Since it is just a hobby I would go for the sony..
Its cheaper and will give you more room to buy other things, extra batteries, memory cards, tripods, etc. Which are all very important..
The difference in price could get you a second battery, a couple gig cards, a decent filter..
B&H sells that lens for 280$ us..
And it is a decent lens for hobbyist. but dont buy it if you will be using the long end (200-300) often. That end is more for " oh what is that could be instreresting let me take a picture.".
The pentax k100 is also a nice camera for hobbyist. Give it a try...
I bought this set-up and so far I like it. I'm just a beginner though. I've shot at least 1500 pictures already. I looked at Sony, but the Nikon just felt so much better in my hand. This sounds silly, but I think it was the right decision. I just feel the camera is so much more comfortable when making adjustments when shooting.
They're probably both excellent companies, so you can't go wrong.'still struggling after all these years'..
Sony DSC H9 is just a small sensor camera (14 times smaller than the other two cameras you mentioned)..
Sony A100 has a stabilized sensor that helps up to 200 mm. Nikon has a little better body and better control but you need stabilized lens (better solution over 200 mm). The difference is quite big between the prices of the two setups.Better have the range you want with two lenses.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
I have to second this. About a year ago I bought the Sony H5 as I was interested in photography and I excellerate my knowledge beyond that camera quite quickly. If you are looking into developing your photo skills go with and SLR like the Nikon. Today I own a D40x and I have to say I am quite pleased. There is still after a few months lots to learn which makes the camera a lot of fun to own...
Is the 18-70mm lens for the Sony good enough though for a beginner?.
Beginner I guess wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a really great photo from a good lens compared to a reasonable photo from any average everyday lens..
The difference between a normal lens (like 18-70 mm) and a very good lens is subtle and needs experience to discern. The problems of wide range lens is easier to spot. The very good lens have better resolution and other problems of the lens (like contrast, vignetting, soft corners) turned down.Even with a kit lens a dSLR is not a fair competitor to a small sensor camera.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..
If you're considering a Nikon, you might want to take a look at this site:.
The Nikon D40 and the Nikon 18-200 VR lens combo ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm ) would be just a little over $1000. I don't own any of this equipment, but it's tempting. Good luck...
With the satement that stableization helps up to 200mm. This is a statment I have seen a lot, especiallly from Canon uses, and is simply not true. It helps in all ranges and certainly continues to help at much longer telephoto ranges...
I have had enough with aim and shoot cameras. Now I am ready to makea transition into entry level DSLR's. I am not a professionalphotographer myself however I am enjoying photography and would loveto continue as a hobyist..
In this case you have 2 options: the nikon D40 or the pentax K100D. bother offer sufficient upgrade paths if you should aspire for more one day later on in your life..
The pentax offers more bang for the buck (its a smaller company, so it has to), whilst the nikon will give you the "nikon badge" (if you need it). picture quality is identical, according to this website. pentax K100D has in-body-stabilization, will meter with manual lenses and autofocus any older lens, whilst the nikon D40 can't do any of this..
Recent few weeks I have been reading about photography and lookingaround for a camera. I have frozen on to Nikon D80, Sony A100 orSony DSC H9..
I need suggestion as which one to buy. I found a good deal on Nikon D80body for 860 USD andSIGMA 28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 DG IF MACRO ASPHERICAL LENS FOR NIKON SLRCAMERAS for about 300USD. Is this a good deal?.
Although overall expense for D80 with lense comes to around 1200USD.Which is bit more than my budget. So I looked at Sony A100 and DSCH9 for a better price. A100 is cheaper than D80 by at least 200USDfor body..
Also I am looking for a lense that could cover Macro, Wide andTelephoto to a reasonable numbers. So I picked SIGMA 28-300MMF/3.5-6.3 DG IF MACRO ASPHERICAL LENS FOR NIKON SLR CAMERAS. Is thisa good enough..
Http://sternbild.zenfolio.com (gallery)http://schaffnerlos.blogspot.com (Vienna - image & text blog - in German)..
Thank you very much for all reply and I really appreciate your time and was really helpful advise..
I was thinking about put a hold on buying any camera for month or two more as Christmas is coming closer. I might get a good discount or better kit package for less. I am evening trying with a friend of mine from Singapore. I heard that Singapore has better rates than US..
In any case I more inclined toward Nikon D80 and SIGMA 28-300MM.
F/3.5-6.3 DG IF MACRO ASPHERICAL LENS. I just needed counselling from experts to affirm my decision to buy these is good one even though the cost is on higher side..
You're going to want the USA warranty. If your budget is tight go with one of the Nikon 40's with the 18-55 and you'll still have enought for the 70-300VR and still be less money than the d80..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
In any case I more inclined toward Nikon D80 and SIGMA 28-300M F/3.5-6.3 DG IF MACRO ASPHERICAL LENS. I just needed counselling from experts to affirm my decision to buy these is good one even though the cost is on higher side.
Nothing wrong with your choice of the D80 but I question whether you have the right lens. In 35mm terms that is a 42mm lens so you have no wideangle. Also at 300mm it is f/6.3. That is a very high aperture for the long end. The Nikon system is designed to work up to f/5.6. It will still work at f/6.3 but it will "hunt" more trying to find the focus in poor light..
I am struggling to find a review of it. This is the best I can do:.
Although it is not perfect I think you would be better off with the Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro.
Here is a review of it on a Canon.
Check out your present P & S and check for the 35mm equivalent of the lens then consider if it does what you want in terms of focal length - not just ratio (5x or whatever) but also where it starts and stops. You might find that the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens will do most that you want then you could get a 70-300 later. Try them out at a store.
But if you want a long reach walk around lens the Tamron is a much better bet than that particular Sigma..
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Stabilised sensors on Sony, and some Pentax and Olympus dslrs is a great feature - works at all but the longest (think >500mm) lens lengths and saves carrying a tripod round with you if you shoot in a museum for instance where you don't want to use flash but don't have a lot of light. Not heard the greatest things about the 28-300 lens. It's your call with an slr - do you want to get several good lenses each of which has maybe 3 or 4x zoom ratio, bearing in mind the whole point of an slr is the ability to change lenses, or a multi-times superzoom like the 28-300 or 18-200 that is more optically compromised. That said, the Tamron 18-250 14x zoom is flying of the shelves and deserveredly - it's far sharper than previous superzooms. But it really needs to go on a Sony or Pentax; stick it on a Canon or Nikon and you'll want a tripod. Given that people buy it for it's convenience, that seems couterproductive..
As the alternative, for smaller lenses, think 18-70 plus 70-300 or thereabouts for two good, cheap lenses that you'll want with you most of the time...