is it worth shifting to sony A550 from D5000?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#1
hi all, just wanna know your point of view, coz am very tempted to get the sony A550... care to share any thoughts about this? by the way, i am currently using nikon D5K...:think:
 

.Hack

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
716
0
0
www.doggiehaven.sg
#3
You have to ask yourself.
In the first place, why would you want to get the Sony.
Is it because of IQ? Lenses collection?
And what are you not happy about the D5000 that makes you want to sell it away?
After asking yourself some questions, you will have a clearer picture on which way you want to go.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#4
You have to ask yourself.
In the first place, why would you want to get the Sony.
Is it because of IQ? Lenses collection?
And what are you not happy about the D5000 that makes you want to sell it away?
After asking yourself some questions, you will have a clearer picture on which way you want to go.
Fully agree. :thumbsup:
 

eow

Senior Member
Jun 22, 2004
10,057
6
38
#5
hi all, just wanna know your point of view, coz am very tempted to get the sony A550... care to share any thoughts about this? by the way, i am currently using nikon D5K...:think:
it coming to the shops soon on the 20th, u can try out before deciding.

but hor....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqOcbPD39kM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk9AQ5CkC5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8655FDG3U&NR=1
 

Last edited:

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#6
actually, i like my D5K... it's just the burden of buying expensive AFS VR lenses thats making me think of switching! currently, i only have the tamron 18-270mm VC, and the tamron 90mm macro... contemplating on getting the AFS 35mm f1.8, but since i've read about the A550, i started to rethink, and finally seek advice from CSers... i don't have any idea bout the price range of sony alpha lenses, and if there are third party alternatives, hence i started this thread. thank you in advance for the input, that'll surely be of great help in making my final choice.:)
 

simmeow

New Member
Apr 14, 2009
368
0
0
Earth
#7
actually, i like my D5K... it's just the burden of buying expensive AFS VR lenses thats making me think of switching! currently, i only have the tamron 18-270mm VC, and the tamron 90mm macro... contemplating on getting the AFS 35mm f1.8, but since i've read about the A550, i started to rethink, and finally seek advice from CSers... i don't have any idea bout the price range of sony alpha lenses, and if there are third party alternatives, hence i started this thread. thank you in advance for the input, that'll surely be of great help in making my final choice.:)
Go and test the handling of a Sony and then decide. I personally do not like the feel of the camera. Thought of switching once. Drop the idea after testing one. The feel of the mirror flipping is totally different from a Nikon.

Not sure about Sony vibration control. I doubt it can handle 4 stop if you are using a 70-200 range zoom lens.
 

Jan 19, 2005
554
0
0
Singapore
#8
actually, i like my D5K... it's just the burden of buying expensive AFS VR lenses thats making me think of switching! currently, i only have the tamron 18-270mm VC, and the tamron 90mm macro... contemplating on getting the AFS 35mm f1.8, but since i've read about the A550, i started to rethink, and finally seek advice from CSers... i don't have any idea bout the price range of sony alpha lenses, and if there are third party alternatives, hence i started this thread. thank you in advance for the input, that'll surely be of great help in making my final choice.:)
Isn't buying another camera system means spending more money?:dunno:
 

eow

Senior Member
Jun 22, 2004
10,057
6
38
#9
precisely the same reason i switch in the first place..inbuilt stabilization body =stabilization for lens
the new A550 had a very usable high iso capability. if u can get a sigma 28mm f1.8
try imagine shooting at high iso with ultra bright lens at low shutter speed..u will be the envy/death of yr friends/enemies around.:devil:
 

Last edited:

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#10
Not sure about Sony vibration control. I doubt it can handle 4 stop if you are using a 70-200 range zoom lens.
It's extremely effective, and in actual reviews and side-by-side comparisons matches or beats most lens-based systems. In real life the difference is not noticeable.
 

May 7, 2009
141
0
0
#11
if lens is a problem for you, you can get third party brand like tamron, tokina, sigma :)
 

Benosaurous

Senior Member
May 21, 2008
808
0
16
#12
sony means cz, cz means $$$$

think carefully, is the camera pissing you off so much to have a great change? are you limited by your camera technical capabilities?
Up till now i still can say, i have not ulitized fully of what my camera can do, my camera is limited by me.
shoot more, and get to know of your camera more, caress it everyday, you will get better photos soon that makes you feel there isnt much a reason for a change.
:)
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#13
Go and test the handling of a Sony and then decide. I personally do not like the feel of the camera. Thought of switching once. Drop the idea after testing one. The feel of the mirror flipping is totally different from a Nikon.

Not sure about Sony vibration control. I doubt it can handle 4 stop if you are using a 70-200 range zoom lens.
this is a very good suggestion, which i definitely will do once the A550 is launched here in SG. how the shooter feels about his camera is very important indeed. thanks!


Isn't buying another camera system means spending more money?:dunno:
with the street price of the A550 which i saw here in a CS thread, if i sell my whole system in a very reasonable price, i think the money i can generate can get me an A550 + upgraded lens. thanks for the idea though... cheers!


precisely the same reason i switch in the first place..inbuilt stabilization body =stabilization for lens
the new A550 had a very usable high iso capability. if u can get a sigma 28mm f1.8
try imagine shooting at high iso with ultra bright lens at low shutter speed..u will be the envy/death of yr friends/enemies around.:devil:
precisely one of the reasons i am contemplating on switching to the A550.:think:


It's extremely effective, and in actual reviews and side-by-side comparisons matches or beats most lens-based systems. In real life the difference is not noticeable.
:think: hmmmm... made me anticipate for the A550 launching!
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#14
if lens is a problem for you, you can get third party brand like tamron, tokina, sigma :)
thanks for the idea bro, currently, am using 2 tamron lenses... i sold my nikon 55-200mm AFS VR, 18-105mm AFS VR, 18-200mm AFS VR... among these three, 18-200mm is my favourite, but after i've read a CS thread bout it, i also sold it! third party lens is ok with me, but it goes down to getting one with autofocus and vr, which means additional $!;)


sony means cz, cz means $$$$

think carefully, is the camera pissing you off so much to have a great change? are you limited by your camera technical capabilities?
Up till now i still can say, i have not ulitized fully of what my camera can do, my camera is limited by me.
shoot more, and get to know of your camera more, caress it everyday, you will get better photos soon that makes you feel there isnt much a reason for a change.
:)
it's not pissing me off or anything, it's just that the idea of paying more for AFS VR lens is'nt appealing to me anymore... i know my D5K has lots of capabilities that i have'nt even tried, thanks for pointing that out...:thumbsup:
 

simmeow

New Member
Apr 14, 2009
368
0
0
Earth
#15
The new Nikon 70-200 VRII preformance is fantastic at the vibration control. If the Sony system can do as well, I don't see any reason from switching side.

Anyway, it's up to the TS to decide. End of the day, it's the photo we admire, not so much on the camera. If anyone out there does the other way round, he/she should be working for any of the retailers. Can keep looking at the camera all day long.

I was thinking of switching over to Canon for it's 5D but dropped the idea as it ergonomic is not as good as Nikon. Same thing that stop me from going for Sony.

There is no need for brand loyalty. They do not give us any discount for sticking with them. They only sucker us with better, pricer and fancier products.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#16
Do you pay more for an AF-S VR lens compared to a non-VR equivalent?

I didn't realise you did.

You have an 18-270mm VC which already has stablisation, and a tamron 90mm macro which maybe would benefit from stabilisation, and you're contemplating on getting an AFS 35/1.8 which wouldn't benefit from stabilisation.

What lens are you hoping to get that would benefit from stabilisation? Specifically would benefit from, which doesn't include bragging rights or feel good factor.
 

Mar 5, 2006
262
0
0
#17
For wide angle range, stabilization is not that critical.

Will switching camp make you feel you can get better pictures or attain more savings?

Sony is a good contender with seemingly attractive entry level gears, but what is really wrong with Nikon?

Can you give yourself more time to practice on techniques rather than to depend on technologies? Do you know there are better ways to stabilize your camera with the right holding techniques?

As for exposure, do you understand the strength of the sensor to optimise it? It is not a coincidence people can get very nice and sharp pictures with what you have. It is the understanding of the camera, lenses and exposure.

But of course, do not compare a d3x with d5000. it can yield different results when optimised with the right premium lens.

The limitation of the equipment is probably as weak as one's desire to spend and be contend.
 

archlover

New Member
Nov 11, 2005
1,533
0
0
#18
if i were you..
i won't change to other brand that the lens line-up are more expensive and not as complete...
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#19
The new Nikon 70-200 VRII preformance is fantastic at the vibration control. If the Sony system can do as well, I don't see any reason from switching side.

Anyway, it's up to the TS to decide. End of the day, it's the photo we admire, not so much on the camera. If anyone out there does the other way round, he/she should be working for any of the retailers. Can keep looking at the camera all day long.

I was thinking of switching over to Canon for it's 5D but dropped the idea as it ergonomic is not as good as Nikon. Same thing that stop me from going for Sony.

There is no need for brand loyalty. They do not give us any discount for sticking with them. They only sucker us with better, pricer and fancier products.
note taken on this... good point to consider!:thumbsup:

Do you pay more for an AF-S VR lens compared to a non-VR equivalent?

I didn't realise you did.

You have an 18-270mm VC which already has stablisation, and a tamron 90mm macro which maybe would benefit from stabilisation, and you're contemplating on getting an AFS 35/1.8 which wouldn't benefit from stabilisation.

What lens are you hoping to get that would benefit from stabilisation? Specifically would benefit from, which doesn't include bragging rights or feel good factor.
yes bro, i just bought the 18-270 VC, but i could've saved almost $400 if i bought the 18-200 no VC... as i've posted previously, i did owned several nikkor AFS VR lenses which i've already sold, and i still think that the price to performance value of these lenses is not justifiable. VR is a good thing to have, especially for people like me (i got shakey hands, admittedly due to my sports activities). as for the 35mm AFS, if you have an in body VR, it'd be ++. but, thanks for the point of view you've shared here, it's a plus factor for me to keep my gears and improve my techniques in shooting instead...:thumbsup:


For wide angle range, stabilization is not that critical.

Will switching camp make you feel you can get better pictures or attain more savings?

Sony is a good contender with seemingly attractive entry level gears, but what is really wrong with Nikon?

Can you give yourself more time to practice on techniques rather than to depend on technologies? Do you know there are better ways to stabilize your camera with the right holding techniques?

As for exposure, do you understand the strength of the sensor to optimise it? It is not a coincidence people can get very nice and sharp pictures with what you have. It is the understanding of the camera, lenses and exposure.

But of course, do not compare a d3x with d5000. it can yield different results when optimised with the right premium lens.

The limitation of the equipment is probably as weak as one's desire to spend and be contend.
thanks for sharing, i would try the feel of the A550 first when it is launched here... point taken!;)


if i were you..
i won't change to other brand that the lens line-up are more expensive and not as complete...
good point, CZ lenses are really ex... but as for sony alpha, is'nt it that you can also use the old konica minolta lenses as well?:think:
 

Last edited:

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#20
yes bro, i just bought the 18-270 VC, but i could've saved almost $400 if i bought the 18-200 no VC...
I see. And suppose that has nothing to do with the fact that it is 200mm at the long end rather than 270mm at the long end.

It's a bit like saying, I just bought the 300/2.8 VR but I could've saved almost $5000 if I bought the 80-200/2.8 no VR... Incidentally, the 300/2.8 VR is cheaper than the 300/2.8 non-VR.

and i still think that the price to performance value of these lenses is not justifiable.
No, but in all honesty the price to performance value of all lenses probably don't match up to a simple 50/1.8.

as for the 35mm AFS, if you have an in body VR, it'd be ++.
If you're talking about price to performance gain, then honestly, VR on a 35 gives you such small gains.

I will likely be in the minority, but as far as I'm concerned the value of VR is greatly, greatly exaggerated. A 300/2.8 needs one, focal lengths from 200-300mm benefit from it, and focal lengths outside that have generally very specific utility for VR that more often than not (but not always) serve as an inferor substitute for camera support.

I cannot speak for manufacturers other than Nikon, but VR technology is not good enough. Specifically, it's not 100%. I could take 5 shots at a certain shutter speed without VR and get 1 sharp. I can take the same shot 5 times with VR on and get anything from 0 to 4 sharp. Yes, it's possible to get poorer results with VR switched on. So for critical applications it's unreliable.

It'll be great for shooting inanimate objects in low light. It has extremely limited useability for moving subjects ie people. But I guess if you shoot interiors handheld a lot then yes it's invaluable. But most people should be using a tripod for that.

Think of VR as a built in monopod. Without the weight support function. There are just not that many applications for which it is critically important.

VR in the camera is great, I'm not disputing that. Better to have it and be able to switch it on for the times when you do need it, than not have it. But I use VR for maybe 0.05% of my pictures. Possibly a lot less than that, and usually when I do subject movement completely scarpers my pictures anyway.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom