prinsloogc Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Hi there, I have come to one of the most difficult desicions of my life and was wondering if maybe someone might have the answer I'm looking for. Recently I have decided to take a leap into the world of DSLRs, I have reviewed allot of cameras and spoken to allot of dealers. Two choices now stare me in the face, the Sony A100 or the Canon 400D. Both these cameras seem great, I have a friend who swears by his Canon 350D so the 400D seems to be the right choice, but then there's the Sony A100, the fact that it accepts 20 years of A-mount lenses, Super SteadyShot and then we have the Eye-Start Autofocus system. You have to admit, it sounds great compared to the Canon, and that for only a few bucks more. But since I can't have both and since I can't take each one home for a week to try it out, I would like the advice from those of you in the know. Is the Sony A100 a better buy than the Canon 400D? The pictures I take range from dark to light, weddings to nature and even action shots at athletic events. Thank you in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richsimmons Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 I don't own either, but how soon are you planning to buy? I keep hearing that the next iteration of the Sony is coming out in the fall. Both of these cameras were on my list, but I opted out of the Canon because it was too small in my hands. I opted out of the Sony because the shots I took in the store seemed softer than my other choices, which were the Nikon D80 and the Olympus E-500. The Sony fits great in your hand though and all the controls are easy to reach. I've heard the Canon is better in low light, but I would buy a flash regardless of what I purchased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Yes...the ultimate question. Do you go with a full flushed system but inferior camera (Canon) or do you get the better camera with a smaller system? :-)<BR><BR> Well, it depends on a couple things, not least of which is your personality. Is it going to bother you if you don't have a Canon? It shouldn't, but it might. Personally, I am a hold over from the Minolta days...nothing better than a Maxxum 7 with Velvia. :-)<BR> The Sony Alpha is a superb camera, we bought one for my wife after the 6mp in the Minolta 7D just wasn't quite enough. I can see a visible difference in 16x20 prints from the Alpha...10mp does make a difference if you use RAW and shoot at ISO 100. The 7D couldn't reach my scanned Velvia. The Alpha 100 gets pretty dang close.<BR><BR> Comparison between the Canon is easy if you are an avid photographer - try holding the 400D and actually using it - it's small, cramped, and the viewfinder isn't as good. Canon is selling the 400D to get you hooked. You won't be happy with that low end body for long. However, you get access to the whole Canon lens lineup. Sony is expanding the system back to the Minolta glory days, but it's going to take a year or two before you see a complete lineup again. If you can wait a year or so before you "have to have" the $2,000 plus lenses, then get the Alpha. It is a better camera, and Sony will have what it takes to run with the big dogs. The Alpha is going for less than the 400D at some places by the way. I got the wife's for $560 at onecall.com and it was brand new, etc. Great deal.<BR> If you have a specific question about performance, specs, handling, etc of the two models, just let me know, I'll be happy to help.<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Hi Rich - just a quick note - shoot everything in RAW and convert with Adobe Camera Raw. You just can't compare jpeg shots and hope to test "the camera". What you're testing is the on-board processing. The reviews show that the Sony Alpha is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest 10mp camera on the market. That's why it can be a bit noisy at high ISOs. If you shoot 100 - 800 ISO, you really won't notice a difference between any of the DSLRs. Most of it is technique and post processing when you see someone's shot that looks better than yours. :-) Don't underestimate the amount of photoshoping that is done on the good shots. Everything is shot in RAW and then PP'd out the yinyang...but it works.<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 18, 2007 Author Share Posted June 18, 2007 Hey thanx guys, your comments surely helped allot. To be honest, you were both right, the Canon is just too small a body, held it in the shop and it didn't feel that great, so not owning a Canon won't bother me in the least. The good news is that the standard 18-70mm lens that comes with the Sony will do me fine for a while. From your experience with the Sony Jed, how well does the Eye-Start Autofocus feature really work. The reason for asking is that my main hobby is nature fotography and sometimes one has to be quick on the draw to get the good shots. Also, Rich said he heard the Sony is not as good in low light as the Canon, how big a difference is there in abality? Again, thanx allot guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Hi Gerhard. Good questions. The eyestart actually works pretty well for what you're talking about; it pre-focuses the lens close to where you're looking. I've used it some on my Maxxum 7 film body as well. However, it can get a little annoying sometimes, (when you don't need it, say doing landscapes) so I leave it off most of the time. If you were shooting a ball game or something, I'd probably turn it on.<BR><BR> About sensor noise: Well, You will find absolutely no difference between any 10MP DSLR on the market up to ISO 400. I am primarily a landscape photographer and used to shooting Velvia at ISO 100 - so that is no limit to me. At about ISO 800, you have to look really, really close to see less noise on the Canon. At ISO 1600, you can actually see a little difference due to Canon's CMOS sensor, but it's really not much - and you're talking pixel peeping here. Technique and post processing will go a long way toward this...<BR><BR> In most cases, using the image stabilization in the Sony Alpha would let you shoot at ISO 800 or ISO 400 even, compared to shooting at ISO 1600 on the Canon - you would be far ahead in the noise department to shoot with the Alpha in that case. Or purchase an image stabilized lens for the Canon (i.e. extra $).<BR><BR> Hope that helps, let me know if any other questions,<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 18, 2007 Author Share Posted June 18, 2007 Thanx a million Jed, you cleared up a whole lot of nagging questions that even the sales guys couldn't tell me, but then again, they only want a sale. I think I'll give the Sony a go, since it was the one I was rooting for in the first place, it feels like my team has won...lol. Thanx again Jed, I might call on you in future for more advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Glad to be of service. :-)<BR> Be sure to check around for a good price on the Alpha if you're going that route. Looks like there's one kit on Ebay for $609 and another for $625. Cheapest online store route looks about $680 or so for the kit, I think.<BR> Best of luck,<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaudiodoc Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Hi Gerhard, For more information on the Sony/Minolta "A" mount system, check here: www.dyxum.com and here: www.mhohner.de Well, the A100 is definitely a better value, than the EOS 400 -- better build, and ergonomics and the Canon system is vastly more complete. Don't know about the EOS 400D but the D30, according to one of our Forum member's who recently purchased one, is far superior as far as focusing on moving objects -- sports, birds in flight, etc. On the other hand, the Sony/Minolta system will give you excellent results for landscapes, portraits, street photography, architecture, concerts etc. -- very nice wireless flash system. You won't go wrong with either camera, but of course in this forum we might be a bit partial to our "A" mount system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 19, 2007 Author Share Posted June 19, 2007 Thanx Jed, and thanx Robert, I could not find specs on the D30 though, only the EOS 30D, but the price I could get it for was allot more axpensive than either the A100 or the 400D aroune $2,101.67. The sites you gave were excellent also thank you. I have come to realize that both Canon and Sony have their good points and their drawbacks. One big drawback the Canon has is its size, I currently use various cameras, one of which is the Nikon 5400 and have found size to be a factor, the camera is not bad at all and I have taken some excellent pictures with it, but it's too cramped and that starts to get annoying after a while. I'm affraid the Canon will go the same route. It's true what you said about being partial, and if I go ask the same questions on a Canon forum, I might get a different answer in favour of Canon, but I have been hearing good things about the A100 all over the net and every time I visit a fellow photographer, so the partiality is not unfounded I would say. Due to me living in South Africa, it is difficult, alsmost impossible to buy from E-bay and the cheapest I can find either the Canon 400D or the Sony A100 is around the $1,379.88 mark, that's excluding a memory card, hence this being such a big decission for me. The Canon here comes standard with an 18-55mm lens and the Sony with an 18-70mm, so that's another reason for choosing the Sony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 19, 2007 Author Share Posted June 19, 2007 Just a quick update guys. My mind was made up and I wanted to go for the Sony so guess what. The only stock I could find comes with 2 lenses and is in the range of $1 890.00. The kit version with the 18-70mm lense has also gone up to about $1 500.00 (but no stock) I can get thousands of Canons like the market is flooded with them, but no Sony A100s at a decent price, if you take $1 379.88 to be decent that is. Seems like I'll have to go for something else then...Maybe a Pentax or Nikon even? Any ideas would be very much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 19, 2007 Author Share Posted June 19, 2007 My final update. I finally got a Sony A100. It wasn't easy and if ever someone from Sony should read this, then hopefully they'll know what a task it is to get an A100 in my country for a descent price, but after begging, almost reverting to cheating, I got it, and I must admit, it's not bad at all. Took about 200 pictures so far most of which was with the build in flash and the batery counter has not moved an inch, took some action pictures with the action preset and it was a bit of a hastle, but by using the Auto feature combined with the flash, it worked like a charm indoors (will try the preset again when it's daytime. I must admit that I'll need some time to learn the beast, but what a beast to learn...lol. Thank you to every one who had some advice, it really helped allot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaudiodoc Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Congratulations on your new camera, Gerhard! Hope you have a lot of fun -- I know you are going to enjoy it! When you get the hang of it, share some photos of South Africa with us! Oh, sorry about the typo, I meant the Canon EOS 30D and yes, it is a much more expensive camera than the 400D. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Glad to hear about your new camera! Sorry it is not as reasonably priced in your country as the U.S. - here it is cheaper than the Canon. Oh well, I guess each country has its own taxes, import fees, price structure, etc.<BR> Would love to see some pics of S. Africa as well - whenever you feel comfortable with the camera, of course. If you have any other questions throughout the learning process, just let us know!<BR> All the best,<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarkowitz Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 you may want to check out the NY Times review of both cameras in today's paper (6/21). "The Rebel remains one of the least comfortable S.L.R.?s; the grip is sharp and skinny. All digital S.L.R.?s take amazing photos, but viewed side-by-side with photos from its rivals, the output from this 2006 model seems a little washed out and muted. *** The A100 gets an A, 100 percent; its photos are glorious and vivid." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/technology/21pogue.html?em&ex=1182571200&en=b9b8db84c4236ee4&ei=5087%0A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 Thanks guys, and I'll be sure to post some photos as soon as possible. Also thank you Brian for that post, it'll bring joy to my heart to show it to some of the Canon fans I know, they've been going on and on about the Sony being allot worse than the 400D and a bad attempt by Sony at an entry level DSLR. Using the camera more and more, I do not agree with them at all. The pictures are indeed vivid, and that's in the hands of a novice, who knows what it can do in the hands of an expert, after all, a camera is only as good as the one using it. I do have one question though, in bad light, what would be the best settings to use without using the flash? Would it be a low F-stop with a high ISO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarkowitz Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Gerhard, if your using the Sony with the Anti Shake technology, you would not even need to raise the ISO. Which is good, because most reviews I have read have the A100 not performing well at 800 ISO. The AS gives you 2-3 stops extra in low light situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I agree - start with using ISO 400 - that should work for most indoor situations because the antishake will let you shoot at slower shutter speeds, safely 2 stops. I have pretty steady hands (I'm a chiropractor) and I can get 3 stops, sometimes eke out slightly more if it's not an action photo - but my wife gets about 2 stops from it consistantly. So that would be like the leeway of ISO 1600, but you get the much lower noise of ISO 400.<BR><BR> If you have to do it for action shots, give ISO 800 a try - you will see some noise, but don't "pixel peep" on your monitor only. Make a couple prints from some of your ISO 800 shots, and you will see they are really not that bad. Especially if you shoot in RAW and do a little PP in photoshop - it will beat ISO 800 film easily.<BR><BR> Although in my book, even at ISO 100, it's hard to beat the look of Velvia slides with any DSLR. :-) <BR>Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share Posted June 25, 2007 Great stuff guys, I used ISO 400 for a couple of low light shots and it worked like a charm. I must admit, the stabilizer works quite well, my hands are not that steady and although the camera warned that it was shaking too much, the shots didn't come out blurred at all. I tweaked the camera a bit afterward and took the following shot. I want to share it with you, so I hope it uploads correctly.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share Posted June 25, 2007 Ok, the first upload did not work as expected, posting this smaller photo.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markh1 Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Now you've got the Sony you'll be wanting to look at other lenses, could I recomment the old minolta 35 to 105 which is about the same as a 50 to 155 on 35mm, it's a lens you can get fairly cheaply on ebay and is far sharper and bettr quality than the stock lens, however the stock lens is great for macro and wide shots so is worth keeping, I would avaid the 20 to 35 minolta lens, for some reason it's pin sharp on my dynax 7 film camera but a bit too soft on my A100, the 100 300 lens id also compact, affordable and very usable for the A100, this is about a 150 to 450 on 35mm so gives you plenty of zoom. Regards mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsloogc Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 Thanx Mark, I was content with the lense I had, but since I read your post, I have been lookingat those lenses and they'll fit nicely into my budget. The problem for me is that I find names like MINOLTA Vivitar, Toko, Sigma, etc. This is all Greek to me, How would I know which lense to choose? Would something like the MINOLTA Maxxim AF 50 mm work on the A100? Thanx again Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markh1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Yes, the 50mm would be about a 75mm on your digital, it would make a fantastic portrait lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now