Discussion
I'm in the market for a replacement to my KM 5D that I succesfully used as a speed bump recently. I've spent quite a while looking at what's available and have a short list of a couple of cameras. My instinct was to go to the new Sony a700 having found the 5d to be ideal for my uses and this would be the natural progession.
Alternatively there is the Canon 40D. I have no ties to one make as the lenses I did have are pretty basic and cheap. I intend to use the camera for personal use but want something that will bridge to the semi pro user. I feel that I've learnt the basics with the 5d and want to go further with the next camera.
It seems that very few established photographers look at the a700 as a viable purchase. It looks to tick alot of the boxes but something makes me wonder if spending that sort of money would I be better off going to Canon? I've tried both and have no preference, apart from being able to navigate the a700 more easily as it is very similar in it's make up to the 5d.
I've read the reviews and it seems a real toss up between the two. Any advice?
I would consider the D300 but there's no way of getting that past the wife!!
Alternatively there is the Canon 40D. I have no ties to one make as the lenses I did have are pretty basic and cheap. I intend to use the camera for personal use but want something that will bridge to the semi pro user. I feel that I've learnt the basics with the 5d and want to go further with the next camera.
It seems that very few established photographers look at the a700 as a viable purchase. It looks to tick alot of the boxes but something makes me wonder if spending that sort of money would I be better off going to Canon? I've tried both and have no preference, apart from being able to navigate the a700 more easily as it is very similar in it's make up to the 5d.
I've read the reviews and it seems a real toss up between the two. Any advice?
I would consider the D300 but there's no way of getting that past the wife!!
BigMansZetec said:
Canon and Nikon are the market leaders is DSLRS. That means there is plenty of parts, accessories, lenses readily available, compared to some other manufacturers.
They are also the market leaders because they are better cameras than the rest.
Your first statement might possibly be true.They are also the market leaders because they are better cameras than the rest.
Your second is most certainly b
ks.sgrimshaw said:
BigMansZetec said:
Canon and Nikon are the market leaders is DSLRS. That means there is plenty of parts, accessories, lenses readily available, compared to some other manufacturers.
They are also the market leaders because they are better cameras than the rest.
Your first statement might possibly be true.They are also the market leaders because they are better cameras than the rest.
Your second is most certainly b
ks.So go for it, whos better then?
Better is a subjective term.
Some would say the best digital slr is a Hasselblad H3D-39.
In the studio there won't be a lot to touch it, it's not so good if you're after high speed action at the British Grand Prix though.
I might say that the Sony D-SLR's are much better than any Canon or Nikon because they have Anti-shake built in, so all the lenses are effectively "IS" versions.
I do quite a lot of museum work, so for me the effectve extra stops I can get with normal lenses and my Sony bodies makes them better for me.
The truth really is that today, a digital SLR from any of the main manufacturers is unlikely to disappoint.
What might be ideal for one person, might be totally unsuitable for another.
Best thing anyone can do is pull up a shortlist, then go and try them out.
See which one feels most comfortable, which one seems easiest to use.
Some would say the best digital slr is a Hasselblad H3D-39.
In the studio there won't be a lot to touch it, it's not so good if you're after high speed action at the British Grand Prix though.
I might say that the Sony D-SLR's are much better than any Canon or Nikon because they have Anti-shake built in, so all the lenses are effectively "IS" versions.
I do quite a lot of museum work, so for me the effectve extra stops I can get with normal lenses and my Sony bodies makes them better for me.
The truth really is that today, a digital SLR from any of the main manufacturers is unlikely to disappoint.
What might be ideal for one person, might be totally unsuitable for another.
Best thing anyone can do is pull up a shortlist, then go and try them out.
See which one feels most comfortable, which one seems easiest to use.
Edited by sgrimshaw on Wednesday 12th March 12:52
Edited by sgrimshaw on Wednesday 12th March 12:52
Problem of Sony is that they are not Canon or Nikon. 
Honestly, I'm not sgging them off as I was a Minolta user in the past and loved them. Problem with them was there was just not enough choices available (or the total lack of it) at high level and just couldn't compete with Canon or Nikon. This is why I switched to Canon and am very happy with them.
Honestly, I'm not sgging them off as I was a Minolta user in the past and loved them. Problem with them was there was just not enough choices available (or the total lack of it) at high level and just couldn't compete with Canon or Nikon. This is why I switched to Canon and am very happy with them. Your KM 5D lenses will mount on the sony's, if you've significant money invested in them go sony.
Canon & nikon still lead the way with image quality but your going to pay for that, at the cheap end theres more choices.
But dprevies D300 review shows the D300 better than the sony equivelant with the same sensor...
Canon & nikon still lead the way with image quality but your going to pay for that, at the cheap end theres more choices.
But dprevies D300 review shows the D300 better than the sony equivelant with the same sensor...
I'd say its perhaps less about the camera, and more about the 'mount' choice. You may change your camera body in a few years time, but you will still be with the same range of lenses.
So take a look at the choices of lenses available for the mounts you are considering. For me, Canon / Nikon have the edge here, with large numbers of lenses made by a variety of manufacturers (and price points !
)
As always, i'd suggest going to a local camera store and looking at the different models yourself. You may find you prefer one manufacturer over another for build / button layout / etc..
Cheers.
So take a look at the choices of lenses available for the mounts you are considering. For me, Canon / Nikon have the edge here, with large numbers of lenses made by a variety of manufacturers (and price points !
)As always, i'd suggest going to a local camera store and looking at the different models yourself. You may find you prefer one manufacturer over another for build / button layout / etc..
Cheers.
sgrimshaw said:
I might say that the Sony D-SLR's are much better than any Canon or Nikon because they have Anti-shake built in, so all the lenses are effectively "IS" versions.
I do quite a lot of museum work, so for me the effectve extra stops I can get with normal lenses and my Sony bodies makes them better for me.
Ok, but if money isn't the primary concern in camera IS is less good than in lens as you get a stabilised image in the viewfinder with in lens. Additionally for museum work, wouldn't you benefit from some of those lovely wide aperture lenses you can get for canon/nikon I do quite a lot of museum work, so for me the effectve extra stops I can get with normal lenses and my Sony bodies makes them better for me.
Sometimes it just isn't worth fighting the tide!
RobDickinson said:
But dprevies D300 review shows the D300 better than the sony equivelant with the same sensor...
Not much in it though is there? You might say it's bloody close!"Using a RAW conversion workflow there really is almost no difference between the DSLR-A700 and the Nikon D300, not hugely surprising as we suspect they share the same sensor (or at least very similar)."
"there's very little difference in absolute image quality apart from perhaps slightly more low contrast ('texture') detail from the D300 and a very slightly more conservative approach to sharpening."
The only reason the overall score for the Nikon is higher than the Sony is the build quality, all other scores are identical.
The Nikon is heavier, physically larger, more expensive (£140 more at warehouse-express) and three months newer!
Given their undoubted greater experience, shouldn't the Nikon be much further ahead of the Sony?
The A700 is only Sony's second D-SLR.
Sony must be giving Nikon (and Canon) something to be think about.
sgrimshaw said:
Given their undoubted greater experience, shouldn't the Nikon be much further ahead of the Sony?
The A700 is only Sony's second D-SLR.
Sony must be giving Nikon (and Canon) something to be think about.
Sony inherited the dSLR business from KM, this isnt their second, its one of a number, and they've been making cameras, nikons sensors & lenses for a long time.The A700 is only Sony's second D-SLR.
Sony must be giving Nikon (and Canon) something to be think about.
And I hope there giving Nikon & canon something to think about, we've seen canon sitting on their arse for way too long being conservative(on features).
Truth is there isnt a bad dSLR out now (With some exception to the 4.3rds) , were realy spoiled with the current tech.
DanH said:
Ok, but if money isn't the primary concern in camera IS is less good than in lens as you get a stabilised image in the viewfinder with in lens. Additionally for museum work, wouldn't you benefit from some of those lovely wide aperture lenses you can get for canon/nikon
Sometimes it just isn't worth fighting the tide!
Of course it's horses for courses.Sometimes it just isn't worth fighting the tide!
Agree with you regarding the in camera vs lens point, but having it on ALL lenses also carries it's own advantages.
No doubt there are some superb fast canon and nikon lenses, but you pay for the priviledge. Factor in the IS advantage with the Sony combined with the cost difference and "for me" it's a done deal.
I'm not knocking Canon or Nikon, just think that Sony shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
...... not saying anyone has BTW - too late for a fight
RobDickinson said:
Truth is there isnt a bad dSLR out now (With some exception to the 4.3rds) , were realy spoiled with the current tech.
Totally agree with you there, Rob.Darned shame about the success of 4/3 (or lack thereof).
I really liked the idea of a common lens mount.
But as someone much clever than me once said .....
"Whilst there is much to recommend standardisation, the truth is the R&D guys hate it - it cramps their style"
...or words to that effect.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff