Sony Alpha A3000

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Sandman, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 27 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Alan Browne wrote:
    :
    : > One website (also bewildered) at least put out the point that those
    : > who would buy such a camera will likely get a high ratio zoom and
    : > that will be the only lens the camera will ever see.
    :
    : I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw the
    : pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000 with an 18-
    : 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an 18-200, and noted that
    : he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So it's not just the lower end of
    : the market.

    Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that a bit
    redundant?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 31, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    Not if one is my wife's...
     
    Joe Makowiec, Aug 31, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    : >: I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw
    : >: the pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000
    : >: with an 18- 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an
    : >: 18-200, and noted that he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So
    : >: it's not just the lower end of the market.
    : >
    : > Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that
    : > a bit redundant?
    :
    : Not if one is my wife's...

    I totally get it. My wife refuses to consider an upgrade from her Rebel T2i,
    because anything newer and better is heavier. I think her 17-55 f/2.8
    walkaround lens may be heavier than the camera.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 1, 2013
    #23
  4. Sandman

    J. Clarke Guest

    Show her an SL1.
     
    J. Clarke, Sep 1, 2013
    #24
  5. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    : says...
    : >
    : > On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:38:33 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    : > : On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > :
    : > : > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
    : > : >: I was talking to a fellow Nikon owner a couple of days back; he saw
    : > : >: the pair of Nikons around my neck and asked about them. (D7000
    : > : >: with an 18- 135 and a D5200 with an 18-200) He, too, has an
    : > : >: 18-200, and noted that he very rarely changes lenses anymore. So
    : > : >: it's not just the lower end of the market.
    : > : >
    : > : > Why carry two cameras with lenses that bottom out at 18? Isn't that
    : > : > a bit redundant?
    : > :
    : > : Not if one is my wife's...
    : >
    : > I totally get it. My wife refuses to consider an upgrade from her Rebel T2i,
    : > because anything newer and better is heavier. I think her 17-55 f/2.8
    : > walkaround lens may be heavier than the camera.
    :
    : Show her an SL1.

    The SL1 is just another Rebel, and its *only* advantage over the T2i is its
    smaller size. And because it lacks some of the controls found on a T2i, it
    would be less convenient to use. I'd get her a 70D, but it's about half again
    as heavy as her T2i. She likes the T2i, and it takes good pictures. My main
    beef with it is that it doesn't have autofocus microadjustment. The 70D does.
    (Or will, since it isn't out yet.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 2, 2013
    #25
  6. Sandman

    J. Clarke Guest

    Plus the touchscreen and a generation newer firmware.
    Which controls does it lack? Bear in mind that the touchscreen is
    configurable.
    She seems to like small and light more than she likes lots of features,
    so go with the flow.
     
    J. Clarke, Sep 2, 2013
    #26
  7. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 28/08/2013 14:01, nospam wrote:
    : []
    : > if you want top quality, get the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for roughly
    : > 10x the price of the 18-200, plus an assistant to carry it all.
    :
    : Quite! Not everyone's needs are the same, and different folk make
    : different compromises. I am often in situations where there is not the
    : time to change lenses, so an image with the slightly poorer results from
    : the 18-200 (although still more than adequate for my needs) are better
    : than /no/ results from having to change lenses. Getting the lens set
    : mentioned would simply be over the top for me.

    nospam's point is correct, as far as it goes. But if you do a lot of indoor
    event photography, the superzooms are probably too slow at the long end to do
    the job. So you're going to have to buy two or three high-quality
    constant-aperture zooms anyway. Then if you buy a superzoom, it's for the
    lighter weight and the convenience of fewer lens changes, not because it costs
    you less.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 2, 2013
    #27
  8. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 02/09/2013 14:43, Robert Coe wrote:
    []
    Oh, if you are a professional and prepared to lug those massive lenses
    around, you will certainly see a benefit. Most of my "events" are
    outdoors rather than in, so I'm less affected by the smaller apertures,
    and I'm finding that, with today's cameras at least, ISO 3200 and 6400
    can produce quite acceptable results for the size of final image I need.
    As I said: "Not everyone's needs are the same".
     
    David Taylor, Sep 2, 2013
    #28
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.