I'm a professional photographer who uses Canon, but if I was in your position, I'd probably go with the Sony (which in the case of the AX100 dslrs is really technology Sony took over from Minolta anyway). Or save your money up and get the AX700.
The in-body image stabilization feature is great, and means that better lenses can be sold for less money. The focus response on that camera is really snappy, even with the base lens they sell in the basic package. Sony is also selling a line of fast, high end optics for the camera from Carl Zeiss, and all existing Minolta A-type lenses will work with it as well. That means there is a very large pool of good used lenses to purchase from.
But either way you go, you'll be in fine shape; the rebel XTI was the best deal going for the first many months it was on the market. Any of the 10mp DSLRs on the market nowadays are so technology and feature rich that they can easily outperform 95% of the people who will ever buy them.
| Member | Post | Viewed: times |
|---|
| SixofNine | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
| IP: Sj/vdBfr4AX2yULX | ||
| Odrade | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
Agree 100% with Six. I shoot Canon, love it. But Sony has a good thing with the image stabilization in camera. You can find really good fast prime lenses on craigslist for CHEAP that will work on your camera, granted on the older lenses you may lose certain of the auto functions but excellent quality for a song.
If you want the huge availability of NEW lenses and accessories, Canon is the undisputed leader.
On the other hand, if you're looking for a "budget" DSLR that has gotten rave reviews, you might want to check out the Pentax K1000D. Has the image stabilization built in, there's a reasonable range of lenses available, and it has gotten enough traction in the market to be easily available.
dpreview... enough time there and your head will spin all the way around in a circle before it falls off. Ha! | ||
| IP: B8cEDTYJEXtrx2lP | ||
| AlyMC | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
My Dad who was a professional photographer my whole life and just now switched from medium format film to digital (for hobby these days) just bought the pentex and loves it.
I played with it a little, but not long enough to get a real feel for it... so I have no personal experience with it.
Those who have professional sites, I'd love to see them :) If you can't post them, a PM would be cool. | ||
| IP: 0uAmX1WGst+HEsIz | ||
| mkr32208 | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
For that budget try to get a Nikon D70s. Try eBay! =) | ||
| IP: 1MJDVQhPa9gJiIUO | ||
| Nosferatu | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
- "Sony just like to make money and lock you into proprietary batteries, memory and everything else."
Agreed. Anything made by Sony is usually garbage (unless it's 20-40 years old) Friends don't let friends buy Sony: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sony_bullshit_anim4.gif | ||
| IP: Oe8rSKgqR2Xb3RR/ | ||
| UnConfused | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
I don't understand the bias against Sony as i've had great luck with all my Sony products. Again I love my Canon digital Rebel, but the image stabilization built into the Sony is really worth looking at. | ||
| IP: wUM3c0mBup0WrS5q | ||
| UnConfused | Re: Canon vs. Sony | |
p.s. - I have a digital video cam that is SONY and I can use generic batteries with it and do. | ||
| IP: wUM3c0mBup0WrS5q | ||
| Midget-Sasquatch | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
Carl Zeiss optics are superb but relatively expensive. Canon optics (without the image stabilization) are more affordable, still good quality, but you'd need a tripod or rock steady hands if you plan to take photos with 135mm or greater lenses. The Sony with Minolta lenses is great bang for the buck. Don't cheap out though like I was planning to with the Olympus Evolt. | ||
| IP: UF05BcZJXZseS1TS | ||
| AlyMC | Re: Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
ahhh, didn't like the Olympus? I have a friend (with a few cameras) who loves their Olympus. | ||
| IP: 0uAmX1WGst+HEsIz | ||
| ozziepost | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
#1 Canon | ||
| IP: RqVK0Y98zNEQRFkx | ||
| hillary_step | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
Well, I spent $900 on a Sony digital a few months ago. After a few weeks I kept getting an error reading on firing up the camera with the autofocus not working. I telephoned a Sony technician somewhere in a potato field in Ohio and explained the problem. He said, 'Yes, this is a common problem with that particular model, bang the lens portion firmly on a table and that will clear the problem'. I replied, 'Can you send over a technician so that I can bang it on his head as I do not want to dent my table, and after all he probably does not need his head, but I need my table'. The amazing thing is that rapping the camera on a table did actually clear up the problem. The moral of the story? Stick to Canon, or better still Nikon. I have a Nikon digital SLR that is nothing short of superb. Expensive, but worth stretching the dollar for. HS
| ||
| IP: zLRBsl92EDl5OSmw | ||
| thecarpenter | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
I also brought a Nikon because of its quality. Although image stablization is a great feature, it actually works better when it is in the lense and not in the camera body. That is why Canon and Nikon chose to put it in the lense.
Nikon has won the JD Powers award for its line of Digital SLR's last year and was in the top three for the last several years. Canon, although popular, hasn't been rated in the top three for the last three years because of repeated quality problems. (they do have great customer support though) I would say, go to the camera store and actually hold all the cameras in your hand and see which one feels the best in your hands. Snap off a few frames to see how quick the camera focuses, how logical the control locations are and perhaps other features that are important to you. That's really the final test. Remember, when you buy a certain model, you are also buying into a proprietory system of lenses, flashes and other equipment. Although you can purchase components from independent supplies, the original brands are usally the best (Nikon makes the best lenses for Nikons) Good luck | ||
| IP: K+VDiqXW1rcQ5o/b | ||
| SadElder | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
I'd been a Nikon film shooter for many years, but gradually my two Nikons found their way into a corner of a closet. About two years ago got bit by the bug again, and after looking and looking, bought a Canon Rebel XT. And now I have two of them, along with several Canon lenses including the image stabilized 200-400 zoom and a Sigma wide angle. I have my eyes on the new Mark III, but that's in the distant future for now. Way too many $$$$'s. Those folks in our camera club who have the XTi love it. Consider Nikon and Canon and make your choice bsed on your own intuitons. I thnk the Sony's are also rans. Of course ask 10 people and you'll get 20 opinions. Remember it's ultimately about the shot you get. Happy shooting. | ||
| IP: 03LaFpvO4NZ9DjLO | ||
| Midget-Sasquatch | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
AlyMC The price of the Olympus with the lenses was comparatively fairly good at the time. That didn't matter to me anymore after I compared the colour tones and the hues of what I snapped with my friend's results who used a Nikon D40. The Olympus was lighter and its lenses were smaller but after it was punked I really didn't care to replace it. I have to buy a car before I get any other camera. By the time I have enough cash again I'm hoping full 35mm frames for the sensors will be standard and cheap. | ||
| IP: 2og6qPw2HohnjY26 | ||
| AlyMC | Re: Canon vs. Sony? | |
ahh... I'm pretty sure she shoots with a gray card, which probably eliminates a lot of the color/hue problems. Besides, she converts a lot of what she does. Nikon is known for the color though, I am not at all surprised it out performed in that regard. | ||
| IP: 0uAmX1WGst+HEsIz | ||