D3100 or A33 (IS on lens vs built in camera body)

Hi everyone....I'm new to this forum and I'm a beginner to DSLR.
I'm currently considering and info gathering on a entry level DSLR.

I'm stuck between D3100 and A33 (price difference of S$100):

1) is the IS better on the lenses or the camera body?
2) i love the D3100 handling but A33 seems to pack more punch for the extra S$100...especially the swipe panarama and the 7fps.
3) who has more lenses available...nikon or sony?

as DSLR is expensive n for long term....i need to get it right the first time.
all your kind advises is greatly appreciated.

I can't say too much about the Sony, but in lens image stabilization is the bomb. Look through a long tele fully zoomed in and you will see the wobblyness (is that a word?) common with telescopes and binoculars. Press the shutter half way and it is like the earth stood still. The image will almost follow you as you gently move the lens.

In body IS does the same thing results wise, but you can't see it through the viewfinder IIRC.


The sweep panorama sounds interesting, but the same thing can be achieved by stitching photos together. Neither will come close to what you can do with a wide-angle lens. Sony does have a comparable lens selection to the Nikkor lenses that fit on the D3100.


The best thing would be to try each out. You might find after demoing them you like one better.

Thanks for ur reply....cal41

Having the IS in the lens generally makes buying lenses more expensive and tats the main reason I'm stuck.

I've tried out both the D3100 n A33, I prefer the grip n feel of the D3100, its simple layout and the guide mode. The viewfinder is also great.

The pros for A33 is the higher pfs, sweep panorama n the built in IS.

My heart goes with the D3100...but my head tells me to go for A33.

Is it true tat u need at least 5fps to capture jet planes and racing cars?

More fps is better for those subjects yes. I shoot mostly prop planes and helicopters (though from only a hundred feet or so) and 4 fps is more than adequate for that. All the higher frame rate does is increase the 'luck' factor of getting a spectacular shot...

Another thing to consider is buffer size. If you've got high fps and a small buffer, it will show itself in a terrible way quite quickly. Some settings on my D5000 (distortion correction for example) reduce the buffer size to five frames, which is totally inadequate for any type of action.

I'm not sure how the Sony in-body IS compares to the Pentax. But I have people tell me and read that the Pentax in-body IS works very well on stationary subjects. However the lens IS (found on Nikon) is more effective on moving subjects. The cool thing about in-body IS is that ANY cheap lens you slap on the body is stabilized.
However I have personally not compared the different technologies.

ben10 said:

Is it true tat u need at least 5fps to capture jet planes and racing cars?

Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. While having a higher frame-per-second rate when shooting sports can be beneficial, it will not guarantee capturing that peak moment. Consider a race car moving at 200mph; in one second the car will travel 293 feet. At five frames-per-second, the car will travel ~59 feet between each frame. A lot can happen in 59 feet. Or consider trying to capture the instant that the ball leaves a pitcher's hand, or the moment that a golf ball leaves the face of the club. Even 10 frames-per-second will not guarantee the shot. Timing, anticipation and hand-eye coordination are still the photographer's best assets to capturing sports.

Consider the shot below:



Camera: Nikon FM with MD-12 (3.5 fps)
Lens: Nikon 105mm f/2.5

Manual focus, manual exposure, first frame of the burst. If I had started shooting when the players began to jump for the ball, even if the MD-12 was capable of a much higher frame rate, it is very doubtful that I would have captured the image with all four hands on the ball and all four feet off the turf.

cal41 said:

All the higher frame rate does is increase the 'luck' factor of getting a spectacular shot...

Click to expand...

Well put!

Guys thanks for all ur pointers, they are helpful advise. I guess an apprentice should never blame his tools for the poor work he has done....lol

I've a lot to learn....I just check out the NIKON lenses. My goodness!!! They cost 400-500 dollars more due the IS in the lenses.

This is really giving me headaches....lol

Cal41.....u mention Sony does have some lenses tat can fit the D3100....but tat will also mean there won't be any image stabilizer right?