another XTi vs A100 question?

[dante]

also titled "Is the Image Stabilization really that good?"

So have narrowed my choice for a DSLR basically down to these two. They're both amazing cameras for the price, and I have no doubt that I'd be ecstatic with either (coming from a simple crappy P&S camera). I used to have a Minolta X-700 back in the day, and liked the control and quality of the shots, but after a few electrical problems (and got tired of paying for film and processing) I opted for the P & S but have always had a soft spot for SLRs, and think that the price/benefits have finally come down to the point where I want to jump in.

This would be used for a bit of everything, from indoor/outdoor to nature and all the way to relatively fast sporting events (downhill mountain bike racing). Nothing in even a semi-professional setting, just enthusiast level.

While they both have their advantages (Canon: Lenses, Sensor, Noise, Sony: IS, better kit lens, battery, etc), it seems it really does come down to Sony's IS system vs pretty much everything else about Canon. Just keep going back and forth as to whether Sony's IS system is worth the (other very minor) advantages that Canon has. Thoughts? Especially PJ's since he does quite a bit of mtn biking photographpy, and coincidently currently has both. Haven't really thought that lens shake was a big deal, but then it's been a, uh, few years since I've handled an SLR for more than 20min.

Have handled both and could be comfortable using either. The XTi's a little small for me, but my GF (would would be using this 10-20% of the time) has TINY hands, and the XTi fit her perfectly.

Thoughts? Is the IS really that good? Is the Canon's advantages in sporting events really not that big of a deal? A lot of shooting for mtn biking takes place under the leaf canopy and requires a decently fast (not blisteringly fast) shutter peed. Help?

[rzozaya1969]

also titled "Is the Image Stabilization really that good?"

So have narrowed my choice for a DSLR basically down to these two. They're both amazing cameras for the price, and I have no doubt that I'd be ecstatic with either (coming from a simple crappy P&S camera). I used to have a Minolta X-700 back in the day, and liked the control and quality of the shots, but after a few electrical problems (and got tired of paying for film and processing) I opted for the P & S but have always had a soft spot for SLRs, and think that the price/benefits have finally come down to the point where I want to jump in.

This would be used for a bit of everything, from indoor/outdoor to nature and all the way to relatively fast sporting events (downhill mountain bike racing). Nothing in even a semi-professional setting, just enthusiast level.

While they both have their advantages (Canon: Lenses, Sensor, Noise, Sony: IS, better kit lens, battery, etc), it seems it really does come down to Sony's IS system vs pretty much everything else about Canon. Just keep going back and forth as to whether Sony's IS system is worth the (other very minor) advantages that Canon has. Thoughts? Especially PJ's since he does quite a bit of mtn biking photographpy, and coincidently currently has both. Haven't really thought that lens shake was a big deal, but then it's been a, uh, few years since I've handled an SLR for more than 20min.

Have handled both and could be comfortable using either. The XTi's a little small for me, but my GF (would would be using this 10-20% of the time) has TINY hands, and the XTi fit her perfectly.

Thoughts? Is the IS really that good? Is the Canon's advantages in sporting events really not that big of a deal? A lot of shooting for mtn biking takes place under the leaf canopy and requires a decently fast (not blisteringly fast) shutter peed. Help?

Hi Dante...

I also do MTB, and have an A100 (but it's just almost brand new and out of the box, hahaha).

I think that the IS is very good, but it depends on your pulse and how steady you can be. The A100 seems to be a very nice camera, but it's just my first entry into DSLR.

But I don't think to use it while riding, I think it would be too bulky and prefer my Canon SD700 IS for that. Besides, I'd be freaky if I fall, so I prefer to have something smaller on my rides. But if you're doing races and having your GF taking pictures of you and whatever while you're riding, the A100 could be a very good alternative.

About the steady shot feature, I really like having that feature, since my pulse is like a warmed jello. On the SD700, the IS works pretty amazing (I've still need more time on the A100 to really say something objectivily on it), and helps me a lot in taking pictures, and I don't know if it's because of it, but I find that on the Canon P&S the autofocus was a lot faster than on my previouse P&S (Kodak, another Canon and a HP). Maybe on a P&S camera it would be better since the heavier camera makes it steadier? I don't know, but it's nice to have it. BTW, the autofocus feature on the A100 is very fast, and the camera has a sensor that detects when you're closing on the viewfinder to turn the autofocus on.

The camera lens seems very nice (but I can't compare with anything, since I really don't have any experience with different lenses), and have a nice range. The camera is very fast, and you can set it to have preferences over the focus or the shot, meaning that you can make it to wait to have focus before it allows you to take a picture, or to have it take a shot whenever you press the button, even if it's not ready (it's good to prevent losing a shot). BTW, it focus pretty, pretty fast, so even if you have it in focus priority, you can be sure you have that shot. It is supposed to be a 3 shots per second camera, I don't know about the Canon.

I really can't help in saying that it would be better or worse than the Canon, other than I really like the A100, and also like Canon, but I prefered the A100 because of the SteadyShot feature.

[gryphonslair99]

The problem you are going to have with Sonys in camera system is dependent for the most part on the lenses you use. A short body lens will probably not be much of a problem or you will not notice much of a difference between the Sony or a comprable in lens IS photo. It also will not give you much reach however. A long bodied lens however will not work near as well on the Sony.

The physical length of the lens magnifies any amount of shake and on a long lens can even be more than the in body IS can handle. In lens IS is specifically designed and built for each individual lens model. The IS specifications for a Canon 70mm-200mm f2.8 IS is different than the specifications for the 400mm f2.8 IS. A specific tool for a specific job rather than trying to make one tool cover all the work.

My other current problem with Sony's system is that their comperable glass to Canon's or Nikons IS lenses are just plainly overpriced.

Sony's SAL70200G 70-200mm F2.8 = $2,599.99
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS = $1,659.95
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS = $1,569.95

Sony's SAL135F28 135mm F2.8 = $1,699.99
Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM = $899.95
Nikon Telephoto AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D = $1,079.95

[dante]

thanks for the input, I was actually wondering the first part myself.

about the lenses, though, is there any reason why there's not as many 3rd party lenses for the Sony/KM stuff? If Sony's getting into DSLR in a big way (which it seems, at least on the entry/intermediate stuff), I couldn't imagine that Sigma/Tamron wouldn't include their mounting system when designing new lenses. Basically I'm wondering how fast the situation with the scarcity of lenses is going to change...

[Photo-John]

dante-
Sorry it's taken me a few days to get to your question. I had some riding to catch up on. I hope you understand

This is a tough decision. You're committing to a camera and a system. And the system is one of the important considerations. As you know, I like both cameras. However, I admit a bias towards the Canon. But I've been using Canon auto focus SLRs for about 10 years and have a considerable investment as well as an intimate knowledge of their controls and features. If I'd been using Konica Minolta for 10 years, I would probably have a natural preference for the Sony.

Image stabilization is an important issue. You said you never used to worry about it. But I'm sure you always made sure to use shutter speeds where camera shake wasn't an issue. What image stabilization does is allow you more flexibility. If you'd normally need to use a shutter speed of 1/100th of s second, image stabilization might allow you to shoot that photo at 1/25th and stop down your aperture two stops for more depth-of-field. Or use a lower ISO setting for better image quality. Image stabilization creates exposure options that didn't previously exist. And for less experienced photographers, it just increases the odds of getting sharp photos. For me, the flexibility is the benefit. For others, the increased number of sharp photos is the win.

Sony and Canon bother offer image stabilization. The difference is in the application. With Sony you spend $1000 and go home with an image-stabilized system that you can shoot with right away. With Canon, you have to spend about $1300 (assuming you buy the XTi and an inexpensive Canon IS zoom lens) to have image stabilization. And then you only have it with one lens. I haven't tested enough to know absolutely, but it's safe to assume that Sony's Super Steady Shot image stabilization system will work best at shorter focal lengths and maybe not so well at 200mm and longer. I did do some tests with the Sony Alpha at 200mm and the Super Steady made an obvious difference. But Canon's IS lenses with their dedicated image stabilization systems should deliver better results at slower shutter speeds.

So the real issue isn't whether image stabilization works - it does. It's awesome and valuable. The real issues are how much you need, when you need it, and how much you're willing to pay for it. For most people, the Sony will be perfectly adequate. With the kit lens and probably up to 200mm focal lengths, it should work great. If you read my review you know I was successfully using ridiculously slow shutter speeds for street photography. The Sony made me want to buy a Canon IS zoom for my XTi. With the kit lens, the Super Steady Shot kicks ass. For an all-purpose walk around camera, I love it. I shot the Interbike tradeshow with my XTi, but I would have preferred to use the Sony. It would have been the better camera for that purpose.

On to the XTi...

Like I said earlier, I've been using Canon for years and there's no way I'm going to switch. Financially, that's just a bad proposition. I'd been waiting for a couple of years to replace my EOS 10D body but nothing had made me willing to pull the trigger - until the XTi came along. The things I like about the XTi are the auto focus system, the small size, the image quality, and the Canon system. Since I ride with an SLR a lot, the smaller and lighter a camera is, the better. I've been fond of the Pentax and Olympus digital SLRs because they're great for riding with. The Sony is fine for riding, too. But the XTi is much smaller and lighter. I also think the XTi has better image quality than the Sony. For most people this won't matter. But when you shoot is low light and push your images hard in Photoshop, like I do, every bit counts. Both cameras are very good. But the Canon is better.

Last but not least, there's the Canon system. Canon has a huge number of wonderful lenses for all kinds of purposes. They have pro stuff and entry-level stuff and even the cheap stuff is pretty good. As someone already mentioned, Sony's lens prices are definitely on the high side - especially if you want high-end glass. You'll get a a lot more for your money buying Canon lenses - at least for now. On the other hand, there's a lot of Konica Minolta stuff available on the used market and it's excellent glass. Prices are going up for the KM lenses as the demand grows, though.

I think that's all I have to offer for now. I don't know if I helped much. It's a complicated decision. If you were just a pure beginner I'd happily just recommend the Sony. But if you want to ride with it and you plan to do some race shooting, you might be happier with the Canon. In the end, it might come down to camera size and feel. One of the main reasons I like the XTi is the size.

Let us know if you have more questions. I hope this helped and didn't just complicate it for you

[dante]

PJ, thanks, that's *exactly* the type of response that I was looking for. after doing quite a bit more research, I do think that the XTi is going to be better for me based on what I'm going to be using it for. most of my indoor/low light shooting is going to be more of the family gathering type, and my "good" photography will be mostly outdoor shots. if I did need good indoor/low light photography (pics of the GF?) I wouldn't mind setting up a tripod for stability. it mainly did come down to the lenses, though, and the availability (and price) of lenses such as this one really did tip it in favor of the canon. I also liked the possibility of picking up a either a used body or lenses to take on rides, and there's a lot more used canon equipment out there right now.

The IS stuff is *really* intriguing, and I can definitely see how something like Interbike would be the perfect scenario for it. Indoors, mid-level light where you still need as high-quality photos as you can get I can see how it would be ideal, but I don't think that's where I'm going to be using it (I usually have about 500 meetings set up).

But thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it! Will take some shots of riding/racing as soon as the season starts back up again!

[Photo-John]

You work for Iron Horse? Have we met?

You know we have lens reviews here, too. There are 127 user reviews for the Canon 70-200 f/4L. It's also a multiple year PhotographyREVIEW.com Choice Awards winner. Canon recently announced an IS version of the 70-200 f/4L lens, too. Image stabilization can make a big difference with long lenses - especially late in the day or in shadows. It does cost, though. I might try to buy a "normal" range IS zoom for tradeshows. It does make a difference and also means you don't have to use flash as much. I really do think it's worth having.

No problem about the advice. Happy to help. Spread the word and please post reviews for whatever you end up buying. We always need more reviews!

Happy New Year!