Need a digicam for low light and manual control

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ok, just to clear things a bit let me elaborate -

1. DONT go for the Canon EOS 1000D. Its a good camera, BUT it does NOT cost 25k in grey like people are mentioning. It costs 26k with the old 18-55 mm lens (which is plain terrible). It costs ~29k with the far better IS lens. If you can afford 29k, go for it. But many people have said that it does not have a good grip.

2. The D40 is good, and Sangram is right in saying that Megapixels are not everything. However negatives are that the D40 does not Auto focus with older lenses so choice of additional lenses is reduced. Also with the 18-55 VR lens it is very close in price to the Sony A200.

3. The Sony IMHO makes the best sense. You can buy it from almost any shop (since it is with bill and warranty) and you get a longer 18-70 mm lens compared to the Nikon and Canon's 18-55mm lens. Oh and Sony uses both memory stick AND standard CF cards. (CF cards are recommended).

4. Good points of the Sony are the inbuilt image stabilization, good camera grip and big viewfinder. Negative points are - Lots of noise at higher ISOs (ISO 800 and ISO 1600) compared to its competitors (both the D40 and 1000D give much better images at ISO 800 and ISO 1600).

So you choose which you want. My suggestion is the Sony A200 since you will get a 3 year warranty with that for just 24k.
 
UPDATE : Just went to Croma and checked out all 3 contenders. The Canon was by far the lightest, but the ergonomics and grip is all messed up and it not much fun to hold and use.

The D60 (very similar to the D40) is heavier but sturdier and has a decent grip. The D60 lens has a nice build quality and fit and finish is the best among the 3.

The A200 was the heaviest, but it has the best grip and using it was fun. (OK so I used it for like 4 minutes). The lens was however not so good and the zoom ring had a cheap feel to it. But that extra zoom range seemed almost perfect to me.

I would still suggest the A200 after checking all 3. It was available for 23500 at Croma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
^^ It is. It is mentioned in the first line when you click on the pricing.

The price is 24500. You get the Camera + 18-70mm lens AND a 4 GB Sandisk Ultra II card with a bag and UV filter.

This is a damm steal if you ask me.
 
BF1983 said:
^^ It is. It is mentioned in the first line when you click on the pricing.

The price is 24500. You get the Camera + 18-70mm lens AND a 4 GB Sandisk Ultra II card with a bag and UV filter.

This is a damm steal if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I had looked inside the table only. Now I think I may consider this instead of 450D. Now pl enlighten me about availability of other (longer) lenses for the same. I think Zeiss and Minolta lenses are available with Sony mount.
 
Almost locking on A200.

So last call for all you guys (as I see all of you online :P )

Is it best to go or there is another thing which can be looked at, atleast should be looked, before buying A200?
 
janitha said:
Thanks, I had looked inside the table only. Now I think I may consider this instead of 450D. Now pl enlighten me about availability of other (longer) lenses for the same. I think Zeiss and Minolta lenses are available with Sony mount.
Click to expand...

Not too many options unfortunately. But the excellent Sigma 70-200mm lens should be available for around $700.

If you want something less expensive, the 75-300mm lens is decent. It does not have macro capabilities (if you want macro, use the Tamron 70-300mm lens 1:2 macro).

But the 75-300mm lens is quite sharp and has negligible distortion. It costs $229 on Amazon.com

@Verma - As a last resort, you can take a look at the Canon EOS 1000D. Its low light capabilities are superb (ISO 1600 on the Canon look like ISO 800 on the Sony) and the kit lens is sharper than the Sony lens. Also you can use the Superb 50mm F1.8 lens for just 5k (very sharp lens. Sony doesnt have anything as sharp and as cheap)

Negatives are it costs much more (~28600 with IS lens in grey) and the grip is nowhere as good as the Sony.
 
BF1983 said:
Not too many options unfortunately. But the excellent Sigma 70-200mm lens should be available for around $700.
Click to expand...

Canon 70-200L f4 is a better option as it has consistent performance and build quality.

BF1983 said:
But the 75-300mm lens is quite sharp and has negligible distortion. It costs $229 on Amazon.com.
Click to expand...

55-250 is a much better option these days.

BF1983 said:
@Verma - As a last resort, you can take a look at the Canon EOS 1000D. Its low light capabilities are superb (ISO 1600 on the Canon look like ISO 800 on the Sony) and the kit lens is sharper than the Sony lens. Also you can use the Superb 50mm F1.8 lens for just 5k (very sharp lens. Sony doesnt have anything as sharp and as cheap
Click to expand...

+1, not to mention the usual high cost of memory sticks and other lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Yogesh Sarkar said:
Canon 70-200L f4 is a better option as it has consistent performance and build quality.
Click to expand...

That lens lacks IS. Plus it has a much higher aperture of f4. Its not exactly a very usable lens in low light. The Sigma 70-200mm lens is f2.8 constant which means it is great in low light and it has IS due to the Sony's inbuilt IS.

Plus the Sigma is the EX series which is their premium lens series and have great build quality and optics.

Yogesh Sarkar said:
55-250 is a much better option these days.
Click to expand...

I wont deny that the 55-250 is one heck of a lens. It really is. But if you are thinking the 75-300 is bad, then that is incorrect. It is a very sharp lens with negligible distortion. Plus the 55-250 has a plastic mount and is not compatible with a FF camera in case he wants to upgrade. Also the build quality and ruggedness of the 55-250 is not that great.

Yogesh Sarkar said:
+1, not to mention the usual high cost of memory sticks and other lenses.
Click to expand...

Ok I am repeating this again - The Sony A200 accepts regular CF cards. You DO NOT require memory sticks. Also you are getting the A200 + 18-70mm lens + Camera bag + 4 GB Sandisk Ultra II (not some cheap 1 GB CF crappy card you get when you buy a Canon camera) for just 24500. You buy the Canon 1000D + Sandisk 4 GB + Bag with bill and don't expect it to cost anything less than 35k. If you buy in grey, max you will be able to save is just 3k.

Also ONLY the Canon 50mm F1.8 is really cheap. The rest of the Canon lenses are not exactly cheap. Plus you will not get IS with most cheap Canon lenses, while in the case of the Sony, you will get IS with every damm lens you throw at it !

Plus the Sony has brilliant ergonomics and it feels very sturdy in your hands and is really nice to use. The Canon 1000D is light but just doesn't grip that well. This is a common problem with all the Canon budget DSLRs (350D, 400D, 450D, 1000D).
 
one of the extra features of eos 1000d is that it has live view unlike sony A200,but A200 has better battery life so u can shoot longer CIPA standards sony translates to 750shots while eos 1000d comes to 500shots.
 
have a look at the market section. have a sparingly used s3is which is in spanking condition.. check it out and let me know if interested
 
janitha said:
Thanks, I had looked inside the table only. Now I think I may consider this instead of 450D. Now pl enlighten me about availability of other (longer) lenses for the same. I think Zeiss and Minolta lenses are available with Sony mount.
Click to expand...

I've tried it, and found the grip to be very uncomfortable. No idea if this is the consensus opinion though.

Suppose if I am to get a body + lens separately, then what are the good options at around 25-30k (grey)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom