Sony or Panasonic DSLR instead of Pentax? (sunset, shots, ISO)

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by PA2UK

Okay, then stop explaining. If you don't want to explain, you don't have to but you chose to and you still are.



Nikon had other models in the 60s and 70s which weren't this bulky. Regardless, my argument was not that 40 year old Canon/Nikon cameras weren't bulkier than Pentax. I believe you when you say Pentax was smaller and the right choice for you 40 years ago - again, I have no problem with that and I completely understand it. My problem is that you're judging current models on 40 yr old models which is a pretty closed minded way to shop and do market research. It doesn't matter what cameras were like 40 years ago - it has nothing to do with the market today. Today, Nikon's entry level cameras are pretty much the same size and weight of a Pentax entry level camera, varying by only a few millimeters and ounces. That's a fact - one you seem to be conveniently ignoring so you can carry on being unjustly bias against the more popular brands.



I'm confused, then why did you say they look pretty much the same?

I refuse to buy a camera, sight unseen. I have not seen a Pentax in a single store in my area. I was looking for Pentax, originally. It's out because it's not in the stores here & the manufacturer customer service rep hung up rather than to tell me if the camera is in a store in any of several nearby metros. I am now looking at alternatives. I want to pick up each camera & know that I am buying the most comfortable camera for me. Besides feeling comfortable to me, the camera must be small enough to be shoved in my purse from time to time, as I have always done with my film Pentax cameras. None of the Canons or Nikons circa 1971 that I saw could have been crammed in my purse because of bulk. In my book, it's the same.

I have already stated that every store that I have been in has personnel who immediately insist that I must buy a Canon or Nikon & pester me & do not let me look in peace. I have not seen a single Canon or Nikon that I can cram into my purse. I don't care if they make one that is not in the stores. If I won't buy Pentax for that reason, I won't buy Canon or Nikon, if they are not in the stores.

My budget for this is not what I would like. I am not a beginner. I am asking about Sony & Panasonic. I am very comfortable with those companies. They are electronics manufacturers, but I am looking to make an electronics purchase, not a film camera. I have one.

The posters who posted about Sony have given me the information that I needed to make me comfortable with their lenses. I'm hoping for information about Panasonic. If Panasonic confuses you I will post information that will prove that I am not crazy to have an interest in them. However, I have reposted the rest of this enough times that I will not repost it to explain it to you again.

I am willing to go with a four thirds camera. I know that I will have to eat some features, and they would be great backup cameras when I can afford something else, later.

[EinsteinsGhost]

I got a Sony A55 couple of weeks ago, and find it to be a fine camera in the "discover" phase. It appears to be a worthy successor to my good old friend, the Sony F828, that I've had since 2003 and still an excellent performer that will share some time on the field.

A lot to learn about the camera considering all that it has got. Plenty of positives, and a couple of negatives (and one of them doesn't really bother me... a bit of delay between "photo review" if you set it to review). The other negative is battery life, easily fixable if you go for a back up battery which I did.

But the greatest strengths of Sony alpha cameras...
- In-body image stabilization (my old Minolta lenses are coming in handy as well as a few classic prime lenses I'm currently shopping for, with a few of them requiring an A-mount adapter).
- Direct Compatibility with old Minolta lenses (A-mount).
- Light! It is also very compact. The A55 (and A33/A35) are more compact than the (other) Alpha D-SLRs, and considerably more compact/lighter than the Canon and Nikon competition.

I've found low light photographs to be exceptional. BTW, you could consider A35 (replaces A33, with an upgraded sensor... now using the same sensor as A55) if couple of additional features are not an issue.

If you do go with any of these Sony cameras, you could just buy the body to save a few bucks and invest on a Tamron (or Sony) zoom that cover 18-200 (250 or 270) mm range. Then buy a prime or two, for portrait and macro, if you care (and you should have plenty to choose from just Minolta A-mount collection).

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I got a Sony A55 couple of weeks ago, and find it to be a fine camera in the "discover" phase. It appears to be a worthy successor to my good old friend, the Sony F828, that I've had since 2003 and still an excellent performer that will share some time on the field.

A lot to learn about the camera considering all that it has got. Plenty of positives, and a couple of negatives (and one of them doesn't really bother me... a bit of delay between "photo review" if you set it to review). The other negative is battery life, easily fixable if you go for a back up battery which I did.

But the greatest strengths of Sony alpha cameras...
- In-body image stabilization (my old Minolta lenses are coming in handy as well as a few classic prime lenses I'm currently shopping for, with a few of them requiring an A-mount adapter).
- Direct Compatibility with old Minolta lenses (A-mount).
- Light! It is also very compact. The A55 (and A33/A35) are more compact than the (other) Alpha D-SLRs, and considerably more compact/lighter than the Canon and Nikon competition.

I've found low light photographs to be exceptional. BTW, you could consider A35 (replaces A33, with an upgraded sensor... now using the same sensor as A55) if couple of additional features are not an issue.

If you do go with any of these Sony cameras, you could just buy the body to save a few bucks and invest on a Tamron (or Sony) zoom that cover 18-200 (250 or 270) mm range. Then buy a prime or two, for portrait and macro, if you care (and you should have plenty to choose from just Minolta A-mount collection).

Thank you very much. This is extremely helpful. I'm going to go back to the nearest store & try to avoid the sales people long enough to check out the A55 later this week.

[Grandpa Pipes]

From what I read in the specs these Pentax are all fairly small. But then Pentax always been known to make compact cameras............

PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by WyoNewk

Compare these specs:
Pentax K5 5.1" x 3.8" x 2.9" / 1.6 lbs
Sony A580 5.5" x 4.2" x 3.9" / 1.5 lbs.
Canon T3i 5.2" x 3.9" x 3.1" / 1.26 lbs.
Sony A35 4.8" x 3.6" x 3.3" / 14.6 oz.

Notice how the T3i, a very popular Canon, fits right between the two Sonys for size. Granted, we could go to extremes, and I'm wondering if you're thinking about Nikon and Canon pro cameras being bulky. Sony and Pentax don't really make a true pro camera. You don't make a full metal casing, provide horizontal and vertical grips with controls on each, then toss in a big battery for machine gun speed and do it with the above specs.

None of these cameras as meant to be pro cameras. However, while "bulk" may be subjective, I would say that the Sony Alphas do feel less bulky, and especially the A35/A55. Check out this comparison of Sony A500 and Sony A55.

Also important to note is that Canon and Nikon use in-lens stabilization, so that makes lenses a bit heavier (and expensive) as well. These can be important decisions for not-quite professional photographers.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

None of these cameras as meant to be pro cameras. However, while "bulk" may be subjective, I would say that the Sony Alphas do feel less bulky, and especially the A35/A55. Check out this comparison of Sony A500 and Sony A55.

Also important to note is that Canon and Nikon use in-lens stabilization, so that makes lenses a bit heavier (and expensive) as well. These can be important decisions for not-quite professional photographers.

Thank you.

[TheViking85]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I got a Sony A55 couple of weeks ago, and find it to be a fine camera in the "discover" phase. It appears to be a worthy successor to my good old friend, the Sony F828, that I've had since 2003 and still an excellent performer that will share some time on the field.

A lot to learn about the camera considering all that it has got. Plenty of positives, and a couple of negatives (and one of them doesn't really bother me... a bit of delay between "photo review" if you set it to review). The other negative is battery life, easily fixable if you go for a back up battery which I did.

Do you use the Live view a lot or does it use a lot of battery regardless? I know the difference is vast on my A350, between powering the screen and using the viewfinder.

When I used live view only (glasses got in the way when using viewfinder) I could often times drain the battery in a day or less. Now that I use the viewfinder almost exclusively, it lasts so long I don't remember when I last charged it.

Originally Posted by southbound_295

Thank you very much. This is extremely helpful. I'm going to go back to the nearest store & try to avoid the sales people long enough to check out the A55 later this week.

Just make sure they know you're not buying anything today, they don't want to help you if they don't get their money from it. "I'm just looking, I'm not buying today" has always done the trick for me.

...Well that or my alleged intimidating looks.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by TheViking85

Do you use the Live view a lot or does it use a lot of battery regardless? I know the difference is vast on my A350, between powering the screen and using the viewfinder.

When I used live view only (glasses got in the way when using viewfinder) I could often times drain the battery in a day or less. Now that I use the viewfinder almost exclusively, it lasts so long I don't remember when I last charged it.



Just make sure they know you're not buying anything today, they don't want to help you if they don't get their money from it. "I'm just looking, I'm not buying today" has always done the trick for me.

...Well that or my alleged intimidating looks.

I said "I'm just looking. I'm not buying today." first thing. That is what was so infuriating. Finally, when they wouldn't shut up on the Nikons & Canons I asked about Pentax. Then they wanted to order it online for me. Then they went back on the Canon/Nikon kick again. I had to leave to get away from them. There were 2 of them!

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by TheViking85

Do you use the Live view a lot or does it use a lot of battery regardless? I know the difference is vast on my A350, between powering the screen and using the viewfinder.

When I used live view only (glasses got in the way when using viewfinder) I could often times drain the battery in a day or less. Now that I use the viewfinder almost exclusively, it lasts so long I don't remember when I last charged it.

It has been mostly Live View so far, as I am simply playing with it. Trying all the features will drain battery more than once I stick with the basics. Considering all that, the battery life is acceptable.

[TheViking85]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

I said "I'm just looking. I'm not buying today." first thing. That is what was so infuriating. Finally, when they wouldn't shut up on the Nikons & Canons I asked about Pentax. Then they wanted to order it online for me. Then they went back on the Canon/Nikon kick again. I had to leave to get away from them. There were 2 of them!

Get a 6 ft 210 lbs guy with steel blue eyes and slick back hair to come with you. Always works for me.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

It has been mostly Live View so far, as I am simply playing with it. Trying all the features will drain battery more than once I stick with the basics. Considering all that, the battery life is acceptable.

Ah, yeah the live view drains the battery. I'm using the viewfinder on mine now, probably been on for a total of 3-4 hours since yesterday and had around 80-100 shots done, reviewed and for the most part... deleted, hehe. Currently have 85% battery left on my rig. Not using the live view unless you absolutely need it really improves battery capacity.

Other than that, how do you like it? It's on my wish list, but I don't know if I should wait for whatever they come out with next or not. The HD video and 6-10 fps does tempt me though.