• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sony Alpha? (1 Viewer)

PAULBOY

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I am new to bird photography and am looking for a DSLR. I have been recommended to go for a Sony Alpha with a 17-200 lens. I also looked at the Canon EOS 40D and the Nikon D40- but the Sony is the only one with IS built into the camera. This should mean that any lens I buy in the future will be less expensive.

Any views on the Sony - and is a 200 max lens good enough for general birding photography?

Any views welcomed.

Thanks
 
I'm seriously looking at this camera also. It was recently 'slated' for the sensor cleaning - basically the writer said it just doesn't work.
As regards the lense-200mm is just not long enough for birds. From my little experience I think 400mm is the minimum. After this you have to decide will it be hand held or tripod. There are all sorts of other factors-do you want to sit in a hide or walk around with it-some of the longer lenses are really big & heavy.
 
I'll start by saying that i do not know alot about the alpha, however here is a n article on sensor dust removal Dust Removal the general synopsis being none of them are brilliant, olympus does work to some extent, canon and sony show marginal effectiveness at best.

Again i would echo the fact that a 200mm lens is going to be no where near long enough for birding.

Rog
 
As regards "noise"-apparently the Alpha shows some noise when the ISO is set at more than 400. Now, I am new to digital but when using film I don't think I ever used more than 400 ISO. Is high ISO used much ?
 
Klaus on Photo Zone has the Sony Alpha, Nikon D200 and Canon 350D, and I think he will post some reviews in the next month or so. His opinions are very balanced and he is no brand fanatic.
 
PAULBOY said:
I am new to bird photography and am looking for a DSLR. I have been recommended to go for a Sony Alpha with a 17-200 lens. I also looked at the Canon EOS 40D and the Nikon D40- but the Sony is the only one with IS built into the camera. This should mean that any lens I buy in the future will be less expensive.

Any views on the Sony - and is a 200 max lens good enough for general birding photography?

Any views welcomed.

Thanks

200mm is a little short for birding.

Pentax K100D and K10D and their Samsung siblings both have Shake Reduction built into the camera, you pick up a K100D and a Sigma 70-300mm lens for under £600 or push the boat out and go for the 10mp K10D and benefit from the extra features.

And dont let anyone tell you that in camera IS has not been proved, The Pentax system works perfectly well for me and I recently chatted to a Sony Alpha owner who also said he had no problems with the IS performance on his.
The only gripe I have with the K10D is the dust removal system is not as effective as I would like (I like perfection), having said that I have to admit that after two months of continous lens changes my old DSLR's sensor was filthy, I have had the K10D for three months and only have a few stuborn spots.

Pentax DSLR's are also compatable with older Pentax lenses, if you dont mind manual focus you could pick up 400mm lenses for peanuts.
 
David Smith said:
Now, I am new to digital but when using film I don't think I ever used more than 400 ISO. Is high ISO used much ?

The higher the better. The longer your lens is, the more important it becomes to keep your shutter speed up to reduce subject movement and camera shake. IS is no panacea - you have to get the shutter speed up as high as you can even with the best IS in the world. (The experts say that lens-based IS is superior to camera-based IS, BTW, particularly so with longer lenses.)

400 ISO is the starting point for most people doing bird work, with 800 there when required. With a good sensor (the 8MP Canon one is the best within any sensible price range) you can go as high as 3200 if you have to, and still wind up with a quality image. See http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/134943 for an example at 3200. Now that was taken at 1/90th of a second (way too slow for a 500mm lens, even using a good tripod, but the light was truly dreadful), consider where you would be with a noisy camera like the Sony that restricts you to 400 ISO max ..... You'd be at 1/11th of a second ... well, actually, you'd be worse, as you can't get an f/4 lens for the Sony, and at f/5.6 you are down to a 5th of a second.

OK, that was an extreme example, and a decent shot that resulted despite not having any light to work with. A good more general rule of thumb for bird photography on digital SLRs is that you want your shutter speed to be twice as high as your focal length. (The old 200mm = a 200th of a second "rule" is more appropriate to film and full-frame sensors, which we are not considering here.) With a 400mm lens, that translates to needing around 1/800th. This is where your ISO comes in. Unless you can afford an f/2.8 lens (around $US10,000 for a 400mm one) and someone strong to carry it for you, you need to push the ISO to get decent results. That, essentially, means you should be selecting between Canon 30D, Canon 20D, Nikon D70, Canon 350D, Canon 400D - pretty much in that order. Note that I put the 10MP 400D last after the 8MP Canons and the 6MP Nikon: this is no accident. I own a 400D and the extra 2MP delivers no worthwhile extra detail over my 20Ds, but the extra noise at anything over 400 ISO is noticable.

Keith (who posted above) owned a Nikon D200 for a while (which uses the same sensor as the Sony and the Pentax K10D) and quickly sold it. Nice camera, he said, but no good for bird work - too noisy.

Finally, the really important part: lenses. Lenses are much more important than cameras, and this is where Canon and Nikon have it all over Sony and Pentax. If you want to shoot birds, you pretty much have to go Canon, or else Nikon. The smaller brands have (by all reports) some excellent modern shorter glass, but nothing to compete with Canon and Nikon in the 400mm class.

There is absolutely no way that you will get decent results from a super-zoom. No lens maker on the planet has yet figured out how to make a lens zoom from 17mm to 200mm and still deliver a quality image. It's probably not possible. You need a good deal more than 200mm for birds in any case: take 400mm as your starting point. If you can't afford the excellent lenses in this class offered by Canon and Nikon, there are some very usable third-party products. The Sigma 50-500 is heavy and a bit slow but well-regarded, and there are several others.

Chose well and good luck!
 
Tannin said:
Keith (who posted above) owned a Nikon D200 for a while (which uses the same sensor as the Sony and the Pentax K10D) and quickly sold it. Nice camera, he said, but no good for bird work - too noisy.

Actually he didn't say nice camera. He said crap camera. See his review which is an angry emotional tirade against the camera. He slagged off pretty much every aspect. I disagreed with most of his conclusions, though I did agree that having two duff cameras in a row is unacceptable (though astonishingly he had the same with Canon). The 30D is better than the competition at high ISO, but not by as large a margin as the Canon fan-boys would have you believe. And most of the difference is due to the larger pixels of the 30D, which means a better signal to noise ratio. The D200 is very useable at ISO 800, and okay at ISO 1600 if you nail the exposure.

Or you could opt for a 6MP camera, and get even better high ISO performance, but lose some resolution.

Alternatively, there is the Fuji S5 Pro which gives about 8MP resolution and best in class dynamic range and high ISO performance all in a D200 body. But it is a bit expensive, and I'm not sure I would go for it, at least not without reading the dpreview full test.

Incidentally you really want to think about the system. Sony do not as yet have many long lenses, whereas Canon and Nikon do. So you would be reliant on Sigma et al. There might be some old Minolta glass available on ebay etc. In terms of overall system, for birding anyway, Canon lead. But I do not use a Sony so my advice about it is suspect.
 
PAULBOY said:
I am new to bird photography and am looking for a DSLR. I have been recommended to go for a Sony Alpha with a 17-200 lens. I also looked at the Canon EOS 40D and the Nikon D40- but the Sony is the only one with IS built into the camera. This should mean that any lens I buy in the future will be less expensive.

Any views on the Sony - and is a 200 max lens good enough for general birding photography?

Any views welcomed.

Thanks
Paul, I use the Alpha100 and the Minolta 7D and for birding I use the Tamron 200-500 lens. This is really my most used lens and is almost permanently attached to the Alpha. Some photographs are here http://www.denisg.co.uk/gallery/, just scroll down beneath each individual picture into the info panel and it will tell you what camera and lens was used and what the settings were. Please note though, even with the lens at 500mm, most of the bird shots were at great distance and in most cases are really HEAVY crops which only makes any noise worse and it should not be taken as representative of a normal, uncropped pic.

Birding is not my first love as far as photography is concerned but I have been doing wildlife stuff for a long time, around 40 years, and have been a Minolta user throughout. A 200 lens is, quite frankly, not enough for birding imho, even if it was to be used at feeding stations. The Tamron 200-500 is a well respected lens but you could also consider the Sigma 170-500 or the 50-500. All are pretty evenly matched. With the 170-500 or 200-500 you would be looking at a budget of around £1000, slightly more with the 50-500.

The camera handles well and is easy to navigate. I conceed that it is slightly noisy but one persons view is certainly not everyones. The detail captured with correct exposure and focus is excellent but for more information I suggest you visit http://www.dyxum.com/ where you can browse the users forums. They have probably the best lens test area for reference anywhere as far as Alpha/Minolta mounts are concerned and cover every lens made, past and present. These tests are all from actual users and used in the field, not test charts.

Feel free to email or pm me if you have any direct questions.

Denis.
 
Last edited:
Correction asccepted re Keith's comments - my memory is no doubt faulty.

Leif said:
The 30D is better than the competition at high ISO, but not by as large a margin as the Canon fan-boys would have you believe. ...... Or you could opt for a 6MP camera, and get even better high ISO performance, but lose some resolution.

Errr .... did you look at the shot I posted a link to above? Are you seriously suggesting that one could achieve that, or anything like that, with a current-generation Sony sensor? If so, I'd like to see some evidence.

As for "even better" performance with a 6MP sensor .... are you serious? Which one do you have in mind? I can't think of any.
 
Oh, I get this all the time, Tannin - apparently anybody who says they can see glaring noise/detail differences between a Sony sensor and a Canon sensor is just a Canon fanboy.

According to some Nikon/Sony fanboys, anyway...

;)
 
Keith Reeder said:
Oh, I get this all the time, Tannin - apparently anybody who says they can see glaring noise/detail differences between a Sony sensor and a Canon sensor is just a Canon fanboy.

According to some Nikon/Sony fanboys, anyway...

;)

KEITH REEDER SWITCHES TO SONY! (o)<

After using Canon and Nikon equipment since 1875, Keith Reeder announced in a press release today that he was switching to Sony. He resigned as a Canon Explorer of Light and as a member of Nikon’s prestigious “Legends Behind the Lens” group. Sony enticed him to switch by offering a complete War Chest of Sony cameras, lenses, and accessories. Mr. Reeder is excited about getting his hands on some Alpha bodies and both Sigma and Minolta lenses.
 
gmax said:
KEITH REEDER SWITCHES TO SONY! (o)<

After using Canon and Nikon equipment since 1875, Keith Reeder announced in a press release today that he was switching to Sony. He resigned as a Canon Explorer of Light and as a member of Nikon’s prestigious “Legends Behind the Lens” group. Sony enticed him to switch by offering a complete War Chest of Sony cameras, lenses, and accessories. Mr. Reeder is excited about getting his hands on some Alpha bodies and both Sigma and Minolta lenses.

:eek!: I hear Arthur Morris has just done the same! Canon fanboy numbers are declining rapidly! ;)
 
pe'rigin said:
I wouldn't diss any Minolta lenses, some of which are better than any of today's fancy-dans!
Agreed, there are around some delicious Zuiko lenses ... there was no offense intended ... ;)
 
pe'rigin said:
I wouldn't diss any Minolta lenses, some of which are better than any of today's fancy-dans!

I do not doubt that. My comments were really pointing out that Sony do not (I think) currently make any large lenses, so users would have to buy used.
 
Tannin said:
Correction asccepted re Keith's comments - my memory is no doubt faulty.



Errr .... did you look at the shot I posted a link to above? Are you seriously suggesting that one could achieve that, or anything like that, with a current-generation Sony sensor? If so, I'd like to see some evidence.

You must have a problem reading. I made no mention of the Sony or its noise. In fact I said "But I do not use a Sony so my advice about it is suspect."
 
Keith Reeder said:
Oh, I get this all the time, Tannin - apparently anybody who says they can see glaring noise/detail differences between a Sony sensor and a Canon sensor is just a Canon fanboy.

According to some Nikon/Sony fanboys, anyway...

;)

I made no comment on the difference in noise between the Sony and the Canon. I will leave that to people who have used the camera.

Here are some quotes from me:

"But I do not use a Sony so my advice about it is suspect.".
"Incidentally you really want to think about the system. Sony do not as yet have many long lenses, whereas Canon and Nikon do. "
"In terms of overall system, for birding anyway, Canon lead.".
"The 30D is better than the competition at high ISO,"

So where do you get the idea that I am a Sony/Nikon fan boy?

You do seem to be a Canon fan boy according to the evidence.

You wrote a review of the D200 that gave a grossly unbalanced impression. And a score of 2. You said it was totally unsuitable for bird photography. And then on various forums you went on to completely trash it. That is not fair to anyone. Basically every other review of that camera disagrees with most if not all of your conclusions. You concluded that the auto-focus was rubbish, the metering was rubbish, the sensor was rubbish, and well, it was rubbish. Your review was emotional and totally over the top.

In a BF thread you made comments about the noise that could not be substantiated, and which I showed to be false by posting example pictures taken with a D200 at ISO 1600 with no noise reduction.

I notice you have since edited the review, to tone it down considerably, and if I recall correctly you originally said that it was totally unacceptable that you received two duff cameras from Nikon. But you have since received two duff Canon cameras. (You seem to have incredible bad luck.)

No-one has said that the high ISO performance of the D200 is equal to or better than that of the Canon 20D/30D. But to claim as you did that the D200 is totally unsuitable for bird photography is utter nonsense.

I guess I had better throw my D200 in the bin where according to you it belongs. Or maybe, just maybe, I will use it to take photographs.

You also made incredibly rude comments about pictures from D200 users on this forum. (You said the D200 pictures in this forum were rubbish.) How would you like it if I said that about pictures when you were starting out? Disgraceful.

No doubt we will be treated to further comments from you such as:

"I've suspected for a long time that I'm more selective and discerning than some people, and I''m certainly not as easy to please..."

The air you breath must be awfully thin given the height of your pedestal. Maybe it's clouding your judgement? ;)
 
Calm down boys |:d| Do we really need all this arguing over which camera system is best, after all, ANY competent photographer should be able to get superb results with any DSLR or even compact or bridge camera depending on the circumstances.

I personally dont give a damm if an image is taken on a Kanicon XXXD with warp speed motors and noise free image processing at ISO 6400, all that matters is the end result, what I will say is that an image taken on relatively cheap unsophisticated equipment deserves far more praise than one from someone who has let technology do half the work for them.

Right, rant over....got to clean the warp nacelles on my Penterprise |:d|
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top