achieved with Alpha also, by changing the white balance. 1100D does aggressive NR thereby losing more details, as evident on the 100% crops given there (eyes). Remember, Alpha was clicked at IS0800 while 1100D was on IS0400. So more noise can be seen in the A35's picture but the sharpness is way better on those 100% crops.

DerAlte · 17th July 2012, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by clevermax

... If they are minolta A mount, they can be used in any Sony dslr/slt cameras. If they are MD mount, ...

Oh-oh! I need to fish them out and figure out the mount first.

They are MF lenses, so no hassle of AF adaptation. IIRC I have a 28mm, a 50mm and another large non-zoom longer focal length - never liked zooms in those days (actually zooms were too costly

). Most of the time, I have used the wide for family functions (small house!) and tourism, and the 50mm for portrait / close up. The longer focal length I didn't get to use much.

15th July 2012, 13:15	#10096
R2D2 Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Pune Posts: 3,257 Thanked: 5,852 Times	D4/D800 Price Increased Again! D800 and D4 prices today D4 - 349,950 (price on 1st June 339,950 and in May '12 - 324,950) D800/D800E - 169950/184950 (price on 1st June 159950/164950 and in May 149,950/164,950) Snapshots of D800 prices from 1st June and 14th Jul are attached. An increase of Rs 20-25K in less than 2 months. Prices of other DSLR models and lenses remain unchanged for now. Attached Thumbnails
	() Thanks

17th July 2012, 10:44	#10103
iVictor Newbie Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Bangalore Posts: 13 Thanked: 11 Times	Re: The DSLR Thread Thanks clevermax/Shome. What is the stock 18-55 lens? If I understand correctly, for DSLR, I have to buy the body AND lens separately...
	() Thanks

17th July 2012, 12:45	#10104
DerAlte Senior - BHPian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 8,035 Thanked: 2,920 Times	Re: The DSLR Thread I have some old Minolta lenses that I was using with a XG1 body ages back (must be 25 years old), till I shifted to a Pentax film P&S. Is it possible to use these lenses with a modern DSLR/EVIL/whatever body?
	() Thanks

17th July 2012, 13:15	#10106
zoombiee BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 314 Thanked: 97 Times	Re: The DSLR Thread Sony Alpha 35 is not a SLR. It is a SLT. SLR has a mirror that reflects light to the View Finder. When you click, the mirror moves out of the way and the CMOS chip is exposed to the light. In SLT there is a semi-transparent lens, that reflects light to the view finder and to the CMOS chip at the same time. SLR advantages - 1) Picture quality is better than SLT as SLT has some light loss SLT advantages - 1) There is not shudder (SLR have inbuilt corrections for the same) 2) Good for quick succession pictures. Entry level SLRs are about 3 clicks per sec while SLTs do 7-8 3) What you click is what you see which may not be true with SLRs 4) Very light weight and lesser number of moving parts. I did quite a bit of testing from my end and ended up buying a Cannon 1100D as the picture quality was simply much better than the Sony Alpha.
	() Thanks