Digital SLR Cameras Forum

Digital SLRs Forum Discuss digital SLRs, lenses, RAW conversion, or anything else related to digital SLRs. You may also want to see the Nikon, Canon, and Sony camera forums.
Digital Camera Pro Reviews >>
Read and Write Digital SLR Reviews >>
Digital SLR Buyer's Guide >>
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Sony or Canon

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    2

    Sony or Canon

    Hello all, this is my first post so I hope I am posting in the right place. I am looking into getting into amateur photography, I did the usually school stuff many years ago when there was no DSLR, I used my fathers CANON A1 back in the day to take pictures for the yearbook and he later bought me a Canon 10s. Now that was a while ago. A friend of mine started photography a couple years ago and he started fashion photography and glamour photography and I felt the calling, my father had a great passion for photography and I guess something stuck. We had a dark room in my house and he taught me how to develop and print(not that it matters nowadays in the digital era).
    But to make the story short, my friend has resources that I dont, he just bought a $4000 camera and I dont think I can afford anything over $800, with that said:
    what is a good camera to start but good enough to take serious pictures that someone will consider putting on a portfolio, I have heard very good things about Canon all my life, I had two Canon SLR's before, I also have heard a lot of the Sony Alpha lately, they say is the best bang for your buck. I've heard about the Rebel too.
    Any one can shed some light on what to buy?
    I heard that first you have to find out what are you looking to shoot at, well I live in Miami so I want to start shooting glamour photography, so a lot of the pictures will be outdoors(beach, parks, pools, etc)
    I've heard also that is the lens and not the body of the camera that makes the difference, well I've heard that since Canon has a bigger market share there is a better chance of getting a good lens for less money compared to other brand cameras such as Nikon. I know that Sony uses Minolta lenses too, but I am not sure how good are they or how expensive.
    So I hope this information helps you(the experts) help me find a good camera+lens to buy to start on my glamour photography. Any links on good deals will be appreciated too. I know is a long road from here but its something that I want to do as a hobby/amateur and you never know what can result from it.

    Thanks for reading this, sorry it was very long but...

  2. #2
    May the force be with you Canuck935's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    1,119

    Re: Sony or Canon

    I think any DSLR system out there will be able to satisfy your needs without issue. The trick is finding the right camera for you. Instead of telling you what to buy, I'm going to tell you to go handle some DSLR's at your local camera and electronics stores. Not just Canon and Sony's, but also Nikon, Pentax, Olympus.. Handle as many as you can, dive into their menu's, look through their viewfinders, play with their buttons and dials. Also, consider which features are important to you, such as live view and video. Whichever one seems to work the best for you is the one you should buy. Then start with a prime lens or two or a fast zoom and you'll be on your way.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    2

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Thanks for your input, I will do that this weekend. One question, considering costs(quality lens with good range prices), what would be a better choice, Canon or Sony?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Newnan, Ga USA
    Posts
    126

    Re: Sony or Canon

    SINCE YOU ASKED: the following is my opinion.

    Let me say first that I am mainly a Nikon shooter, but own and use Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras and lenses. Here is a very concise and short view.

    Nikon: very user friendly. Great image quality. Lenses can be priced higher than most others for same specs. Many accessories and even cameras can be in short supply at times. New flagship definitely overpriced.

    Canon: ruled the pro world at one time. Losing ground currently. Name hurt a lot by recent snafu's in new offerings. Lenses are more competitively priced than Nikon as a general rule, {pro lenses}. Canon has recently undergone a price increase on lenses so this may not be true now.

    Sony: new kid on the block. many, many old Minolta lenses available at good prices, some give stellar results. Only DSLR currently offering Zeiss lenses that auto focus. Flagship affordably priced. Very convenient one switch live view mode on some models. Excellent image quality, equaling the other two in my opinion. Pro lens offering scant at the present time, but Sony seems to be working on that diligently.

    If I had to start all over knowing what I know now??? Why that'd be Sony.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    There is *plenty* of lens selection on *all* systems. Right now, Sony offers the best priced lens - but lens pricing can vary from year to year and thus I wouldn't count this as Sony's merit nor would I rely on this to stay the same. Sony does however have in-body stabilization, so all lens are stabilized (big money saver, more effective). Because of lens price and SSS Sony would right now be the money saver.

  6. #6
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Sony or Canon

    All I would say is that you should remember you're buying into a system. Canon and Nikon have by far the most extensive systems - variety of lenses, third party support, accessories, etc. Sony is building its brand quickly, but the system is still not nearly as extensive as Canon and Nikon, and there will be fewer third party options in comparison. That doesn't mean they're bad, as others have pointed out, the sensor-based stabilization is not something to gloss over.

    If I were in your shoes, though, the decision would be very simple: Canon Rebel XS, 18-55mm IS kit lens, and the Canon 50mm F/1.8. The kit lens is a good lens, stabilized, and will give you the ability for wide angle portraits. The 50mm is one of the best lenses there is, at a price of merely ~$90. With its wide apertures, you can blur the background for professional-looking "glamour" photos but at a fraction of the price. Check out any of the several 50mm threads in the Viewfinder forum to see what I'm talking about.

    That package should come in around $600, (see www.bhphotovideo.com or www.adorama.com ), which will leave you room to buy a memory car, tripod, camera bag, etc.
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

  7. #7
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    The extensiveness of the lens is irrelevant, so Canon/Nikon may have 9 different 50mm primes to choose from to Sony's 5, but have you ever met anybody with more than one 50mm prime? Sony has everything *any* photographer could need or want between 10mm and 600mm.

    Also, the Rebel XS doesn't give him a lot of options for more serious use, with its barebones metering/autofocus specs. If he went with the comparably priced A100 or A200 he'd have a more functional piece of equipment, and he can get the minolta 50mm f1.7 lens for the same price as the canon 1.8...

    Oh yeah, and... Zeiss...

  8. #8
    Powder River Imaging EOSThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Like no place on earth
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Anbesol
    The extensiveness of the lens is irrelevant, so Canon/Nikon may have 9 different 50mm primes to choose from to Sony's 5, but have you ever met anybody with more than one 50mm prime? Sony has everything *any* photographer could need or want between 10mm and 600mm.

    Also, the Rebel XS doesn't give him a lot of options for more serious use, with its barebones metering/autofocus specs. If he went with the comparably priced A100 or A200 he'd have a more functional piece of equipment, and he can get the minolta 50mm f1.7 lens for the same price as the canon 1.8...

    Oh yeah, and... Zeiss...
    Sony fanboy 'eh? You are wrong on so many counts here.

    First off, Sony's lenses are MORE expensive than Canon counterparts in almost every area, especially the Zeiss. Brmill is correct when he says Canon and Nikon have much larger lens selections than Sony, it's all about choice.

    If you don't want the weight of an f/2.8 lens then a number of f/4 lenses are offered. If you are shooting wildlife or sports Canon has more telephoto or prime or zoom lenses than Sony has lenses. Canons pricing structure is generally lower than Sony in every area, here are just a few examples taken from the B&H catalogue.

    If you factor in Minolta's fine glass then the Sony offers quite a selection and decent lenses...if you want to purchase the Minolta lenses used. But if we are talking Sony, then in general, Sony lenses cost more, and have far less selection. If you are talking used Minolta lenses then let's talk used prices, and also the risks involved with used glass...

    Sony 70-200 f/2.8 $1699
    Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS $1599 with in lens IS negating the less effective in body IS
    Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS $1110
    Canon 70-200 f/4L IS $1025
    Canon 70-200 f/4L $600


    Sony 300 f/2.8 $5999
    Canon 300 f/2.8L IS $4100 again with in lens IS

    Sony 135 f/1.8 $1399
    Canon 135 f/2.0L $935
    Canon 135 f/2.8 $295

    Sony 55-200 f/4-5.6 $229
    Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS $255 with IS and more range
    Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 $199

    Sony 400 f/5.6 $Oops Sony doesn't have one....
    Canon 400 f/5.6 $1099
    Canon 400 f/4 DO $5500 Diffractive optics for compact design

    Sony 500 f/8 $649 Reflex lens, slow aperture, strange bokeh
    Canon 500 f/5.6 IS $5800 yep you have me here, but I'd like to compare IQ


    Canon also has a 600mm, 800mm, and tilt and shift lenses, Canon has no less than 133 lenses listed on the B&H site, while Sony has only 26, Minolta glass which is quite excellent, increases this number, but we're talking Sony here aren't we?
    Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal. --Ernie Gann--
    What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. --Oscar Wilde--

  9. #9
    Powder River Imaging EOSThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Like no place on earth
    Posts
    1,327

    Re: Sony or Canon

    To the OP, sorry about the rant. I have trouble with fanboys. I won't attempt to push you in one way or another. All of the Camera systems out there have their merits. You have to decide which merits match your photography.

    Sony: Has in body image stabilization, not as effective as in lens and you won't see the effect in your viewfinder. but has the advantage of making every lens stabilized. The ability to use Minolta lenses can make for some bargains, but the selection is limited, and most if not all Minolta lenses are used. Sony is still having trouble getting a handle on their high ISO performance(noise). Sony's innovation is impressive.

    Canon: Like brmill said, largest selection of glass, many levels of glass, in lens image stabilization. In lens image stabilization's effect can be seen through the viewfinder. Canon has stumbled a little recently with some blunders at camera releases, but still offers quite a line up. Overall sales leader, #2 in DSLR sales.

    Nikon: Very large selection of great glass. Nikon has been very aggressive with their recent releases. Their latest bodies have been more than competitive with Canon's latest releases. Made huge inroads in entry level bodies. If I were starting all over again, I think Nikon would be my choice. The D90 looks like an excellent body.

    The others: I don't know a whole bunch about Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Sigma, Pentax, etc. They have their upsides and downsides.

    Like I stated above, any modern DSLR will take fine photos.
    Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal. --Ernie Gann--
    What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. --Oscar Wilde--

  10. #10
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    When I said they have better priced lens, I was referring of course to the great legacy Minolta lens. *Of course* Zeiss lens are insanely high priced, they are Zeiss, its like that with cars too, you pay for the word 'Ferrari' on top of the car. I only mentioned it because Zeiss is an incredible optics manufacturer, if not the very best out there. I would also love to talk about the 'dangers' of buying used glass. I haven't come across any dangers, please let me know, considering lens are built to last decades, I'd be interested to know.

    I'm not a fanboy, I worked for Canon's marketing team for 4 years and sold the ever loving hell out of the Rebels, the 20D's, 30D's and so forth. I love what Canon has done for the industry, where they've brought digital imaging, what they've done with CMOS sensor technology, I am positively in love with Canon.

    Lets make a lens comparison real quick though, shall we?

    Canon 70-200 f4/L IS - $1025
    Minolta 70-210 f4 - $225

    Now, between the two we have nearly identical performance, possibly even benefiting Minolta. Sure, the Canon doesn't have the rotating filter or the extending focus lens, but, thats $825 extra packed in there, I could buy 5 of those minoltas and be set. Oh yeah, and an extra 10mm packed on the end.

    Now, why was it that when BRMill came in and suggested Canon, you didn't have this outrageous temper tantrum and call him a Canon fanboy?

  11. #11
    Powder River Imaging EOSThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Like no place on earth
    Posts
    1,327

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Anbesol
    When I said they have better priced lens, I was referring of course to the great legacy Minolta lens. *Of course* Zeiss lens are insanely high priced, they are Zeiss, its like that with cars too, you pay for the word 'Ferrari' on top of the car. I only mentioned it because Zeiss is an incredible optics manufacturer, if not the very best out there. I would also love to talk about the 'dangers' of buying used glass. I haven't come across any dangers, please let me know, considering lens are built to last decades, I'd be interested to know.
    A car is built to last for a couple of decades, yet buying a used one is always a risk. No warranty, or if there is one, it's for a very short time. You have no control of who has owned the car before you purchased it. The same goes for a used lens. It's a crap shoot, if the lens has been cared for, it should be wonderful, if it hasn't been cared for you could end up with a high priced paper weight, with no warranty.

    Even if it is wonderful, parts may be hard or impossible to find if a focus motor, switch, gears, etc, etc fails. I am all about used glass, most of my lenses are used, but I also understand there are risks buying used, and that my used bargain may have no support, and become said paperweight.

    The fact is, Sony has a limited selection of glass right now, if you add in used Minolta glass Sony has quite an extensive line of glass...used. Reading forums, there are many who would never consider used lenses, and used is the only way Sony can compete with Canon or Nikon, right now.

    Looking at used sources, KM has some lenses out there, but the difficulty comes in finding them, and then finding them at a reliable source. Bargain if you don't mind shopping that way(I don't)but like I said above many don't want to be bothered with the research or risks, you can hide your head in the sand, but buying used does have risks.
    Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal. --Ernie Gann--
    What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. --Oscar Wilde--

  12. #12
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Ebay has almost every one of those Minolta lens up for auction, with every single lens condition described in great detail, and the feedback system on Ebay makes it a *very* reliable source (any sane EBay sellers would sooner lose some bucks than get negative feedback). Also, if there's a shop around, you can look at the lens and figure it out yourself. If there is a problem with the lens it would be apparent to anybody who knows what they are looking at, I can take my camera in my local shop and try out their lens before I buy it, testing the aperture blades, focus servos, and looking for any anomalies within the lens elements. I got my beercan (70-210) and 50mm prime at one, used, and I am in love with those 2 lens, done me well for about 4 years.

    I really love Canon and I think they offer a great value and a great product as well but lets be real, considering the popularity of the system, legacy lens, and in-body stabilization, Sony offers a much better cost value right now.

  13. #13
    Powder River Imaging EOSThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Like no place on earth
    Posts
    1,327

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Anbesol
    Ebay has almost every one of those Minolta lens up for auction, with every single lens condition described in great detail, and the feedback system on Ebay makes it a *very* reliable source (any sane EBay sellers would sooner lose some bucks than get negative feedback). Also, if there's a shop around, you can look at the lens and figure it out yourself. If there is a problem with the lens it would be apparent to anybody who knows what they are looking at, I can take my camera in my local shop and try out their lens before I buy it, testing the aperture blades, focus servos, and looking for any anomalies within the lens elements. I got my beercan (70-210) and 50mm prime at one, used, and I am in love with those 2 lens, done me well for about 4 years.

    That's taking a lot for granted. First off, most newbies, like the above poster don't know an aperture blade, focus servo, or lens fungus, from a lens barrel, element group, or aperture ring. Like I said above, I am all about used equipment, but you have to have a level of knowledge, and do your research. Most people aren't willing to do this, and aren't willing to take the chance.

    I am a sane eBay seller and buyer, and unless the lens is new, or offers a return policy, and the seller has at least a 99% feedback rating, I won't touch it. Many many many many many many(enough many's?)people have no idea how to buy intelligently on eBay.

    For most eBay is a crap shoot. There are people hanging out on eBay all of the time trying to rip people off. I receive phishing bids and emails at least 2-3 times a year. Some are pretty spookily real looking.

    A friend recently got take for $700 on a purchase. He was sent a fraudulent email after his purchase by a group watching his auction. He sent his payment to them. Not only did he get ripped off by the thieves, but he got negative feedback from the seller. He did everything wrong on that sale, when he told me red flags went up everywhere, but that doesn't change the fact that he was taken, for a large amount of money.

    If you know what you are doing, and are careful eBay is a great place to pick up used items at decent prices. Minolta glass is one of those items right now that a lot of bargains can be found. The price rises significantly when you get to the pro grade Minolta glass.
    Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal. --Ernie Gann--
    What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. --Oscar Wilde--

  14. #14
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Let me add something that has been missed so far - the biggest problem with older lenses is that they lack the quality required for huge resolution MP crop sensors. I have first hand experience with this, having shot several film-era Canon lenses on my XTi, and they simply do not have the sharpness. They'll get the job done, but they are lacking compared to digital-era optics. Focusing speed also suffers as compared to modern USM lenses, though that's only a high end feature even today.

    FWIW, if you check my sig, you can see I'm no Canon fan boy. I own a Canon (w/ 2 brand lenses), Nikon (w/ 3 brand lenses), Zeiss Ikon, and Ricoh. Brand is not what sways my opinion. I operate on the price to quality ratio only (thus why I have a Ricohflex and not a Rolliecord).

    To steer this back on topic, the OP needs to do model/glamor shots. To me, that means reliable color reproduction, flexible RAW files, excellent noise control due to black backgrounds and shadows, and the best resolution possible for fine details like hair and eyes. He needs all that AND to come in under $800. My suggested combination (XS kit + 50mm) gets him 1 stabilized lens from somewhat wide to portrait, and a fantastic lens in terms of resolution, bokeh, and portrait use in the 50mm.

    At B&H's current prices, that package comes in at $580. From there he can go several routes. He can either put together a pretty nice kit (extra bat., big/fast cards, filters, camera bag, tripod, etc) and have some cash left over, or he could pick up a Canon 430EXII flash and come in at $820 for all the big pieces.

    Or there's a third option if he's a technically-minded person. He could put together an off-camera flash setup for his remaining $150-$200 and he would have all the equipment necessary to take photos every bit as good as any professional could.

    On a quick check of B&H, the A-200 kit costs $30 more than the XS, and the big problem, I didn't see a *new* Minolta or Sony 50mm for less than $299. Hence, I recommended the Canon because it's the cheapest, best quality option.

    "Also, the Rebel XS doesn't give him a lot of options for more serious use, with its barebones metering/autofocus specs."
    Again, referencing the actual use of the OP, portrait/glamor work will hardly work the AF system at all; it may move a handful of times per shoot. And of course for metering, true portrait/glamor work will be shot almost exclusively in manual, and of course must be shot in manual if using off camera flash.

    So while Sony has many nice features, I don't see where he'd get a big benefit from any of them as compared to what he trades off with the IQ loss (even if slight) at higher ISOs as compared to the Canon. And there's no debate Zeiss makes fine optics. But his budget is only $800 total, so they don't enter the equation for his needs. So, I gave my best advice tailored to his particular situation.
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

  15. #15
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    okay, well, he hasn't responded yet, I don't think we're helping with the big walls of text. What it really boils down to is DSLR photography is fantastic regardless of the brand, and he'd be satisfied by any. For his use, and particularly mentioning cost value, I think he chose the best two of the bunch. We don't need to be so aggressive in pitching the brand, Sony and Canon both make top quality stuff with a great lens and accessory assortment, and he'll be thrilled with either option. I still say that he opt out of the XS, if he goes with Canon I think he'll like the XTi or the XSi much better.

    And, brmill, come on, pitching Canon over Sony for high iso noise performance? Seriously, he said 'glamour portraiture', and 'a lot of the shots will be outdoors'. That, and the Canon XS is noisier than even Sony's A200 (referencing Imaging resources comparomater at still life 800 and 1600). Even then, the noise difference between the Sony A200 and the Canon XSi is marginal at best.

  16. #16
    Member blazing fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    59

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by rongarrett
    SINCE YOU ASKED: the following is my opinion.

    Let me say first that I am mainly a Nikon shooter, but own and use Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras and lenses. Here is a very concise and short view.

    Nikon: very user friendly. Great image quality. Lenses can be priced higher than most others for same specs. Many accessories and even cameras can be in short supply at times. New flagship definitely overpriced.

    Canon: ruled the pro world at one time. Losing ground currently. Name hurt a lot by recent snafu's in new offerings. Lenses are more competitively priced than Nikon as a general rule, {pro lenses}. Canon has recently undergone a price increase on lenses so this may not be true now.

    Sony: new kid on the block. many, many old Minolta lenses available at good prices, some give stellar results. Only DSLR currently offering Zeiss lenses that auto focus. Flagship affordably priced. Very convenient one switch live view mode on some models. Excellent image quality, equaling the other two in my opinion. Pro lens offering scant at the present time, but Sony seems to be working on that diligently.

    If I had to start all over knowing what I know now??? Why that'd be Sony.
    Are you referring to the d3(x)? What about the D700 or the cheaper D300?

    Now let me ask the OP, what are you shooting (sports, landscape, macro?) and in what lighting conditions (dark, candle light, sunlight, indoors?)? I heard that nikon has better light sensitivity over canon, making them a better choice for action and in dark areas. Or is it limited to the new full frame SLRs, like the D3 and d700?
    I wish to learn all you can teach me about photography! :thumbsup:

  17. #17
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Let me add something that has been missed so far - the biggest problem with older lenses is that they lack the quality required for huge resolution MP crop sensors. I have first hand experience with this, having shot several film-era Canon lenses on my XTi, and they simply do not have the sharpness. They'll get the job done, but they are lacking compared to digital-era optics. Focusing speed also suffers as compared to modern USM lenses, though that's only a high end feature even today.
    Minolta glass has aged very well and does very well for the huge MP crop sensors, I also have first hand experience of this. focus speed may lack for lens that actually use internal focus motors, Nikon and Sony use body integrated focus motors. Older focus gears can tend to be louder.

    And just noticed I already read that response ;). lolz.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    131

    Re: Sony or Canon

    men, some angry posts. I always thought that if you have what you consider the best system you would be happy about it.
    I stopped reading other forums because of user bashing each other because of different brands, but please not on photographyreview.com....
    Last edited by pisco; 02-02-2009 at 08:00 PM.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Newnan, Ga USA
    Posts
    126

    Re: Sony or Canon

    I have learned a lot from constructive criticism aimed at me. I know a good idea when I steal it. I won't live long enough to stop benefiting from the above statements. Personally haven't seen anything I would consider out of line. I can appreciate someone being passionate about their photography. Describes me pretty well too.

    Just my humble opinion.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    Yeah I didn't see anything out of line either, just a tad bit of heated debate but nothing 'angry' ;)...

  21. #21
    Member blazing fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    59

    Re: Sony or Canon

    the sensor-based stabilization is not something to gloss over.
    What is the difference between that and lens stabilization, besides increase cost in lens?
    I wish to learn all you can teach me about photography! :thumbsup:

  22. #22
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Sony or Canon

    sensor based stabilization has some advantages, lens stabilizers have other advantages. All in all comes out in a wash, for cost effective value, particularly considering keeping wonderful classic lens available and IS compatible, the built in IS is a better cost value. However, generally speaking: you can expect about a 1 stop IS performance gain with lens stabilizers, particularly more telephoto ones.

    Technically speaking, the built in has a sensor shift based stabilizing system, and the lens has one element that shifts in compensation of minor shake.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Apple Valley, Ca - USA
    Posts
    588

    Re: Sony or Canon

    As an amateur w/ no ambitions of being a pro photog, the features w/ the sony system really appealed to me, which swayed me to purchase the A700. From what I've gathered, in ens IS was invented back before digital was mainstream. With a film camera, it's not at all practical to shift the film, is it?

    What I didn't see mentioned here, though I could've missed it, is that w/ in body IS ALL your lenses are stabilized, and NO ONE is making IS fast primes...

    All that information up above about canon's pro lenses compared to Sony is true, but to an amateur, Tamron and Sigma lenses are the same price be it on a canon or nikon or sony. For general photography, the Tamorn 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8 are great values. They of course aren't built to the same spec as pro grade L glass, but some of them even test slightly sharper than pro grade lenses.

    I personally got my A700 w/ the 18-200 kit lens which was a huge mistake. Junk glass, but I didn't know any better. The 16-80 CZ is super nice, and to that I have the beercan 70-210 F4, and the fantastic 50 1.4 which tests sharper than any of the other 50 1.4's from Canon, Nikon, etc... except maybe the new Sigma bad dog, but it's twice as much $$...

    Now, here's one thing I didn't thikn about, but that minolta shoe can be a pain if you want to get into off camera lighting. You'll most likely end up needing an FS-1200 and FS-1100 adapters...but that's another story.

    But, all said, the first reply to your post is the best suggestion- try them all out. I wanted a Nikon at first until I messed w/ one at Best Buy. As good as some say the ergonomics are, I hated it. Canons to me are so-so, but I fell in love w/ the sony body the first time I messed with it.

    BM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •