Help narrowing it down?

[Shawn7656]

I've had my Sony a100 for around a year now and I've gotten to the point where it just won't cut it anymore. After a sunset shot where literally 90% of the pics were noisy, full of CA, and blurry - Well... I've decided it's time to move on. With my current money situation I can afford to get a camera in the sub 1200 range, and I have done a lot of research on the cameras that fit into it. I don't have all of the money yet, so no need to make a decision just yet....

Anyways, I have decided that the Sony a55 and the Sony a65 look to be the best bet for what I'm looking for (what I want to shoot: macro, portrait, and sports . Ability to record video is very nice but not needed). I already own an 18-200mm Sony and a 28-80mm sigma 1:2 macro lens so keeping with Sony kind of sweetens the deal a bit for me.

Where I need help: I found the neat site "Snapsport.com" that helps compare cameras. The only real big upgrades the a65 seems to have is the 24MP resolution as opposed to 16MP on the a55. HOWEVER, I got to looking a bit more in-depth and noticed that the a65 has a pixel size of 15.3 µm², while the a55 is way up at 22.9 µm²! From what I know about pixel size, this has the potential to REALLY mess with picture quality. And here's the kicker: My a100 has a pixel size of 37.2 µm²!! That's more than DOUBLE the a65! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking just because I cap out at 10MP on my a100 doesn't really mean that my pictures are going to be worse quality than the a65 just because it has 2.5 more megapixels (and yes, I know MP is NOT a rating on quality) because the pixels themselves are half the size.

Now either way I need to upgrade my camera, so the fact that the a100 has such a huge pixel size isn't stopping this. I'm still debating between the aforementioned cameras. For those of you who aren't too up on the differences between the two cameras, here's a link to the snapsport page comparison: Specifications - Sony SLT-A65 vs Sony SLT-A55

The page was clearly made before the a65 was released because it is missing a lot of readily available information on it. I have learned from my studies that the a65 has one of the smallest shutter lags out there, at only .05ms. It takes more pics per battery, newer sensor and processor, updated features, better build quality, etc etc. My qualms are really just the fact that the megapixels being so high seems to be the main selling point, even though that MAY be negated by the smaller pixel size. Then there's of course the extra $200 I'd have to spend to get it.

Random question: does anyone know if Sony does payment plans on cameras? ($100-200 a month?)

Background info on my a100 and me: Got it as my first DSLR through ebay. It had probably been dropped as it seems the Internal Image Stabilizer is broken. My pictures are always framed about 10% higher than shown in my viewfinder and my pic quality is absolutely WORTHLESS when it's dark outside. I love my camera but it's getting so outdated and it's been having overheating issues as of late too (also most likely from the IIS being broken). ISO cap is 1600 with lots of noise, vibrates randomly when turned on and has scared away my targets (bugs and deer) before, rubber grip is coming off sort of, and the mentioned overheating and framing problems. Not to mention about 300 shots per battery, and the fact that I'm still using CompactFlash (something no one my age has even heard of). Here is a pic I took a couple days ago showing how bad my camera does in low-light situations. This was taken around 6-7pm during sunset
Ugh... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
For those of you who can't tell - the original picture was four or five ducks sitting in a row on a log in the water. They were perfectly silhouetted from my angle, and this is how EVERY one of the ten pictures looked (this was actually one of the better ones).
Here is a link to the full size orignal pic, not zoomed in:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29446716/EXAMPLE2.JPG
and here is another example of how it was acting, even when using a natural steady:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29446716/EXAMPLE.JPG
As you can see if you look through my Flickr page, some pictures were (barely) salvagable due to heavy editing and Lightroom's awesome noise reduction, but they were still pretty bad for being taken by an SLR...
PS: I know the pics were shot at 1600 ISO, but anything lower was too dark to even see anything. My camera does NOT like low-light at ALL

Thanks in advance for all of your help

[OsmosisStudios]

I think you're worrying too much about pixel size: it's an issue, just like pixel density and overall resolution/sensor size is. But it's not the BIG DETERMINING FACTOR it's made out to be. Yes, it *is* important, but not as big as you seem to be making it out to be.

The a65 is a 24mp sensor, and that's just too damned many for my liking. Hell, even Canon has decided their top-line camera is only going to be 18. 24, especially on a crop, is just silly, and it shows in the examples I've seen.

Other things to consider are advances in processing, microlenses, etc.

You really should sit down and compare sample images, preferably your own, and see which you prefer and where the ISO ceiling is for you.

[inkista]

Yes, it sounds like you need a new camera, BUT.

That image you're complaining about the camera screwing up? The shutter speed is 1/6s. Not even the in-body stabilization can be expected to have impeccable performance at that slow a shutter speed without considerable skill on the part of the photographer. That's camera shake blur you're mostly seeing, there. Your 18-200 is a slow lens with a small maximum aperture. It's forcing you to use a slow shutter speed. It's probably also the cause of your C/A woes. These two things are going to follow you whichever body you replace your A100 with, because you're going to slap that same 18-200 onto it.

I think maybe you need a little more time, and to try and sort out what's the lens, what's the camera, and what's your technique.

Originally Posted by Shawn7656

I've had my Sony a100 for around a year now and I've gotten to the point where it just won't cut it anymore. After a sunset shot where literally 90% of the pics were noisy, full of CA, and blurry -

Noise is definitely the camera body. But is severely exacerbated by underexposing a shot and then bringing up the exposure in post-processing. Underexposure can actually cause more noise than iso settings. Learn to use the histogram and to expose properly.

C/A, if it's single-color fringe is typically because you blew out the highlights. If it's the dual-color type, then it's typically the lens that's at fault. Stopping down can help to mitigate, but this is going to follow you, regardless of what camera you have.

Blurry? Well, that can be the camera's autofocus system. It can be misused stabilization. It can be too slow a shutter speed. It can be using a lens wide open. It can be using a so-so lens. Technique and knowledge count for a lot here. Be absolutely sure your technique isn't at fault before getting a new camera, because your technique, like your glass, is going to follow you to the next camera.

... I want to shoot: macro, portrait, and sports ...

Ok, this is just me, but are you sure you want to stay with Sony? Macro, fine. Portrait: outstanding. Sports... er... sure, you've got the shutter lag. You've even got the frame rate. But you don't have the long lens choices that are the staple of sports shooting. Go look at what Nikon and Canon offer in the realm of 300mm and up lenses. And the 70-200/2.8 offerings. Then look at what Sony offers. Just a thought. Because if you were going to jump systems, going now while you only have two lenses is probably a better time to do it than after you've got ten.

With OS, I think you're fixating too much on a) pixel-peeping (really?! you're judging image quality at 200% magnification? Looking at things at 100% is already going too far for most reasonable viewing), and b) pixel-size and density. I don't think you actually understand what resolution and per-pixel performance mean in real-world terms of looking at the image as a whole. Not your fault. A lot of the equipment testing sites aren't making this particularly clear. But it does mean a lot of folks are misinterpreting results.

Don't forget that the smaller pixels with more noise also have smaller noise. The noise gets downsized along with everything else. Sharpness will, all things being equal, be better on an image shot at higher resolution, when two images are viewed side by side at the same size (i.e., the magnification will be higher on the smaller-res image).

The Real Megapixel Myth

And advances in image processing go along with the smaller pixel sizes that can offset a lot of what some folks are needlessly wringing their hands over.

[Shawn7656]

@Osmosis: I honestly don't know too much about how much it affects quality, I just heard that is very likely to and didn't want to be spending an extra $200 and get LESS for it.

24, especially on a crop, is just silly, and it shows in the examples I've seen.

Can you explain this more in-depth? I don't really know what you mean by it "showing". I assume it's something negative, but what?
Thanks for the input. I'm not sure of any camera stores around me that have live models to play with (Best Buy has an a35 on the floor and I've tested it out, but it doesn't have a memory card in it so you can't compare pictures too easily). I'll have to call around and look more into that, and the upgrades the processor and/or sensor received from the a55 to the a65.


Inkista: Since your reply was large (NOT a bad thing) I'll break my reply to you down into chunks to avoid confusion --

That image you're complaining about the camera screwing up? The shutter speed is 1/6s. Not even the in-body stabilization can be expected to have impeccable performance at that slow a shutter speed without considerable skill on the part of the photographer. That's camera shake blur you're mostly seeing, there. Your 18-200 is a slow lens with a small maximum aperture. It's forcing you to use a slow shutter speed. It's probably also the cause of your C/A woes. These two things are going to follow you whichever body you replace your A100 with, because you're going to slap that same 18-200 onto it.

Yes I know the shutter speed was slow and the blur was motion blur. My problem was probably in part from my lack of steadiness, yes. However I've seen a Sony NEX do WAY better in low light (to the point where it didn't need flash to get a good picture in less light than I had). Given, the lens on that thing was made to be as awesome as it was, it still put my camera to shame with the lens wide open. I can't say much for my 18-200mm because it's focus is ALWAYS off, and it's full of CA in most pictures. My other lens cannot perform well for what I was doing, which was walking on a wooded trail through a forest preserve, snapping pics of things from a distance. Even with my Sigma lens that gets great pics I still get noticeable noise w/o flash at around ISO 400, which is terrible compared to anything on the market nowadays. Looking at sample pics from the a65, I get the same noise at 800 that they do at 16,000. This is without PP on either pic.

Noise is definitely the camera body. But is severely exacerbated by underexposing a shot and then bringing up the exposure in post-processing. Underexposure can actually cause more noise than iso settings. Learn to use the histogram and to expose properly.

That is something I have noticed. I didn't do ANY processing to the pics I linked to though.

C/A, if it's single-color fringe is typically because you blew out the highlights. If it's the dual-color type, then it's typically the lens that's at fault. Stopping down can help to mitigate, but this is going to follow you, regardless of what camera you have.

I get both, but mostly the dual color is just from the 18-200. Maybe I should try and sell this lens and replace it with a similar one...

Blurry? Well, that can be the camera's autofocus system. It can be misused stabilization. It can be too slow a shutter speed. It can be using a lens wide open. It can be using a so-so lens. Technique and knowledge count for a lot here. Be absolutely sure your technique isn't at fault before getting a new camera, because your technique, like your glass, is going to follow you to the next camera.

The autofocus is definitely a subpar system. It always hunts and I can focus sharper manually almost all the time when I have lighting enough to see. The stabilizer doesn't seem to work, I notice very VERY minimal amounts of difference in tests with it on and off taking the same pictures. Such minimal differences could easily be my own doing, not the camera itself. It's hard to say.

Sports... er... sure, you've got the shutter lag. You've even got the frame rate. But you don't have the long lens choices that are the staple of sports shooting. Go look at what Nikon and Canon offer in the realm of 300mm and up lenses. And the 70-200/2.8 offerings. Then look at what Sony offers. Just a thought. Because if you were going to jump systems, going now while you only have two lenses is probably a better time to do it than after you've got ten.

When I say sports, I should have specified that it'll be shots of people doing parkour, or possibly skateboarding as well (and this want is much less than that of macro, nature, and portrait. Those are my favorite in order). I'm not thinking of doing baseball or football where the action will be really far away.
(Parkour - Parkour, literally. - YouTube This is my other pass-time)
Also, don't forget that I can use all Minolta and Konica-Minolta lenses as well as Sony a-mounts. Plus, Sony has been adding some better telephotos lately:
G Series Lenses | Sony | Sony Store USA
Because of third party and Minolta lenses, I have probably around 400 lens choices (finding them all may be impossible though hahaha)
A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras)

With OS, I think you're fixating too much on a) pixel-peeping (really?! you're judging image quality at 200% magnification? Looking at things at 100% is already going too far for most reasonable viewing), and b) pixel-size and density. I don't think you actually understand what resolution and per-pixel performance mean in real-world terms of looking at the image as a whole. Not your fault. A lot of the equipment testing sites aren't making this particularly clear. But it does mean a lot of folks are misinterpreting results.

I know OS as operating system, or maybe OsmosisStudios (the other fellow who psotsed in this thread)? What were you talking about there?
I don't always judge images that closely, but I do crop a lot so it matters to me that my photos look good at least up to 60% (with the current situation anyways). As I said, I love macro, but I only have a 1:2 lens because I haven't been able to afford a better one. Before you ask, I just got a job about 2 months ago so many was hard to come by before that. I do not understand what the per-pixel performance really means, and I don't understand exactly how pixel density and size can effect picture quality, which is a side reason as to why I made this thread. I'll do some research on it, but if you know of any sites to look at or you would like to explain more in-depth I'd greatly appreciate it.

Don't forget that the smaller pixels with more noise also have smaller noise.

This is something I didn't think of honestly. I guess it makes total sense though. However, some sample pics I've seen on review sites show DISGUSTING noise on 16,000 ISO (admittedly I'll rarely need to go that high). It's interesting to not that both of these pics were taken at 16,000 yet one looks fine and the other looks terrible -
(Warning, full size pics)
160,000 ISO shutter speed of 1/40
http://img.photographyblog.com/revie...ony_a65_50.jpg
16,000 ISO shutter speed of 1/500
http://img.photographyblog.com/revie...ony_a65_47.jpg

This camera still performs a helluva lot better at 16,000 and 1/40 than mine at 1,600 1/40.

I'll look into more test photos and such though.

Would you be able to suggest a camera that would be better for me in the same price range? Money is sort of an issue, and I like that Sony DEFINITELY offers more for the money.

I've seen that the T3i is highly recommended, but I've heard from MANY people to stay away from it

EDIT: I just read your link and realized it is extremely in-depth and helpful. I appreciate it a lot. Thank you

[inkista]

Yes I know the shutter speed was slow and the blur was motion blur. My problem was probably in part from my lack of steadiness, yes. However I've seen a Sony NEX do WAY better in low light...

Yes but what lens did the NEX have on it?

A lot of what you're complaining about, imho, is probably the 18-200's fault more than the camera body's. A superzoom is good at only one thing: covering a very large focal length range. But it's slow, and it probably has a lot of optical compromises in order to cover the range. The rule of thumb if you want great image quality is not to get a lens that has more than a 3x zoom range (i.e., where the longest end is 3x or less the length of the shortest end). An 18-200 is more than 10x.

Softness, chromatic aberration, distortion--these are all problems with superzooms, particularly at the extremes of the range.

... Maybe I should try and sell this lens and replace it with a similar one...

Yes to the first, no to the second. Try breaking the range up across two lenses: a walkaround zoom (18-85-ish range), and a telephoto zoom (70-300).

The autofocus is definitely a subpar system....

With that lens. Have you tried it with a prime?

Also, don't forget that I can use all Minolta and Konica-Minolta lenses as well as Sony a-mounts.

But those Minolta lenses are designed for full frame and film, not crop body and digital. And you can only use the AF lenses, not the MD/MC. Finding good wide glass is going to require Alpha glass. And all the Minolta glass has to be purchased USED, probably without any warranty or return policy.

Plus, Sony has been adding some better telephotos lately

Yes, but they're still behind. As I said, look at the Canon choice. The 70-200 comes in four flavors: with and without stabilization and at f/2.8 and f/4. Sony only offers the 70-200/2.8 for $2000. There's no choice of a $600 70-200/4. There's no Alpha 300/4 prime.

Because of third party and Minolta lenses, I have probably around 400 lens choices...

Every third-party choice Alpha has, Canon and Nikon have. Canon's EF mount goes back just as far as Minolta's AF does, and has a similar number of choices. Nikon's mount goes back even farther, and has more manual-focus options to throw in. And throw in the fact that Canon can use adapted lenses from six old time camera mounts (Pentax K, M42, Leica R, Contax/Yashica, Nikon F, and Olympus OM), and trust me. There are far more glass choices on those two mounts than for Sony Alpha. What does it say that every Sony Alpha owner HAS to know about old used Minolta lenses to equip themselves?

Sony Alpha's advantage is in having autofocusing Zeiss ZA lenses. But if you aren't willing to pop for $1000+ lenses, that's not exactly an advantage.

I know OS as operating system, or maybe OsmosisStudios (the other fellow who psotsed in this thread)? What were you talking about there?

I meant Adam. I tend not to write out Osmosis Studios every time.

...This camera still performs a helluva lot better at 16,000 and 1/40 than mine at 1,600 1/40.

With which lens?

Staying with Sony, if you know it's the right platform for you, isn't a bad thing. They have some awesome kit and some great features. But just make sure it's the right tool for what you want to do. To me, saving $100 on a body doesn't make much sense when you end up spending a few thousand on glass.

Personally, I'd say stop looking for a new camera right now. Go get a better lens (say a 50/1.8), and work on your technique. If the image quality still sucketh mightily even with good glass on the front and good technique behind it, then consider a new body. But I think you're blaming the camera when the blame lies elsewhere, and you just have an itch for a better toy. Read up on lenses. Particularly on maximum aperture.

Most cameras outperform their owners.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by inkista

Personally, I'd say stop looking for a new camera right now.

Or to put it another way, buying a new camera is almost certainly going to be a waste of money, because you'll be disappointed in your results from that one, too. You could probably buy a $5000 DSLR and still be disappointed.

Any modern DSLR should be able to produce very nice photos in almost any except the most demanding conditions (night sports, concerts, etc.). If it's not happening for you, then either the camera is outright broken or there's something else wrong: lenses, photographic technique, or expectations.

I think you need to back off from the assumption that your camera is lame and investigate where your problems really lie. inkista has pretty much covered the possibilities.

I will add this, though: any digital camera will show noise, especially in shadows and in blues, when you view the images at 100%. You're looking at the individual pixels, and of course you're going to see the variations between the individual sensor elements and the number of photons that each captured. With film, if you examine it under high enough magnification to see the grain, you'll see the grain — right? It works the same way in digital.

Viewing an image at 100% might be valuable when performing sharpening to watch for halos starting to form as you increase the sharpness setting, or to set a crop border with absolute precision; otherwise, pixel-peeping is a guaranteed way to make you unhappy with your photos.

When judging the quality of an image, view it at the size you're going to print it. Better yet, print it and judge the print.

My personal experience with noise: I have an ancient Canon XT/350D (six-1/2 years old). I take photos at ISO 1600, and when I print them, I can't see the noise. At all. None of it. If I pixel-peep, the photos look noisy as heck. I've learned (the hard way) to go very easy on noise-reduction in post-processing; the resulting loss of sharpness is visible in the printed images. So I have a choice between sharp pictures with no visible noise or soft pictures with no visible noise.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Shawn7656

@Osmosis: I honestly don't know too much about how much it affects quality, I just heard that is very likely to and didn't want to be spending an extra $200 and get LESS for it.

Can you explain this more in-depth? I don't really know what you mean by it "showing". I assume it's something negative, but what?
Thanks for the input. I'm not sure of any camera stores around me that have live models to play with (Best Buy has an a35 on the floor and I've tested it out, but it doesn't have a memory card in it so you can't compare pictures too easily). I'll have to call around and look more into that, and the upgrades the processor and/or sensor received from the a55 to the a65.

I'll use NIkon nomenclature for clarity.

24mp is a LOT of resolution, especially on a cropped-sensor (DX) camera body. It's starting to push things for most lenses even on full-frame (FX). 24mp on DX is roughly the same as 48mp on FX. That's a metric buttload of pixels.

The trick with higher-res images is that you need better lenses to work with them. There are few sensors that can do much more than 18mp on DX: Canon has tried, and you really do need a very good stable of lenses to get the absolute best out of the sensor.

I've tried Sony's latest 24mp DX sensor (in both the a77 and NEX-7). It's very nice if you can expose properly (+2/3, then bring it down if necessary) and if you dont go above 400iso. It's certainly USEABLE up to about 1600, but otherwise, notsomuch. It'd be great in a controlled environment: if you do nothing but studio work, for instance. But even for landscape shots, it suffers dramatically from long-exposure noise past 1s.

Theyve done some amazing things, though. 24mp at 1600iso looks very much like 12mp at 3200-6400ISO that I get out of my D300s. But that's 1-2 stops down from where it should be, and I really consider 3200 on my D300s to be emergency use only - 6400 never gets used.

If you're finding yourself currently shooting above 400 (or needing to), and especially above 1600 often, then a 24mp DX-sized sensor isnt going to be of any help. You need faster lenses. You need lower res or, more accurately, lower density. You probably need full-frame.

The megapixel war is over. It's a contentious position, but Im gonna actually come out and say it. Sony has a 24mp DX sensor, and thats just too dense. Hell, Canon has stepped down from 21 to 18 for their new flagship (the 1Dx), and rumours are all pointing towards Nikon doing something similar (18mp). We'll see a higher-res FX body, of that im sure. They'll likely push for 36-40mp, as Canon is already getting that kind of density on their current x1.6 sensors (the T3i, 600D, 7D, each at 18mp). But I doubt we'll go above that, and even those will be special use only. And they'll require nothing but the absolute best lenses.

For DX, I think the sweetspot is gonna sit around 18mp.

The long and short of it is that 24mp, which is what the current crop of Sony SLRs are using, is just too high a resolution to be comfortable/convenient for general use.

[Shawn7656]

With all the text I have to reply to, I'm again going to break this down into sections of quoting each individual, so responding to things stay organized. I'll thank you all now though, as I really appreciate the honesty and information held within your posts.

Inkista:

Yes but what lens did the NEX have on it?

A lot of what you're complaining about, imho, is probably the 18-200's fault more than the camera body's. A superzoom is good at only one thing: covering a very large focal length range. But it's slow, and it probably has a lot of optical compromises in order to cover the range. The rule of thumb if you want great image quality is not to get a lens that has more than a 3x zoom range (i.e., where the longest end is 3x or less the length of the shortest end). An 18-200 is more than 10x.

Softness, chromatic aberration, distortion--these are all problems with superzooms, particularly at the extremes of the range.

As for the NEX, not a clue. It was my brothers camera and he was here on leave for a week. I saw it twice and sadly never got to use it. I saw pics he took (even of me) where the lighting was so terrible but the pics came out amazing (albeit the WB was a little screwy, but it was great).

I hear you on getting two separate lenses, but I don't really want to put too much into this camera right now, and I'll explain a bit more on that when you bring up camera down the road. My 28-80 Sigma makes me very happy and I do tend to take it with me sometimes, even on walks where I know I'll need more zoom, simply because I know I can crop more as it focuses much better than the 18-200. Funny thing is I got my Sigma for $60 and the 18-200 is a $550 lens. I do not own a prime and I have not ever actually shot with one. I have been holding off on buying more lenses until the time comes when I decide whether I'm sticking with Sony or not.

But those Minolta lenses are designed for full frame and film, not crop body and digital. And you can only use the AF lenses, not the MD/MC.

.
I was only partially aware of this. I didn't know I couldn't use any of the manual lenses.

Yes, but they're still behind. As I said, look at the Canon choice. The 70-200 comes in four flavors: with and without stabilization and at f/2.8 and f/4. Sony only offers the 70-200/2.8 for $2000. There's no choice of a $600 70-200/4. There's no Alpha 300/4 prime.
Every third-party choice Alpha has, Canon and Nikon have. Canon's EF mount goes back just as far as Minolta's AF does, and has a similar number of choices. Nikon's mount goes back even farther, and has more manual-focus options to throw in. And throw in the fact that Canon can use adapted lenses from six old time camera mounts (Pentax K, M42, Leica R, Contax/Yashica, Nikon F, and Olympus OM), and trust me. There are far more glass choices on those two mounts than for Sony Alpha. What does it say that every Sony Alpha owner HAS to know about old used Minolta lenses to equip themselves?
Sony Alpha's advantage is in having autofocusing Zeiss ZA lenses. But if you aren't willing to pop for $1000+ lenses, that's not exactly an advantage.

You make some great points. The main reason I considered even switching brands was cheaper and more available glass. I'm just kind of wowed by the amount of epic that comes in each Sony, and I've been a Sony fanboy my whole life (within a five foot radius of me there's at least 6 Sony products). I have used a Nikon D5000 before and it seems the camera was really amazing. This was, however, the first D-SLR I ever laid my hands on. I can't really compare my photos I take now to the ones I have from back then as I never did Post work to them, nor were my skills as refined as they are now. I do remember really liking the flash and AF assist lamp a lot. My a100 just uses a flash burst (similar to a red-eye reduction flash pattern) to help focus. I've heard Nikon's built-in flash systems are hands-down the best though.

I meant Adam. I tend not to write out Osmosis Studios every time.

I figured, but I'm still pretty new to the site and to talking to other photographers, so I wasn't too sure if this was a common abbreviation or something.

With which lens?

Staying with Sony, if you know it's the right platform for you, isn't a bad thing. They have some awesome kit and some great features. But just make sure it's the right tool for what you want to do. To me, saving $100 on a body doesn't make much sense when you end up spending a few thousand on glass.

Either lens. Moreso, of course, the 18-200 though.
And of course, you make another great point. As my main work will most likely be macro (I enjoy it the most) and portrait (easiest way to get a name for myself and make some cash, plus it's really fun), what would you suggest I go with brand or even camera wise? Should I save up even longer and go out of my current price range? (>1200)

Personally, I'd say stop looking for a new camera right now. Go get a better lens (say a 50/1.8), and work on your technique. If the image quality still sucketh mightily even with good glass on the front and good technique behind it, then consider a new body. But I think you're blaming the camera when the blame lies elsewhere, and you just have an itch for a better toy. Read up on lenses. Particularly on maximum aperture.

Most cameras outperform their owners.

Brutal honesty haha. I like it.
My problems with my a100 are more than just image quality though: My camera starts getting extremely warm after taking about 40 pictures, and overheats after about 150, even less when I'm out in the summer sun. The battery lasts for around 300 total shots and drains itself without use in three or four days (I haven't bought a back-up, and I really should). I'm still using CompactFlash. I have a professional Lexar with x133 write speed, which would supposedly rank it about a class 10 in SD terms, but it's not fast at all. It takes roughly the same amount of time as the shutter speed to store a photo (so a 20 second exposure takes about 20 seconds to store) and I NEVER break 2.3 mb/s when transferring to my computer with my card slots, a card reader, or through the camera using a USB cable. Either the mirror is off, or my sensor is off because framing is always higher than shown in the viewfinder. The camera shakes almost every time I turn it on for around 4 seconds, causing me to miss heat-of-the-moment shots and like I said causing subjects to flee from the sudden sound. The grip is messed up. This is more aesthetics but it still looks a bit strange. As far as I'm aware there is no option for remote shutter release either by the old-fashioned extension or by wireless. The flash isn't very strong, only covering about 8' at most, plus the focus assist isn't very effective and tends to really annoy people when it goes off three or four times. It has also made people think it's the actual flash so they move before the picture is taken. SSS (Super Steady Shot) is either broken or basically useless. Even in well-lit areas it seems to not make a difference. I get 3 frames a second, only up to 6 RAW, unlimited jpeg. Flash recharge (forgot the technical term for it) is like 3 seconds and I have no external equipment so I miss too many shots. ISO range is only 100-1600 and gets visibly noisy around 800, and visible in most crops at 400 (Have not tested this on prints. I haven't made my portfolio yet and haven't done any work for clients yet where they requested prints (just digital access so they can post to their Facebooks and such so I honestly haven't made any prints)

While I may be expecting a bit too much out of my camera, I know that most modern cameras offer all of that and more. I know for SURE that my technique can use work as I've only been shooting for a year and only took a one semester class on photography and Photoshop in high school which just taught basics. I think I've been steadily improving over time though. Check out my Flickr and, if you wouldn't mind, add me as a contact and offer some critique and insight on my photos (this goes for ANYONE reading this honestly. I crave feedback and don't have any). Once you get to page 8 this is where my Nikon D5000 pics start (technically the butterfly on page 7 too, but if I add any more pictures...)
I'll check out your lenses after I get a bit of sleep. I work an overnight job so I still haven't slept yet



Doug:

Any modern DSLR should be able to produce very nice photos in almost any except the most demanding conditions (night sports, concerts, etc.). If it's not happening for you, then either the camera is outright broken or there's something else wrong: lenses, photographic technique, or expectations.

My camera is sort of broken though, and my lenses are not very quality. I'll admit to my technique being at fault sometimes too.

Viewing an image at 100% might be valuable when performing sharpening to watch for halos starting to form as you increase the sharpness setting, or to set a crop border with absolute precision; otherwise, pixel-peeping is a guaranteed way to make you unhappy with your photos.

I don't often look at %100 to judge a photo, but when I'm cropping photos to like 50-60% it sometimes seems like my camera should just perform a lot better than it does. Don't get me wrong though, I LOVE my camera and the way a lot of my pictures turn out, but I don't think I'd have as many problems as I face now if I had a bit better of a camera.

My personal experience with noise: I have an ancient Canon XT/350D (six-1/2 years old). I take photos at ISO 1600, and when I print them, I can't see the noise. At all. None of it. If I pixel-peep, the photos look noisy as heck. I've learned (the hard way) to go very easy on noise-reduction in post-processing; the resulting loss of sharpness is visible in the printed images. So I have a choice between sharp pictures with no visible noise or soft pictures with no visible noise.

You call your Canon ancient because it's 6 and a half; I'll have to let you know that my camera is a 2006 model of the a100, so it's almost 6 as well. This was Sony's FIRST D-slr and it was discontinued in '08. I got it with over 30,000 shutter actuations on it in February of this year.
I'll have to try out your idea with printing though. I have been earnest to see what my prints look like and to see how well my monitors are calibrated

Osmosis:
I'll just reply to your post as a whole since it was all on one topic:
You make a lot of great points and offer up info I have never heard. I appreciate the in-depth explanation a lot. I did think that 24MP was overkill, but I feel I do want to upgrade from my current 10, only to add a bit more range to crop if needed. Editing pictures that have a higher MP count is easier as well (at least, easier to make look convincing. Not less work). Since you used Nikon terminology I'll assume you would suggest a Nikon. However, I'll ask you anyways: What brand and/or model of camera would you suggest using for mainly macro/portrait work?



Again I'd like to thank all three of you for replying to my thread and adding input. I hope I'm not sounding too set on getting a new camera, or sounding like I'm ignoring your advice in any way. I do have plans on waiting around 3-4 months before upgrading my camera anyways. Even if I didn't want to wait that long I'm only going to be saving 200-400 (most likely being 200 or 300 though) a month towards my camera purchase, so I can't do much for awhile even if I wanted to. I've only got $200 now (Just bought my first car and that sucked up a LOT of money)

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Shawn7656

... what would you suggest I go with brand or even camera wise? Should I save up even longer and go out of my current price range? (>1200)

This is just me, but I'm a Canon girl, so, I'd say Canon--if you plan on spending a lot on macro lenses and wanna get ultraclose . Canon has the epic MP-E 65mm, which does 5:1 magnification, and nobody else has anything similar. But if you didn't want to do super-magnified shots like that, then any make is going to be pretty good for what you want: every lineup has a good 100/2.8 Macro lens in it, and good portrait lenses. As I said, the thing that made me mention swapping systems was that you tacked "sports" onto your list: sports requires fast, accurate AF, and usually long fast lenses. In those two arenas, Nikon and Canon tend to whomp: pro sports shooters rarely shoot the other three systems.

Generally, what I think you might want to consider is buying a used camera. Most brands have (generally) three tiers of cameras; entry-level, prosumer, and pro. The pro cameras are generally in the $3000-7000 range, so those are probably out.

But prosumer cameras are typically nicer than entry-level: they have more sophisticated AF systems, hardier builds, better shooting features, and (typically) dual-wheel controls, which are just easier to handle. They will, however, share a sensor with the entry-level cameras, so image quality may not be better if the two cameras use the same sensor and processor generation. And the value sweet spot in any camera line-up, typically, is going to be one of these mid-level cameras, used. For Canon, I'd say a 50D. For Nikon a D90 or a D300. Not sure about the other three makes, as I'm not as familiar with their lineups, but I'd guess a Pentax K5, α580 or α55. Not sure about Olympus, given their current legal issues and the fact that they're throwing most of their camera chops into µ4/3.

If you wanted to go mirrorless: with µ4/3,a Panasonic GF-1 or Olympus EP-1 goes for dirt cheap these days. A NEX-5 might be a decent deal, and I suspect a Samsung NX100, too. These are all discontinued models from a year or two ago, which have been updated and refreshed, so used they're likely to be much less expensive than the latest models.

The thing is, if you're a feature-creature, this path may not work for you, because you won't have the latest and greatest tech, (i.e., some folks wouldn't want a 50D because it has no HD video capability).

[Shawn7656]

That lens has jaw-dropping magnification... but the cost is almost the amount of the cameras I'm looking at! Plus I'd have to get some crazy flash equipment
I'll have to check more into the Nikon and Canon cameras in my price range again because it's been awhile since I've given em a good in-depth look. I'm not exactly a "feature creature" but I do like getting the most out of my money. It's hard for me to feel like I'm settling for less than I could be getting, ya know? I'll check out your suggested cameras though.


However, I do want to buy new or refurbished because I bought the a100 used and I wasn't told about any of it's problems (the framing, overheating, and vibrating issues) which tell me the camera was dropped. Also the sensor has a small scratch on it. It doesn't effect pictures, but it still should have been noted in the description. When I got the camera I didn't really know these were defects however, so I gave the guy good feedback (bought on eBay). I figured my aiming was off, it was normal for the camera, and it was just the sensor cleaning itself. Here is the first picture I ever took with the camera, and I had centered my dog in the frame:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29446716/DSC02291.JPG
Notice the noise even at ISO 400 with a flash. It's quite visible even without cropping or zooming.