Sony DSLR/SLT vs Canon/Nikon Offerings - Quality
Discussion
Ok, first off i know this can be a bit of a loaded subject....
When you line up the c.£300-600 Range, more specifically the following models, i have two questions - which is likely to produce the better image with the 'kit' lens outright and which lens would you spec on a body only purchase?
Canon EOS 600D/650D
Nikon 3100/3200
Sony A37/A57K
I've had a Sony for going on 6 years now (in varying iterations and degrees of wear and tear) and comparing the images it produces side by side to my friends (identical pictures/settings) Canon/Nikon offerings, they always seem to look soft. I haven't used an SLT camera from Sony.. So thought i'd ask the PH masses.. If i were to buy a theoretical second camera, in either kit or body only form.. What would your hard earned go on for best quality etc..
When you line up the c.£300-600 Range, more specifically the following models, i have two questions - which is likely to produce the better image with the 'kit' lens outright and which lens would you spec on a body only purchase?
Canon EOS 600D/650D
Nikon 3100/3200
Sony A37/A57K
I've had a Sony for going on 6 years now (in varying iterations and degrees of wear and tear) and comparing the images it produces side by side to my friends (identical pictures/settings) Canon/Nikon offerings, they always seem to look soft. I haven't used an SLT camera from Sony.. So thought i'd ask the PH masses.. If i were to buy a theoretical second camera, in either kit or body only form.. What would your hard earned go on for best quality etc..
Nikon D3200 has the best sensor, 24mp and 14 stops dynamic range.
I'd take a canon over a sony as sony seem to put IQ at the end of a long list of features. The pellicle mirror creates artefacts in night scenes and steals 30-40% of your light.
But tbh they are only as good as the lens and skill used.
I'd take a canon over a sony as sony seem to put IQ at the end of a long list of features. The pellicle mirror creates artefacts in night scenes and steals 30-40% of your light.
But tbh they are only as good as the lens and skill used.
I bought an SLT on Thursday (a77) as for the price (£1200) the kit with the 16-50mm 2.8 (and GPS built in) was unbeatable for my needs. I read a lot of horror stories, particularly in relation to autofocus, continuous shooting and the EVF blacking out during panning etc, which had me a bit nervous considering 50% of its intended use was motorsport.
After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
Edited by ukaskew on Saturday 13th April 23:12
ukaskew said:
I bought an SLT on Thursday (a77) as for the price (£1200) the kit with the 16-50mm 2.8 (and GPS built in) was unbeatable for my needs. I read a lot of horror stories, particularly in relation to autofocus, continuous shooting and the EVF blacking out during panning etc, which had me a bit nervous considering 50% of its intended use was motorsport.
After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
Fair enough, but at the price bracket of the A77, i'd probably end up opting for a Nikon 5200.. Which i've been told to go and have a look at in my local DSLR shop... Apparently they're bloody good and perfect for what i need.After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
Edited by ukaskew on Saturday 13th April 23:12
Edited by HedgehogFromHell on Sunday 14th April 11:03
Well, that really didn't go well.
Went to Currys... As they showed stock of 600D, 650D, 5100 and 5200...
They had nothing!!!
No 5200s at all.. Display only 600/650Ds.. Admittedly a man from Canon there said if i want a touchscreen i'll pay £100 on top of a 600D - essentially its the same camera otherwise. As for the 5100/5200, the general consensus there was the Canon 600D was a direct competitor to the 5200 and just as good bar the megapixels.
Went to Currys... As they showed stock of 600D, 650D, 5100 and 5200...
They had nothing!!!
No 5200s at all.. Display only 600/650Ds.. Admittedly a man from Canon there said if i want a touchscreen i'll pay £100 on top of a 600D - essentially its the same camera otherwise. As for the 5100/5200, the general consensus there was the Canon 600D was a direct competitor to the 5200 and just as good bar the megapixels.
ukaskew said:
I bought an SLT on Thursday (a77) as for the price (£1200) the kit with the 16-50mm 2.8 (and GPS built in) was unbeatable for my needs. I read a lot of horror stories, particularly in relation to autofocus, continuous shooting and the EVF blacking out during panning etc, which had me a bit nervous considering 50% of its intended use was motorsport.
After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
Most people that moan about the sony's have never used one, everyone at my camera club who have used mine love it and all agree the A99 is one of the most I prestige cameras out there at the moment. The only real world negative I have about them is the lack of lenses and aftermarket gear but that is improving. After half a day at Silverstone today I'm starting to wonder if reviews/opinions are based purely on tech-specs. Despite using a relatively slow 70-300mm lens (f4-5.6) it was superb, the EVF never struggled and panning was a breeze, even messing around with 1/15th speeds. The refresh on the EVF was so quick it was as good as unnoticeable. I can't wait to try something like the Sony 70-400, as that's supposed to be even more responsive.
Canon/Nikon are certainly easier systems to get into (more lenses, big second-hand market etc), but from my brief time with Sony so far (after owning Nikon DX, Canon FF, and Panasonic/Olympus M43 cameras) it doesn't feel like it's in any way compromised.
Edited by ukaskew on Saturday 13th April 23:12
As for what camera to get you'll find nearly all of them in a similar price range have a similar output. The big selling point between them is how they feel to you when using them as they all have different menus, button positions and so on, so if you can find a shop that has some in stock that you can have some hands on time that's probably best.
HedgehogFromHell said:
Canon EOS 600D/650D
Nikon 3100/3200
Sony A37/A57K
I've tried the SLT viewfinders once or twice, and I dislike them sooo much. I even tried the live view on my Canon (for the first time this weekend) and hate that as well. Dunno what it is, I want an optical viewfinder on an SLR. Anything else is just....a compact camera in a fancy frock. (And yes I know that is unkind to Sony and their respective fans).Nikon 3100/3200
Sony A37/A57K
As for kit lens, mentioned that on another thread that they are really quite good as I wasn't wanting to get into the Canon vs Nikon debate, and a Nikon user popped up and slagged his kit lens off!
So I can only really say that the reviews of the Canon 18-55 III lens actually rates quite high. I used a 18-55 II lens for a summer season several years ago and frankly thought it was pretty good, and I don't mean "good for the cost" i mean "good, full stop".
HedgehogFromHell said:
I've had a Sony for going on 6 years now (in varying iterations and degrees of wear and tear) and comparing the images it produces side by side to my friends (identical pictures/settings) Canon/Nikon offerings, they always seem to look soft.
You haven't stated which bodies or lenses, so you might be comparing apples with bananas. Although all the Sony bodies I've owned (a300,a700,a900) have been capable of producing images that are as sharp as you like. Glass makes a huge difference though.
onomatopoeia said:
You haven't stated which bodies or lenses, so you might be comparing apples with bananas. Although all the Sony bodies I've owned (a300,a700,a900) have been capable of producing images that are as sharp as you like. Glass makes a huge difference though.
Sony A200 with kit 18-55 f3.5/5.6 and Sony 75-300 f4.5/5.9 Canon 1100D with 18-55 f3.5/5.6 and Tamron 75-300 f4/5.6
I have been seriously delving into the A65.. Price is the key point for me at the minute, i wouldn't be looking at over £750 for a body and kit lens.
I've been comparing the specs between these two (A57/A65)
http://www.sony.co.uk/comparison/slta65vk.ceh/slta...
I know it probably sounds stupid, but i'm drawn towards the A65 for it's higher sensor MP count and the trublack screen... The FPS difference is only 2fps, which is negligible and the video recording - audio wise, the 57 has 2chan recording.
The 57 is the newer camera and is cheaper.. But the question is, is it worth the extra for the A65?
Edited by HedgehogFromHell on Monday 15th April 13:17
I have an older slt a33 and do find it a bit soft, and the kit lens isn't the best in bright sunlight but the speed of it in poverty spec guise is bloody quick, the later 16mp sensor is the better one to be fair to mine though.
a decent lens and you'll be amazed at the speed it can take shots (bought mine for motorsports use, on a budget paid £270 brand new)
I've got a few clasic minolta lenses but am thinking of going to a Nikon d5200 now as I want to do more tethered shooting and bracketed exposure which the Sony doesn't really do
a decent lens and you'll be amazed at the speed it can take shots (bought mine for motorsports use, on a budget paid £270 brand new)
I've got a few clasic minolta lenses but am thinking of going to a Nikon d5200 now as I want to do more tethered shooting and bracketed exposure which the Sony doesn't really do
HedgehogFromHell said:
I have been seriously delving into the A65.. Price is the key point for me at the minute, i wouldn't be looking at over £750 for a body and kit lens.
I've been comparing the specs between these two (A57/A65)
http://www.sony.co.uk/comparison/slta65vk.ceh/slta...
I know it probably sounds stupid, but i'm drawn towards the A65 for it's higher sensor MP count and the trublack screen... The FPS difference is only 2fps, which is negligible and the video recording - audio wise, the 57 has 2chan recording.
The 57 is the newer camera and is cheaper.. But the question is, is it worth the extra for the A65?
57 has been replaced with the 58.I've been comparing the specs between these two (A57/A65)
http://www.sony.co.uk/comparison/slta65vk.ceh/slta...
I know it probably sounds stupid, but i'm drawn towards the A65 for it's higher sensor MP count and the trublack screen... The FPS difference is only 2fps, which is negligible and the video recording - audio wise, the 57 has 2chan recording.
The 57 is the newer camera and is cheaper.. But the question is, is it worth the extra for the A65?
Had the 65 - never really managed to get out with it proper, but as much as I loved the machine gunning of the burst, and very quick buffer emptying, the reason I sold and reverted back to a bridge (Fuji X-S1) was because the shadow noise was absolutely atrocious.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/12 - change to graph mode and compare to 57 and Pentax K30. Look at the difference in RAW noise levels especially, if you're likely to shoot in that mode more often or exclusively.
In all honesty, I'd opt for the Pentax K30 for price, as whilst it's better than the K5, the latter has the top mount LCD and a few other niceties to warrant going with.
The new K5 II matches or beats the K30 noise, and has better low-light AF range.
I'd expect the A58 to better the 57's figures, but not read up on it, so can't be sure if that's the case.
That all said, the other camera to give serious consideration to is the Nikon D7000, now that the 7100 is out.
You'll need stabilised lenses, unlike the Sony/Pentax which do the stabilising in-body.
One other thing to consider - the K5 has an in-built intervalometer to timelapse, and with its separately purchased GPS thingy, you can do starry sky shoots where the sensor tracks the sky over a certain arc, thereby doing away with the 15-30 sec limitation before they blur and become trails.
HedgehogFromHell said:
onomatopoeia said:
You haven't stated which bodies or lenses, so you might be comparing apples with bananas. Although all the Sony bodies I've owned (a300,a700,a900) have been capable of producing images that are as sharp as you like. Glass makes a huge difference though.
Sony A200 with kit 18-55 f3.5/5.6 and Sony 75-300 f4.5/5.9 Canon 1100D with 18-55 f3.5/5.6 and Tamron 75-300 f4/5.6
The Sony 18-55 on the other hand has quite a good reputation for a kit lens.
Sony fan here.
Just about to get the A99.
The simple truth is that there is not really a nats difference in picture quality between any of the big brands. Nothing you can see.
If the OP thinks his Sony pictures are soft, it is probably because other cameras have their default sharpening levels a bit higher. If he is shooting JPEG, have a tweak of the in camera settings. If shooting RAW, have a play with sharpening in PP. I really dont think it is the camera.
Why Sony for me? Because I LOVE using the electronic viewfinder. It has revolutionised how I enjoy photography. Knowing what you are going to get BEFORE you shoot the image is so much more satisfying compared with chimping at the screen AFTER the moment has gone. With the Sony electronic viewfinder you get a LIVE histogram overlay as you are shooting, you can instantly see if you need exp comp or if the white balance is iffy. And you see it all live, realtime, as you are taking the picture. I get a lot more keepers than I used to with my Canon 5D.
It needs adjustment to learn to use it. It took me a while to get used to it ( with an A77) but I will never go back to a Canon or Nikon unless they also provide an electronic viewfinder.
Just about to get the A99.
The simple truth is that there is not really a nats difference in picture quality between any of the big brands. Nothing you can see.
If the OP thinks his Sony pictures are soft, it is probably because other cameras have their default sharpening levels a bit higher. If he is shooting JPEG, have a tweak of the in camera settings. If shooting RAW, have a play with sharpening in PP. I really dont think it is the camera.
Why Sony for me? Because I LOVE using the electronic viewfinder. It has revolutionised how I enjoy photography. Knowing what you are going to get BEFORE you shoot the image is so much more satisfying compared with chimping at the screen AFTER the moment has gone. With the Sony electronic viewfinder you get a LIVE histogram overlay as you are shooting, you can instantly see if you need exp comp or if the white balance is iffy. And you see it all live, realtime, as you are taking the picture. I get a lot more keepers than I used to with my Canon 5D.
It needs adjustment to learn to use it. It took me a while to get used to it ( with an A77) but I will never go back to a Canon or Nikon unless they also provide an electronic viewfinder.
toppstuff said:
Sony fan here.
Just about to get the A99.
The simple truth is that there is not really a nats difference in picture quality between any of the big brands. Nothing you can see.
If the OP thinks his Sony pictures are soft, it is probably because other cameras have their default sharpening levels a bit higher. If he is shooting JPEG, have a tweak of the in camera settings. If shooting RAW, have a play with sharpening in PP. I really dont think it is the camera.
Why Sony for me? Because I LOVE using the electronic viewfinder. It has revolutionised how I enjoy photography. Knowing what you are going to get BEFORE you shoot the image is so much more satisfying compared with chimping at the screen AFTER the moment has gone. With the Sony electronic viewfinder you get a LIVE histogram overlay as you are shooting, you can instantly see if you need exp comp or if the white balance is iffy. And you see it all live, realtime, as you are taking the picture. I get a lot more keepers than I used to with my Canon 5D.
It needs adjustment to learn to use it. It took me a while to get used to it ( with an A77) but I will never go back to a Canon or Nikon unless they also provide an electronic viewfinder.
Snap here on everything including the A99. Just about to get the A99.
The simple truth is that there is not really a nats difference in picture quality between any of the big brands. Nothing you can see.
If the OP thinks his Sony pictures are soft, it is probably because other cameras have their default sharpening levels a bit higher. If he is shooting JPEG, have a tweak of the in camera settings. If shooting RAW, have a play with sharpening in PP. I really dont think it is the camera.
Why Sony for me? Because I LOVE using the electronic viewfinder. It has revolutionised how I enjoy photography. Knowing what you are going to get BEFORE you shoot the image is so much more satisfying compared with chimping at the screen AFTER the moment has gone. With the Sony electronic viewfinder you get a LIVE histogram overlay as you are shooting, you can instantly see if you need exp comp or if the white balance is iffy. And you see it all live, realtime, as you are taking the picture. I get a lot more keepers than I used to with my Canon 5D.
It needs adjustment to learn to use it. It took me a while to get used to it ( with an A77) but I will never go back to a Canon or Nikon unless they also provide an electronic viewfinder.
I find it odd about someone saying there images were soft I have the A33 and constantly get comments about the sharpness of my images. I did have my first problem with it the other day though I was getting hot pixels on night images. And the fix was put the date forward 1 year then change it back. Sure enough fixed??? And that's the only complaint I've had with it not bad for a 2 year old camera.
RobDickinson said:
I can make soft images with any camera .. its usually technique that's the issue.
True, but this has come on slowly over the years and now every image is soft. I can assure you it isnt my technique, i've had more than enough practice on hard to shoot objects and easy to shoot ones over the last 5 years in all sorts of climates. Maybe i wasn't quite clear enough in my OP, but i'm not a bloke with no idea about how to compose and take decent pictures.
Yes, the lens is f5.6.. For some reason i hit 9!
Other than this issue my Sony has been a cracking bit of kit. Especially for £300 i originally paid. However, the onset of constant softness and the recent discovery that the sensor starts shifting every 5 shots has now pushed me to think a replacement is overdue!
In respect to the A33, a good few years of hard use do separate my camera from yours! I had a go at an A57 and 650D in my local store and was quite impressed with the flexibility of the A57 and how incredibly easy the Canon was to get into, despite being completely different menus/buttons wise.
My friend who is a pro photographer has some cameras shortlisted for me and tomorrow i'm supposed to be going through them with him. Should be fun!
Edited by HedgehogFromHell on Tuesday 16th April 23:14
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff