Sony Alpha 100 vs Canon 400
Discussion
I have been looking for a DSLR for a while now, and to be honest have not got very far with my decision. I go back and forth. I have read the reviews on dpreview but cant seem to grasp what I actually want.
I will be new to DSLR but want to progress and get a camera which I can develop with and one that will last.
I ruled out the Nikon D80 as it is too expensive (but then I try and convinve myself that it would be worth it...see what happens). I missed out on the tesco offer on the 400.
Anyway these 2 are a similar price (Sony bit cheaper) and both are 10mp and have dust removal. However the sony has shake reduction which I thought my be good for a beginner.
Has anyone compared these 2? Are the functions reletively similar? Does anyone here use the Sony and can they give a recommendation?
I will be new to DSLR but want to progress and get a camera which I can develop with and one that will last.
I ruled out the Nikon D80 as it is too expensive (but then I try and convinve myself that it would be worth it...see what happens). I missed out on the tesco offer on the 400.
Anyway these 2 are a similar price (Sony bit cheaper) and both are 10mp and have dust removal. However the sony has shake reduction which I thought my be good for a beginner.
Has anyone compared these 2? Are the functions reletively similar? Does anyone here use the Sony and can they give a recommendation?
I cant really speak for the Sony although with it being based on the old Minolta 5D/7D it should be pretty good. My dad actually has one but i havent seen any of his results.
I've got a 400D which i love to bits although i've just put it up for sale due to non use! It doesnt have a built in stabiliser like the Sony but some canon lenses have image stablisers. For low focal length lenses though unless you are shooting in seriously low light where you cant use flash, its debatable whether its worth it.
The picture quality i get from my 400 is really good and there isnt a great deal of noise present even at higher ISO's.
One thing that i've found that really works well is the Anti dust mechanism. I do change lenses fairly frequently and havent as yet had one dust spot on the sensor!
The rear screen is very helpful and i find the menu's dead easy to get around. Although its a fairly small camera i dont have too many problems holding it though the addition of a grip will make handling much nicer.
You'll also have more choice of lenses/accs with the Canon compared to the Sony
I've got a 400D which i love to bits although i've just put it up for sale due to non use! It doesnt have a built in stabiliser like the Sony but some canon lenses have image stablisers. For low focal length lenses though unless you are shooting in seriously low light where you cant use flash, its debatable whether its worth it.
The picture quality i get from my 400 is really good and there isnt a great deal of noise present even at higher ISO's.
One thing that i've found that really works well is the Anti dust mechanism. I do change lenses fairly frequently and havent as yet had one dust spot on the sensor!
The rear screen is very helpful and i find the menu's dead easy to get around. Although its a fairly small camera i dont have too many problems holding it though the addition of a grip will make handling much nicer.
You'll also have more choice of lenses/accs with the Canon compared to the Sony
I was in the same position as you at the beginning of the year and although 99% of people are either in the Nikon camp or Canon camp, I went with Sony.
I figured a) all 3 makes are going to be very good, b) I had no lenses it didn't matter where I started, c) I've always been a Sony fan and liked their aggressive attitude to break into this market.
The only 'features' that seemed to point to the Sony was the image stabilisation on the body itself and the anti-dust shaky CCD. 8 months on, I do find the IS feature extremely useful.
Regarding lens choice, I've found there are a load of Minolta lenses on ebay (and have bought some). I didn't like the kit lens that comes with it (18-70 I think), but then didn't like the kit lens that's included with the Canon equivilent (borrowed one for a week).
As regards everything else, it's a Minolta really, not a Sony - but that's no bad thing.
My opinion is once you take a step in to one brand you won't really know if it was the right or wrong decision as you don't have anything to compare it with! What ever you chose will be
good
I figured a) all 3 makes are going to be very good, b) I had no lenses it didn't matter where I started, c) I've always been a Sony fan and liked their aggressive attitude to break into this market.
The only 'features' that seemed to point to the Sony was the image stabilisation on the body itself and the anti-dust shaky CCD. 8 months on, I do find the IS feature extremely useful.
Regarding lens choice, I've found there are a load of Minolta lenses on ebay (and have bought some). I didn't like the kit lens that comes with it (18-70 I think), but then didn't like the kit lens that's included with the Canon equivilent (borrowed one for a week).
As regards everything else, it's a Minolta really, not a Sony - but that's no bad thing.
My opinion is once you take a step in to one brand you won't really know if it was the right or wrong decision as you don't have anything to compare it with! What ever you chose will begood
I'm not a fan of the Sony Alpha. Nice specs on paper but Sony don't really do slrs and it does show. Noise at higher ISO poor and it lacks the lens and accessory selection you'll get on the bigger brands.
I do like the 400d but I'd also suggest you look at the Pentax K10d or its rebranded clone the Samsung GX10 both of which are now fantastic value for very good cameras - and, unlike Canon & Nikon, both have in body shake reduction which works very well indeed.
I do like the 400d but I'd also suggest you look at the Pentax K10d or its rebranded clone the Samsung GX10 both of which are now fantastic value for very good cameras - and, unlike Canon & Nikon, both have in body shake reduction which works very well indeed.
I see that the official Canon Ebay outlet recently sold a (refurb) 400D with kit lens for £315! That leaves enough cash to buy a decent bit of glass. I suspect a lot of these "refurbs" are online retailer returns where there is nothing wrong with the camera, but the buyer decided they couldn't afford it after all and returned it.
The problem with Sony is that it's Sony. As well as the points mentioned above in terms of lenses and accessories, there's just no option when you want to upgrade. I used to use Minolta and they did make great film cameras but they (Sony included) are nothing like Canon or Nikon when it comes to digital. I turned to Canon when I wanted to switch to digital and Minolta gave me no option!
I found the sony very cheap and nasty when I tried it in the shop and pretty much ran away, despite walking in with the intention of buying... Build quality isn't good, and the noise and limited accessories were enough to kill it for me. Go for one of the better supported brands. Yes the built in anti shake is good, but will never be as good as in lens IS/VR which is optimised for the focal length.
Go to a decent shop and try an a100, 400D and D80. Think you'll know which is the way to go.... ;o)
Go to a decent shop and try an a100, 400D and D80. Think you'll know which is the way to go.... ;o)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff