# Beginner's Questions:  Nikon vs. Sony Digital SLR Equally Good? Best First Lens?



## Augenblick (Jan 28, 2007)

Hello, I am just getting started in this. I have narrowed my choice to a Nikon series digital SLR vs. the Sony Alpha 100. I am leaning towards the Sony since I have difficulty holding a camera still sometimes (routinely use ASA 800 in my Nikon AF). 

Please let me have advice on three questions:

Is the Nikon significantly better than the Sony? Or can I go with the Sony for the more stable platform?

I am a real beginner. What would be the ONE MOST USEFUL LENS to get first? What would be the second most useful and the third most useful lens?

What accessories do I REALLY need? Not the bells and whistles but really useful items that will help me take better pictures.

I am an amateur and this will be for my own enjoyment, cityscapes, landscapes, people, shots of Broadway at night. 

Thanks in advance for your advice.


----------



## Don Simon (Jan 28, 2007)

Hello there, welcome to TPF!



Augenblick said:


> Is the Nikon significantly better than the Sony?



Some Nikon users will say yes, Sony users will say no. There will be a long argument which doesn't really get anywhere. But we can't do that yet because you haven't said _which_ Nikon  But short answer; whatever _you_ are happiest with.




Augenblick said:


> I am a real beginner. What would be the ONE MOST USEFUL LENS to get first? What would be the second most useful and the third most useful lens?



The first most useful lens? For a beginner? The kit lens, it basically comes free with the camera anyway. Second and third? Wooooah now. If you're a 'real beginner' then you probably need to just play around with that kit lens for a while to work out what sort of focal length you prefer. Often I would recommend a 50mm prime, but there's no point doing that unless you know you would shoot at 50mm. In the meantime, let's just start with a more basic question: What kind of shots are you most interested in? Small animals shot from far away? Tiny animals shot very close? Individual portraits? People in groups? Big open landscapes? In other words, try to narrow down your area of interest and that, along with a bit of experience, will tell you what kind of lens is most useful for you.



Augenblick said:


> What accessories do I REALLY need? Not the bells and whistles but really useful items that will help me take better pictures.


First, a book. Preferably several. Honestly, getting a better understanding of photography will help you take (technically) better pictures. And while reading said book/s... keep shooting! Practice, practice, practice!

OK, for something more specific, a tripod. A good solid tripod.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 28, 2007)

Choose the camera you are comfortable with, both are exellent, then get a tripod if you are shaky, camera bag and a couple of memory cards.
You will probably get something like a 18-70 lens with the camera. The others are up to you - 70-200 and a good macro lens like the Sigma 105. It depends what you want to specialise in.


----------



## auer1816 (Jan 28, 2007)

Check out this review on the Sony.  Near the end, they compare it against the Nikon D200 and the Canon 30D.  I'm partial to the Sony since I have a Maxxum 7D, but I won't tell you what to choose.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/

MOST USEFUL LENS - I would have to go with a 18-200mm zoom (at the best quality you can afford).  I've got one, and I probably use it 90% of the time because of its range.  You can get wide angle and telephoto without changing lenses or packing around extra glass.

ACCESSORIES - Extra battery, 2 memory cards, uv filter (again, best you can afford - I like Heliopan - put it on and leave it on), camera bag, microfiber lens cloth, tripod and/or monopod, and an external flash (if you think you'll need it).


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 28, 2007)

buy whatever feels better in your hands. If you choose Nikon, the 18-200VR, 18-135, or 24-120VR would probably be your most _flexible_ lenses. from there, you can figure out what your needs are.


----------



## Augenblick (Jan 28, 2007)

Wow!  What a great series of responses, thanks everyone very much.

I will try to see if I can borrow a friends Nikon D70 or 80 to compare with a friends Sony, that sounds like the best way to go.  Definitely will get a tripod, definitely will read books while shooting with the lens it comes with.  After that I will see, ZaphodB you are correct, will need to get better idea of where I want to go with this before proceeding. 

The only question I still have is regarding the Sony for steadying.  Remember I have to use ASA 800 in my Nikon AF or the pictures are blurry (ASA 400 doesn't work for me).  Is the Sony steadying feature really that good? Would it make a difference for someone who has to use ASA 800 film?  Or is it more of a technical gimmick-selling-point and if I really like the Nikon just get the Nikon and don't worry about it?

Again, thanks all around for your help.  Good luck everyone!


----------



## auer1816 (Jan 28, 2007)

It will give you about 2-2.5 stops.  It does work.  My Minolta has the same feature.


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Feb 4, 2007)

One of the things about the Sony that is not in the Nikon is the fact that the Image Stablizer is in the body, not the lens. I have the Sony and I have to admit, I got it because it feels more comfortable in my hands than a Nikon did. However, I have Minotla's film cameras and I love them. But having the ImageStablizer (Steady Shot) in the body and not the lens means I don't have to buy pricey lens.


----------



## TheJudge (Feb 8, 2007)

I can give some advice since I owned both.

I will try not to think of the Alpha as a Minolta product or compare it to the 7D. I was the first 7D owner in Central Texas, and I loved the camera from the first shot. However, the Alpha is no D. The anti-shake is a great feature, great for lens additions ( no bull, every lens is anti-shake) This will also help teach you to CALM down when shooting by showing you how much it is correcting.......learning aid too!!! I have talked to Sony direct and from the information they gave me,,,,,,,I have no idea where they are going........cheap mass production, or quality products with less volume.

Nikon-- great company, great versatility, and after market out the wazooo. Small fact-- the sensor is made by Sony, although not the same in both cameras, but made by Sony. No real advantage, but you get into firmware and Nikon has a slight edge. When you grow, Nikon will grow with you and you have ALOT more options with Nikon.

As stated before- You make the decision, with what you are comfortable with.........the main factor should be application, and future applications.

My suggestions with the price range you listed:

Nikon D80-- great camera, better than the Sony or Cannon, but you pay more too. Features are alittle bit more for the experienced user, but learning is half the fun.

Nikon D50-- Great camera, 500 sync flash speed WOW. Features are more tailored for those starting out. I recomend this one over the Sony esp starting out.

Sony Alpha-- great product ( Maxxum 5D in drag ) Anti-shake works, and is great. If you go Sony-- well, this is your only option.

Bottom line-- you will be happy with either one .........just get your hands on both and take some shots,,,,,,,,,,,your hands and eyes will tell you which one is for you....and avoid the CANNON RULES NO MATTER WHAT mentality. ( cannon only used as example) If you want more information, I will gladly post more



Judge


----------



## JIP (Feb 9, 2007)

I would go with the Nikon unless you want to be trapped in Sony's world of accessories


----------



## Don Simon (Feb 10, 2007)

Yes, much better to be trapped in Nikon's.

Sorry, but every manufacturer wants you to use their own lenses and accessories. And every system also offers third-party options. With Nikon you can choose from Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc. With Sony you can choose from Sony, Minolta, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc. Both systems are restrictive, but neither "trap" you. So unless Nikon have recently made their dSLRs work with every photographic lens and accessory ever made by anyone, I don't really see your point here.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Feb 11, 2007)

The Sony Image Stabilisation really does work and it's built into the body, so every lens works with it.  
Sony don't  have a vast range of lenses at the moment but this will change as Sony claim to be committed to DSLR production - and they are a very competitive company.
At the end of the day it's your decision and you should really try both cameras and chose the one that you feel comfortable with.

Whatever you chose you will be getting a good camera.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 11, 2007)

Chickenhawk said:


> The Sony Image Stabilisation really does work and it's built into the body, so every lens works with it.
> Sony don't  have a vast range of lenses at the moment but this will change as Sony claim to be committed to DSLR production - and they are a very competitive company.
> At the end of the day it's your decision and you should really try both cameras and chose the one that you feel comfortable with.
> 
> Whatever you chose you will be getting a good camera.



While it works well with medium and short lenses.  When I tested it with the long glass I found it could not compete with in lens IS from Canon or Nikon.  What was worse is the price you pay for comperable long glass.  

*[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens[/FONT] $ 1,699.95*

*[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens    [/FONT] $ 1,614.95*

*[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Sony SAL-70200G Zoom Telephoto AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM Autofocus Lens    [/FONT] $ 2,399.95

*(All B&H prices)
 
Kind of takes the luster of the ole pumpkin to me.  For Sony's price of a lens I could get a good IS lens from either Canon or Nikon and have money left over to buy another quality piece of glass.  

Now I'm not knocking Sony, but all this Alpha hype about in body IS needs to be looked at closer by any person looking to by a camera system.  Anyone looking to buy a DSLR needs to realize that they are not buying a camera, like buying a P&S, they are buying a system.  They need to look at the whole system, try out any cameras and systems that they are interested in and be a little informed on what they are getting into.  Camera bodies will come and go, but good lenses will last a lifetime and most DSLR useres are not in the habit of buying a whole new system every 18 months to 2 years.  They just replace bodies.  Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji all make good equipment.  A buyer needs to figure out what they need and select the system best for their photographic needs.


----------



## usayit (Feb 11, 2007)

Wow... I didn't realize that lens was that much....  wonder why?  Seems way over priced.

The other lenses from Sony are about par... but one has to consider that Minolta lenses are probably obtainable for a good price.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 11, 2007)

usayit said:


> Wow... I didn't realize that lens was that much....  wonder why?  Seems way over priced.
> 
> The other lenses from Sony are about par... but one has to consider that Minolta lenses are probably obtainable for a good price.



Wish it was that easy.  I'm  a sports shooter:

*[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens    [/FONT] $ 6,399.95*
*




[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nikon Super Telephoto 400mm f/2.8 D-AF/i ED(IF) Autofocus Lens[/FONT]* * $ 5,499.95

Sony  **They don't have one.* The closest is a[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] *Sony SAL-300F28G Telephoto 300mm f/2.8 APO G SSM Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Maxxum*.  [/FONT]* $ 5,999.95  

*A shorter focal length priced higher than Nikon and slightly lower than Canon.  I guess that is why the big hype for in camera IS and even in In lens IS for short focal length lenses does not impress me much.  Good technique does not require IS of any kind.  For long focal lengths it is can be a help but still is not a replacement for good techinque.  For 30 + years not one of my Nikon lenses for my F2 bodies had IS.  There are no IS lenses for my Pentax 67.  


IMHO there are more important functions that a potential buyer should be looking at.  But then I guess I am a bit old school.


----------



## TheJudge (Feb 11, 2007)

Just so you know-- those are Minolta Lenses. Sony has only put their name on Minolta's old stock. Sony did come out with some of their lenses-- cheap cheap cheap!!! They needed something on the market or they loose big time market share. Sony assured me that they are making Zeiss lens systems in the near future...but the ones out are of good quality  . The main reason Minolta lenses are so expensive, they make 100% their own products.....from the glass to the metal tubes........that costs some money.

I did not like the answers I was getting from Sony-- that took half a day to talk to an engineer. Minolta seemed bitter about the whole thing, and the available products on the market now-- are limited compared to your big players. All this adds up to an uncertain future. This is why I switched.


Judge


p.s. Interesting story: Minolta used to be one of the largest brand names in cameras. They stole a patent from Honeywell and changed it up alittle and BAM! The first auto-focusing camera. In fact at their product introduction, they still had problems with the AF, so all the reps wore referee shirts so the cameras could zero in on the contrasting stripes. Since then, Minolta has been in a constant, long, and costly lawsuit with Honeywell.......thus their decline in the camera market. This told to me by one of the old Minolta reps, who now works for Olympus. Take it for what it's worth, but it is amazing what can happen backstage with a company.


----------



## JIP (Feb 12, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> Yes, much better to be trapped in Nikon's.
> 
> Sorry, but every manufacturer wants you to use their own lenses and accessories. And every system also offers third-party options. With Nikon you can choose from Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc. With Sony you can choose from Sony, Minolta, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc. Both systems are restrictive, but neither "trap" you. So unless Nikon have recently made their dSLRs work with every photographic lens and accessory ever made by anyone, I don't really see your point here.


 
Yeah you are right you are better off going with Sony since they just got into making Dslrs it means theirs will be better.  Or better yet why not go with Olympus I'm sure they wont stop making Dslr's like they did with film SLR's when this trend is over and I'm sure if they do all your stuff will be compatible with any new system.  You can't trust Nikon or Canon for that matter they have been into this (SLR's and DSLR's) too long you need to try something new.


----------



## Alex_B (Feb 12, 2007)

JIP .. don't be that sarcastic ;-)


----------



## JIP (Feb 12, 2007)

Sorry I just get a little frustrated somtimes with these discussions.  I PERSONALLY think the best way to go is Nikon or Canon and I guess that is nothing but opinion BUT I base it on what I sort of joked about and that is those companies have been in the SLR business for many years not just when it is a convienient time to make alot of money Nikon has carried the same lens mount for almost all of that time and that should count for something.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 12, 2007)

JIP said:


> Sorry I just get a little frustrated somtimes with these discussions.  I PERSONALLY think the best way to go is Nikon or Canon and I guess that is nothing but opinion BUT I base it on what I sort of joked about and that is those companies have been in the SLR business for many years not just when it is a convienient time to make alot of money Nikon has carried the same lens mount for almost all of that time and that should count for something.



  I have to agree with getting frustrated with this type of discussion.  Most seem to be a person who wants others to make their decision for them.  Most of the time, the poster has done no research, sees some ad or talked to someone for 2 minutes.  

Then alot of people chime in with get my camera because it is *the best thing since sliced bread *and all the others suck.  Also too many people get caught up on ONE feature and forget everything else about the system they are pitching.  

I either own or use all of the systems mentioned, with the exception of Sony.  My DSLR system is Canon.  My 35 film system is Nikon and my medium format is Pentax.  All great stuff.  At work we use Fuji and Nikon DSLRs.  We switched from Minolta film systems as their Digital was not a good choice for forensic work so we went to Nikon/Fuji.  

I guess the real frustration for me is the knowledge that people buy into some of these biased recomendations, buy a camera and a couple of lenses and then find that they do not like it and it does not fulfill their needs.  We have just lost another potential photographer when that happens.  

That is why my suggestion to this particular general question is check out the cameras you are interested in and compare the features, then go to a photography shop, handle the cameras and shoot some pictures with each system.  Then decide on what works best for them.  

The questions in this line that don't bother me are the ones where someone has done their homework, narrowed it down to a couple of systems for stated reasons and are asking for specific info about the systems that they are looking at.  What amazes me is that there are still those that that feel they have to pitch their *better than sliced bread system*, even if it is not one of the chosen ones.


----------



## Don Simon (Feb 12, 2007)

JIP said:


> Yeah you are right you are better off going with Sony since they just got into making Dslrs it means theirs will be better. Or better yet why not go with Olympus I'm sure they wont stop making Dslr's like they did with film SLR's when this trend is over and I'm sure if they do all your stuff will be compatible with any new system. You can't trust Nikon or Canon for that matter they have been into this (SLR's and DSLR's) too long you need to try something new.


 
I'm not going to be sarcastic any more... you are truly a worthy opponent in the field of sarcasm. If you and I went further down that road we'd reach some kind of critical sarcasm mass and the internet would melt.

Seriously now, where did I say the OP would be better off going with Sony? That's right, I didn't. I didn't even imply it. Check my first response to the OP; I basically told him to make up his own mind. God forbid we should let anyone do that (oops I said I wouldn't be sarcastic). And what's your point about Olympus? They stopped making film SLRs? Who hasn't? Nikon still produces what, the F6 and a rebranded Cosina? And when did I say or even imply that you can't trust Nikon or Canon? Again, I didn't. I just don't think they're inherently better systems as you seem to. But apparently it's not ok to question the perceived wisdom. It's perfectly ok to continually tell people to buy one of two systems and suggest they won't be happy with anything else, but if someone so much as points out that other systems exist it's considered shameless promotion, self-justification or an attack on Canon and Nikon. It just looks a lot like double standards to me.



JIP said:


> Sorry I just get a little frustrated somtimes with these discussions. I PERSONALLY think the best way to go is Nikon or Canon and I guess that is nothing but opinion BUT I base it on what I sort of joked about and that is those companies have been in the SLR business for many years not just when it is a convienient time to make alot of money Nikon has carried the same lens mount for almost all of that time and that should count for something.


 
Right, apparently you should definitely buy Canon or Nikon because they've been in optics and photography for decades, but apparently that's not a factor with Pentax or Olympus who have also been doing it for ages. Sony is the only company this argument can sensibly be applied to, and even then it's debatable because the system and the expertise is inherited from Minolta, plus Sony is well established in _digital_ photography, maybe _that_ should count for something too? Or not, because we can decide what's important or not when it helps our argument.

Someone in this thread made a specific criticism of Sony's lens line-up. With actual facts and numbers! I think if we have to advise people what to buy, how about we stick to that kind of specific advice and criticism, which is much more useful for beginners, rather than having an endless and pointless debate about whether one brand or another is inherently better?


----------



## JIP (Feb 12, 2007)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I have to agree with getting frustrated with this type of discussion. Most seem to be a person who wants others to make their decision for them. Most of the time, the poster has done no research, sees some ad or talked to someone for 2 minutes.
> 
> Then alot of people chime in with get my camera because it is *the best thing since sliced bread *and all the others suck. Also too many people get caught up on ONE feature and forget everything else about the system they are pitching.
> 
> ...


I agree with this guy so forget everything I said


----------

