Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony Alpha A3000

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony Alpha A3000

 
 
Ghost-Rider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2013
Le 28/08/2013 12:37, Sandman a écrit :
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
>>
>> <nmip>
>>>
>>> Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
>>> level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
>>> about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
>>> most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
>>>
>>> The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
>>> purpose.


>> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
>> standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
>> closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
>> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
>> was good for snapshots.

>
> Huh, for a zoom lens I found it really sharp compared to the competition
> from Sigma and Tamron. Obviously there are tons of sharper lenses out
> there, but for a DX 18-200 lens it was plenty sharp for the versatility
> you get with it.


I used to have a D90 with a 18-200. I was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 with a 18-300. I do everything with it.
I'm delighted. I'll never buy another lens, that's my philosophy.
I think its performance is quite sufficient.
Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d...0419-001_1.jpg
300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg
(Château de Chantilly, France).
Note : the distortion corrections were off.
And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
(Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2013
In article <kvkt7f$tgn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ghost-Rider <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I used to have a D90 with a 18-200. I was delighted with it.
> Now I have a D7000 with a 18-300. I do everything with it.
> I'm delighted. I'll never buy another lens, that's my philosophy.
> I think its performance is quite sufficient.


Well, the 18-300 is less sharp than the 18-200 over the entire range,
but especially when zoomed in. It holds up the edges better in wide, but
that's all.

> Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
> 18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d...0419-001_1.jpg
> 300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg


Well, it's hard to judge sharpness on resized images

But both the 18-200 and 18-300 need help with the contrast really.

> Note : the distortion corrections were off.
> And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
> (Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)


Well, with f22 it's easier to be sharp in the center. I usually judge a
lens sharpness when it's wide open. I liked this shot though.



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ghost-Rider
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2013
Le 28/08/2013 15:37, Sandman a écrit :
> In article <kvkt7f$tgn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ghost-Rider <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Well, the 18-300 is less sharp than the 18-200 over the entire range,
> but especially when zoomed in. It holds up the edges better in wide, but
> that's all.


Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the settings but I don't really care, I
just sharpen a bit more if need be, the 18-300 supports it well.
>
>> Here are two photographs from the same standing point in available light :
>> 18 mm, f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
>> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCodlb7Q4I_d...0419-001_1.jpg
>> 300 mm f5.6, 1/30s, 720 iso :
>> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCofyq5U3Q_d7000_00420-002.jpg

>
> Well, it's hard to judge sharpness on resized images


True, and I sharpened them too, so here are the naked originals :
http://minus.com/lIh1EAMfGnaq2
http://minus.com/lbqHxxBFHHqntF
http://minus.com/lbhIkVjfnFn7EY
Put your mouse in the top-right corner to download the original.

> But both the 18-200 and 18-300 need help with the contrast really.


That is true, unless I use a scene mode. In that case, the photos are
really flashy.
>
>> Note : the distortion corrections were off.
>> And a 3rd one with a close-up add-on lens :
>> http://cjoint.com/13au/CHCpeHDuzMP_d7000_07447-002.jpg
>> (Very small larva, maybe a cicadellidae, can someone tell me its species ?)

>
> Well, with f22 it's easier to be sharp in the center. I usually judge a
> lens sharpness when it's wide open. I liked this shot though.


I usually stay at f16 because of diffraction, but that depends on the light.



 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2013
On 8/28/2013 6:37 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
>>
>> <nmip>
>>>
>>> Well, not trying to be offensive here, but the D5200 is an "upper entry
>>> level camera" or whatever you want to call it. Not making a comment
>>> about you specifically here, but people who generally buy the D5200 are
>>> most likely to get one lens for it and be satisfied.
>>>
>>> The 18-200 is undoubtedly a very good, sharp and versatile lens for that
>>> purpose.
>>>

>>
>> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
>> standard, For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
>> closer to a 175. The lens had very low contrast. I used it solely as a
>> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
>> was good for snapshots.

>
> Huh, for a zoom lens I found it really sharp compared to the competition
> from Sigma and Tamron. Obviously there are tons of sharper lenses out
> there, but for a DX 18-200 lens it was plenty sharp for the versatility
> you get with it.
>
>


Happy you are satisfied with yours.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2013
On 8/28/2013 9:01 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I had the 18-200 and used it on a D300 & D200. It was not sharp, by any
>> standard,

>
> you must have had a dud or you didn't focus properly.
>
>> For close up work it was never a real 200, I would estimate
>> closer to a 175.

>
> all internal focusing lenses work that way. nothing unique about the
> 18-200, and it's actually more like 100mm.
>
> do you own a 70-200? it too is not a real 200mm at close range.
>
>> The lens had very low contrast.

>
> more evidence yours was a dud, but regardless, that's easily fixed in
> post.


Nikon repair worked on th elens, and it still did not satisfy my needs.
If others are happy with it, I'm happy for them.

>
>> I used it solely as a
>> walk around lens, when carrying other lenses was not convenient. IOW it
>> was good for snapshots.

>
> that's what it's designed for.
>
> 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.
>


You have your requirements and opinion, I have mine. Glad it works for
you. I have the 70-200, 80-400 (new version,), 16-35, plus a bunch of
others, that I do not need to list. For a walk around lens I use my 28-300.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2013
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.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2013
In article <280820130901002666%(E-Mail Removed)>,
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Well, my Lowepro Fastpack 350 packs all of them along with my 50/1.4 and
a D4 with GPS unit on as well. And room to spare. Plus, it's not that
heavy anyway.

A bit more cumbersome than a 18-200, of course, but still


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2013
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Makowiec
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2013
On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: 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...

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2013
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:38:33 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 31 Aug 2013 in rec.photo.digital, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:43:55 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
: > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony Alpha and Apple Aperture? Larry Digital Photography 1 08-23-2006 05:38 AM
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR Jens Mander Digital Photography 0 08-13-2006 10:06 PM
Sony Alpha DSLR A100 full dpreview deryck lant Digital Photography 19 08-04-2006 04:03 AM
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100K rated 7.5/10 on CNET newcamz.blogspot.com Digital Photography 7 07-29-2006 05:18 PM
Sony Alpha 100 image samples to compare noise Digital Photography Now Digital Photography 2 06-12-2006 01:53 PM



Advertisments