Sony or Canon? That is the question.

SimplyShane

Let me start by saying that I most recently owned a Canon Rebel XS and am still the owner of a Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 and a 55-250mm zoom. I also own a wired remote for long exposures.

The reason I sold this XS was because I had inadvertently scratched the interior mirrors of the body while cleaning it. No, it wasn't "broken," but it bothered me. Call it OCD, I don't know. (:-P)

Anyway, I have been pondering making the switch to Sony because I love the fact that you can find cheap, reliable Minolta lenses all across the internet. Furthermore, their support for image stabilization within the camera body is fantastic and something Nikon and Canon really should be doing themselves.

Though I admit that the ISO performance of most Sony cameras tend to lag just a bit behind the competition, it doesn't really both me much. With a stabilized 35mm prime, low-light takes care of itself.

Now, it sounds like I've pretty much made up my mind. However, Canon's Loyalty Program and mirror lock-up functionality keep me interested in their product.

Regrettably, the Alpha500 I am considering lacks this ability. For whatever stupid reason, Sony decided it was best to remove it and this has me worried that I'll have more blur in my tripod work.

Furthermore, the refurbished camera I am considering from Canon, the 40D, has a few other nifty tricks up its sleeve: Fantastic cross-point autofocus, a better viewfinder, and a rugged, more durable body.

It makes the choice very difficult.

Any suggestions? Undoubtedly, my CHEAPEST option would be to just "upgrade" to an XSI body and be done with it. However, I could make a bit of cash by selling the rest of my current gear and jumping into Sony-land without too much stress on the wallet...

Hmm...Decisions, decisions. :scratch

Pupator

If you go Sony, and you're not going full frame, I highly recommend the A700 instead of the 500. You'll be able to find a good deal on one used and it really handles better - feeling more solid in the hands. You are right that you can find Minolta lenses all over the internet (dyxum), but they aren't "cheap," at least not the good ones. I've been buying and selling them as I change/upgrade my kit over the last several years and it's pretty rare that you'll stumble on a real bargain.

So, my opinion, if you want to switch to Sony for the features, or just because you like Sony/Minolta - go for it. I wouldn't make the switch because you think you're going to save money on glass.

NeilL

You raise some interesting issues. The responses will depend on a few things, like your level of experience and need, and the elasticity of your budget.

All gear has limitations, it's a matter of getting best fit for your situation. Excellent photos can be made with cell phone cameras, a mf is quite capable of bad. The results largely depend on the practitioner knowing their craft and what their gear can do.

Canon is a more comprehensive environment, and the capabilities of Canon gear are top ranking. By comparison, Sony's range and tech level appears to me to be more patchy. Aftersale service of Canon gear is possibly more accessible and trustworthy. Resale value of Canon gear is possibly higher. In short, I think you have more options with Canon.

Lenses are key. You mentioned low light performance, and that depends mainly on maximum aperture, and fast glass is exxy. Then the sensor has to be able to take advantage of the resolution of the lens. The 40D is an exciting and capable body. It's hard to push it beyond its limits. Its resolution has fallen below current standards, but that's about all. I think if I were you I would be considering the 60D, or a used 5D.

However, if you are keen on Sony and the Minolta lenses then you are already motivated to get the best out of them, and as I said, the practioner is a big part of the picture.

Neil

SimplyShane

Pupator wrote: »

If you go Sony, and you're not going full frame, I highly recommend the A700 instead of the 500. You'll be able to find a good deal on one used and it really handles better - feeling more solid in the hands. You are right that you can find Minolta lenses all over the internet (dyxum), but they aren't "cheap," at least not the good ones. I've been buying and selling them as I change/upgrade my kit over the last several years and it's pretty rare that you'll stumble on a real bargain.

So, my opinion, if you want to switch to Sony for the features, or just because you like Sony/Minolta - go for it. I wouldn't make the switch because you think you're going to save money on glass.

Hmm...very interesting.

Obviously, I'm ALL ABOUT budgeting. I want things cheap, because I am poor. Yet, as a photographer who deeply cares about the quality of his images, I also need quality products. Usually, these are mutually exclusive ideas. However, that is precisely what I am after:: Affordable, yet effective goods.

If minolta glass isn't cheap, what is? Canon and Nikon surely aren't. Not from my experience thus far...

I guess I just want to be smart about this, ya know?

SimplyShane

NeilL wrote: »

You raise some interesting issues. The responses will depend on a few things, like your level of experience and need, and the elasticity of your budget.

All gear has limitations, it's a matter of getting best fit for your situation. Excellent photos can be made with cell phone cameras, a mf is quite capable of bad. The results largely depend on the practitioner knowing their craft and what their gear can do.

Canon is a more comprehensive environment, and the capabilities of Canon gear are top ranking. By comparison, Sony's range and tech level appears to me to be more patchy. Aftersale service of Canon gear is possibly more accessible and trustworthy. Resale value of Canon gear is possibly higher. In short, I think you have more options with Canon.

Lenses are key. You mentioned low light performance, and that depends mainly on maximum aperture, and fast glass is exxy. Then the sensor has to be able to take advantage of the resolution of the lens. The 40D is an exciting and capable body. It's hard to push it beyond its limits. Its resolution has fallen below current standards, but that's about all. I think if I were you I would be considering the 60D, or a used 5D.

However, if you are keen on Sony and the Minolta lenses then you are already motivated to get the best out of them, and as I said, the practioner is a big part of the picture.

Neil

The 60D is WAY, WAY out of the ballpark. No chance...no way...no how. Aren't lenses more important anyway? Why spend so very much on the body? Yes, extra features that make your life even easier are...nice I guess.

But right now, I need a replacement for my XS that makes sense yet also keeps my bank account in the green...

The 40D does that...along with the Sony...

DsrtVW

If you are interested in using plentiful used glass then Nikon with internal lens focusing motor would allow you to use lenses that can be had for a good price.
D90 is a good bargian right now and you can find factory refurbished cameras both D90 and D300/D300s the latter having an incredible AF system and built like a tank

SimplyShane

DsrtVW wrote: »

If you are interested in using plentiful used glass then Nikon with internal lens focusing motor would allow you to use lenses that can be had for a good price.
D90 is a good bargian right now and you can find factory refurbished cameras both D90 and D300/D300s the latter having an incredible AF system and built like a tank

And that's the problem with Nikon for budget users like me.

Life pretty much starts at the D90 when it comes to using older lenses and that, quite frankly, sucks.

Plus, none of those older lenses will have image stabilization.

It's just a really tough choice...

NeilL

SimplyShane wrote: »

The 60D is WAY, WAY out of the ballpark. No chance...no way...no how. Aren't lenses more important anyway? Why spend so very much on the body? Yes, extra features that make your life even easier are...nice I guess.

But right now, I need a replacement for my XS that makes sense yet also keeps my bank account in the green...

The 40D does that...along with the Sony...

Refurbished 60D? Used 5DI? You might have been able to get a Canon Loyalty discount for your XS?

You have described a certain cutoff lower limit for bodies in terms of capabilities, so I was speaking to that. If you want to go with the 40D you will lose only the lower resolution compared with later models of any brand, and you will have all of the Canon advantages and options I mentioned, which Sony at the moment can't completely equal.

Neil

Art Scott

SimplyShane wrote: »

Plus, none of those older lenses will have image stabilization...

In your 1st post you mentioned using stabilization and then using a tripod / with stabilization....as an ex -KM user (not really ex i still own 2 7D's and an A2) I can tell you that the in body stabilization will screw with any 'pod work...it will cause soft and out of focus results......I have also witnessed this with my Nikon gear (tripoding a VR lens is a definite no no).....I wanted to stay with KM so bad but nothing Sony has can touch the last Gen of Km cams.....that is from going to Best buy with a memory card and trying out the newer Sony's......both my KM's are fitted with a Sigma Lens and that is the only way to save money on glass for any camera, is thru using glass like Sigma or Tamron or Tokina....I shot Sigma for over 30 yrs now and have never had a piece of glass I was disappointed in........

Something you might want to look into is Olympus and Pentax both with in body stabilization.........

Glenn NK

Art Scott wrote: »

. . the only way to save money on glass for any camera, is thru using glass like Sigma or Tamron or Tokina....I shot Sigma for over 30 yrs now and have never had a piece of glass I was disappointed in........

This is a very good approach to budget photography. The "other guys" have some very good lenses at good prices - check online reviews (Fred Miranda, Photozone, etc).

I also think that too many of us get caught up in the "latest and best" technology. Although I have acquired a 5Dii, I still use my 30D quite a bit. Unless you're printing large, the primary difference is usually only noticed when pixel peeping.

Glenn

cmason

Heck, why not call Canon and price out a mirror repair/replace? Your current body is quite capable. Save the money a new Sony body and lens would cost and get a nice lens for your Canon. That 55-250 is far from their best effort.

Shop for a Tamron 17-50, or 28-75, or Canon28-135IS, or for the tops, get the Canon 17-55' or 24-105L. At most this is $850 gently used (tamron much less), which is about what that Sony body will run you, without a lens.

ziggy53

For Canon you might consider the dRebel T2i/550D. It has a similar imager and exposure system to the 7D, and the AF system is similar to the 30D. While the shutter is not up to xxD specs, it's still not bad. It also has competent video. (I know, ... I know.) The T2i also has more high-ISO settings, but image quality to ISO 3200 is very similar in prints, although the T2i has a little better dynamic range at the high-ISOs.

I have a Canon 40D and it really does take splendid images. The only thing I wish were better is the LCD display, which does not really represent the images properly. (They always look a bit soft, even at high magnification.) The 40D does have the better shutter and better AF. Continuous shooting rate as well as responsiveness are better on the 40D.

Both cameras have MLU.

Adorama has the T2i (refurbished) with the kit EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6 IS lens, which is a not to bad standard lens and the IS is the real deal. This lens, combined with the 2 lenses that you have, would give a decent kit for many general photography projects and tasks. Add a decent flash with AF assist light and a couple of DIY flash modifiers and you have a very nice basic system.

http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT2IKR.html

ThatCanonGuy

Sony recently announced that they were going to stop designing full frame sensors. This doesn't mean they won't make any more full frame cameras, they'll most likely announce a few with sensors they already have. Just something to think about, you might want to step up later on. I know, expensive... but, you never know...:D

Adorama always has a huge selection of used lenses, all brands. Something to check out.

SimplyShane

ziggy53 wrote: »

For Canon you might consider the dRebel T2i/550D. It has a similar imager and exposure system to the 7D, and the AF system is similar to the 30D. While the shutter is not up to xxD specs, it's still not bad. It also has competent video. (I know, ... I know.) The T2i also has more high-ISO settings, but image quality to ISO 3200 is very similar in prints, although the T2i has a little better dynamic range at the high-ISOs.

I have a Canon 40D and it really does take splendid images. The only thing I wish were better is the LCD display, which does not really represent the images properly. (They always look a bit soft, even at high magnification.) The 40D does have the better shutter and better AF. Continuous shooting rate as well as responsiveness are better on the 40D.

Both cameras have MLU.

Adorama has the T2i (refurbished) with the kit EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6 IS lens, which is a not to bad standard lens and the IS is the real deal. This lens, combined with the 2 lenses that you have, would give a decent kit for many general photography projects and tasks. Add a decent flash with AF assist light and a couple of DIY flash modifiers and you have a very nice basic system.

http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT2IKR.html

Impossible. 825 bucks is WAY out of budget.

The sony body I'm considering is $400 shipped. The 40D is 565 refurbished and that's pushing my limit...

Again, when I say I'm poor...I mean just that. Poor. I know I'm asking for the impossible here, but ...

I can dream right?

ThatCanonGuy

Older Pentax DSLRs are budget-friendly and actually OK cams. I used to have a K100D Super and, well, the autofocus was slow, but, other than that, it was fine. Adorama has a great selection of cheap Pentax lenses. They've got some used Pentax DSLRs too. Just something to consider.

ziggy53

SimplyShane wrote: »

Impossible. 825 bucks is WAY out of budget.

The sony body I'm considering is $400 shipped. The 40D is 565 refurbished and that's pushing my limit...

Again, when I say I'm poor...I mean just that. Poor. I know I'm asking for the impossible here, but ...

I can dream right?

IMO the very best deal in entry level photography just now is a refurbished Olympus E-600 and 2 - lens kit from Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/IOME600K1R.html

For $450USD you get the camera plus 2 consumer lenses, a standard zoom plus a tele-zoom. The camera is the same as the E-620 with a very few minor features left out (things that I could easily do without) and the Olympus E-620 gets very good reviews. The E-600 does have in-camera stabilization.

Sell the Canon lenses and get an Olympus FL-36R (it must have the "R" suffix) wireless flash. Add a couple of DIY flash modifiers and you have a very nice entry level, but very capable, system. The FL-36R can be triggered wirelessly from the camera to allow off-camera flash. You could potentially do some professional level work with this basic setup. (The FL-36R would be the "key" light and use the on-camera flash for "fill" for a very basic 2 light setup.)

SimplyShane

ziggy53 wrote: »

IMO the very best deal in entry level photography just now is a refurbished Olympus E-600 and 2 - lens kit from Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/IOME600K1R.html

For $450USD you get the camera plus 2 consumer lenses, a standard zoom plus a tele-zoom. The camera is the same as the E-620 with a very few minor features left out (things that I could easily do without) and the Olympus E-620 gets very good reviews. The E-600 does have in-camera stabilization.

Sell the Canon lenses and get an Olympus FL-36R (it must have the "R" suffix) wireless flash. Add a couple of DIY flash modifiers and you have a very nice entry level, but very capable, system. The FL-36R can be triggered wirelessly from the camera to allow off-camera flash. You could potentially do some professional level work with this basic setup. (The FL-36R would be the "key" light and use the on-camera flash for "fill" for a very basic 2 light setup.)

Two comments Ziggy:: (And thank you very much for the speedy reply. ^_^)

1. What is the warranty looking like from Adorama for refurbished goods? Are they refurbished by Olympus themselves or through Adorama's own service? Assuming the warranty is only valid for 90 days, can I purchase a longer warranty through them or someone else? I would at least desire a year...

2. Olympus, from what I read, is a very respectable brand with well-made bodies. However, their lens prices seem a bit high. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources?

Glenn NK

I'm not sure how big Sioux City is, but there must be a camera shop of some kind. Used gear often gets sold on consignment. Where I deal, I saw a 20D being sold for $300.

The internet: http://haroldsphoto.com/locations.asp

Another source is a local photography club.

Glenn

run_kmc

SimplyShane wrote: »

2. Olympus, from what I read, is a very respectable brand with well-made bodies. However, their lens prices seem a bit high. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources?

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/lenses.html

This is a comprehensive list of every Four Thirds lens ever made by any company that has ever made a Four Thirds lens, complete with specs and "new" pricing.

Yeah, the 35-100 f/2 lens isn't cheap.

There are quite a few amazing Olympus lenses that aren't nearly that expensive. The 14-54 is a popular one, and the 11-22 can be had for less now that the not quite as nice 9-18 is out. There are several others.

If you're looking for great glass that is inexpensive, you could try older Olympus OM lenses. They will fit onto any Olympus digital body with an adapter. Actually, they will fit on any Canon body with an adapter as well.

ziggy53

SimplyShane wrote: »

Two comments Ziggy:: (And thank you very much for the speedy reply. ^_^)

1. What is the warranty looking like from Adorama for refurbished goods? Are they refurbished by Olympus themselves or through Adorama's own service? Assuming the warranty is only valid for 90 days, can I purchase a longer warranty through them or someone else? I would at least desire a year...

2. Olympus, from what I read, is a very respectable brand with well-made bodies. However, their lens prices seem a bit high. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources?

From the item description on the Adorama page, "Refurbished By Olympus U.S.A.".

A Mack extended warranty is available:

http://www.adorama.com/IMXW3Y39.html

I do not know the included warranty details for this refurbished Olympus camera. The Adorama contact page:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=Contactus

The Olympus consumer level lenses are an excellent value. The Olympus prosumer/enthusiast lenses seem in line with the competition, but there are mostly no exact equivalents. The very best Olympus Four-Thirds lenses generally have no exact equivalent either but they are expensive. So are the very best lenses from Canon and Nikon, for that matter.

Third party lenses are also available.

ziggy53

run_kmc wrote: »

... Yeah, the 35-100 f/2 lens isn't cheap.

...

The Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 Zuiko is one of those lenses I referred to that is without equal.

SimplyShane

Thanks for the great advice. I appreciate it. :-)



At the very least, I can rest assured that Adorama will give me 30 days to completely change my mind even after I buy it. :-P

ziggy53 wrote: »

From the item description on the Adorama page, "Refurbished By Olympus U.S.A.".

A Mack extended warranty is available:

http://www.adorama.com/IMXW3Y39.html

I do not know the included warranty details for this refurbished Olympus camera. The Adorama contact page:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=Contactus

The Olympus consumer level lenses are an excellent value. The Olympus prosumer/enthusiast lenses seem in line with the competition, but there are mostly no exact equivalents. The very best Olympus Four-Thirds lenses generally have no exact equivalent either but they are expensive. So are the very best lenses from Canon and Nikon, for that matter.

Third party lenses are also available.

NeilL

I concur with Ziggy's suggestion of the Olympus with 2 kit lenses. Fine, versatile gear for very reasonable cost. It has its limitations, which you would have to understand and accept, and not come back complaining about!

Neil

SimplyShane

NeilL wrote: »

I concur with Ziggy's suggestion of the Olympus with 2 kit lenses. Fine, versatile gear for very reasonable cost. It has its limitations, which you would have to understand and accept, and not come back complaining about!

Neil

I'd say that's a deal sir.