Canon Rebel XTi vs Sony Alpha 200

[thirrouard]

I do realize that. The problem is that the 30D isn't even able to go above ISO 1600 (my 7D neither), and I couldn't go really under f1.4 and 1/30 sec...
Yes, the light was VERY dim...
But in moderate light, I made some compared shot with my Minolta 7D, and at ISO800, with correct exposure, the 30D just do as bad as the 7D, if not worse.
Just check out this picture: http://www.thirrouard.com/divers/zenphoto/albums/maclan17/IMG_0370_2.jpg
it's taken in ISO1600 1/60 f2.2, and wasn't underexposed. For me, the chroma noise is really too hight. If it was a more grainly look it would be ok, but still stronger that I would like (note that the noise is already really visible even in this greatly resized picture. I will upload pictures resized on 6Mpixel so you can compare with the 7D...).
This chroma noise is what I hate the most on the 30D, and that begin to be annoying from ISO400...
The minolta raw may be already treated against this (and there should be an option on the canon to do so), but anyway I don't see any reason why would people want to keep the chroma noise. Ok, there is noise ninja, but honestly I was far happier when I just could have awesome pictures out of the box with my Minolta. Now I have to spend a lot of time on photoshot just to be happy with the shots.
For my compositions, I don't mind, but when I do a 600 photoshot, I would be happier not to have to PS them all...
Fortunatly, my 600 photoshot were taken in ISO 100

Anyway, I'm not saying the 30D is a bad camera. It's better than the 7D still in some point, there is more pixels and I can surely notice that in a good way, there is some options that are nice (like you can shot straight in black and white JPG, there is not way to do that on the minolta), but I'm disapointed because I was expecting an improvement in IQ quality in ISO 800 and 1600, and in ISO 800, I would say the image are more noisy than on my 7D!... In 1600, the 30D get a slightly clearer image though.
But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO", well, when any real comparaison was done, I guess they only compared the RAW, because his ancestor the 7D was doing just as good as the 30D in hight ISO.
For exemple in dpreview, reviews I really like, that try to be scientific, but I realized they never compare noise with RAW... that's stupid...

Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands. What make me use the 30D instead of my minolta is because I bought 800€ in very nice lenses, and I don't have the equivelent for the minolta, but if I had to go back, I would just buy new lenses for my Minolta...
And yeah, by the way, the lens really does matter more than the camera...
at least, if you are not willing to change "category" (for exemple 30D=>5D=>D3).

PS: I tested a 5D in a shop... in ISO1600, damn, the difference is HUGE... it's almost neater than ISO400 on my freakin' 30D ...
Problem with this camera is the price, + the price of the EF lenses that are still good on FF... glups... ok I'll stick either to my 30D or 7D...
And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D! Common!

NB: Minolta, come back please

 

[ChickenFriedRyce]

First you say this:

But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO"

Then this:

Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands.

And then you finish it off with this:

And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D!

The Canon 5D (Body only) is $2200 from B&H, and the Sony A700 (body only) is $1300, also from B&H. Either your math is completely off or you just don't realize that's almost $1000 in price diffrence. And you're comparing two different classes of cameras.

 

[manaheim]

I have been a big Sony guy for years... my wife used to say if I decided to buy a gadget that I would basically just go look at what Sony had to offer and buy that. It was bad.

This includes cameras.

I've never had a Sony SLR, however.

My personal feeling is that Sony is an extremely bad company in a lot of ways. Their politics and business tactics are beyond questionable, they constantly push proprietary sub-par technologies that hinder their customers and annoy the industry, and a great many of their products really are utter garbage. Their tech support is horrible, too... and don't even get me started on ergonomics issues.

Oh yeah and they install root kits on their music CDs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

I will say that aside from these issues, I've generally found the Sony P+S cameras to be pretty solid... good optics, nice features, pretty reliable.

However, with all the other issues I have gone from a Sony slave to someone who refuses to buy any Sony products, ever.

Plus, IMO, if you're buying a DSLR you really want to stick with the leaders, and that's really Nikon/Canon IMO.

I know you already bought the cam, and I do hope you love it, but I am mentally incapable of passing by a thread on Sony without voicing my various concerns. Sony needs to be smacked down... hard.

 

[thirrouard]

First you say this:



Then this:



And then you finish it off with this:


The Canon 5D (Body only) is $2200 from B&H, and the Sony A700 (body only) is $1300, also from B&H. Either your math is completely off or you just don't realize that's almost $1000 in price diffrence. And you're comparing two different classes of cameras.

Unfortunatly, I don't live in the US, so the cheapest way would be ebay, and a700 would be around 1000€, when the 5D would be around 1200€.
Very very thin difference between two different category of camera. Especially as the 5D is over priced due to the fact it's the cheapest FF anyway (I guess it's going to change when Canon will release the 5D replacement, if they ever do that).
Now if I want to compare things that are comparables, I got my 7D two years ago for 550€ from the US on ebay, and the a700 that basically have just more Mpixels is 1000€...
Considering the prices of DSLR decrease during those two years, and that the dollar was about 1€ back then, there is something seriously wrong.
If I compare to what happened with canon, when I bought my 7D, the canon 30D cost around the double, 1000€ (or more, anyway, only people who bought it back them could say for sure), and now the 40D that was released about in the same time as the a700 cost around 700€.

So we can easilly say that sony increase dramatically increase his margin, and we are "paying the price" of it

But price beside, the a700 seems a good camera. I just don't think it worth that much.

 

[LuisAugusto]

Oh, by the way, I already have my A200, I love it, the kit lens sucks at anything lower than f8 but they are still useful. But the mixed between the Minolta AF 50mm F 1.7 (stopped down of course) and the sony is just awesome for the price even wide open it's good because the bokeh is good too

 

[ChickenFriedRyce]

I got my 50mm f/1.4 yesterday. It is heaven through the glass. Can't compare anything to it.

 

[PhotoDonkey]

You know, I love my XTI, but I think if I had it to do over again, I might have gone for the Nikon D40.

 

[tranceplant]

for the record. I have a sony a100 and I enjoy it. I love the sony lens and all the good sigma lens are made also for the sony mount. I was just a bit disapointed with the tamron lens, but that has nothing to do with the body.

Also sony has a very good anti shake included on the body, where as Nikon and Canon(I think) it is on the lens which makes the lens more expensive.

Sony is good and a bit cheaper.
(Also all Nikon sensors are made by sony)

 

[ChickenFriedRyce]

(Also all Nikon sensors are made by sony)

This is only true to an extent. They make the sensors for D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D70s, D80, D100, D200, and I believe the D300......... I just uggh aggravate myself. I know half of those, Sony makes the sensors for. But NOT the D3. Nikon implements different image processing engines.

 

[Village Idiot]

Especially as the 5D is over priced due to the fact it's the cheapest FF anyway (I guess it's going to change when Canon will release the 5D replacement, if they ever do that).

You're not making any sense. Quit while you're ahead.

The reason FF cameras cost what they do is due to the fact that FF sensors are expensive to make. It's not like Canon said "Hey, we'll make a camera, put a FF sensor in it, and charge $2000 over what our other cameras cost so we can make a ton of money."

 

[elemental]

Plus, IMO, if you're buying a DSLR you really want to stick with the leaders, and that's really Nikon/Canon IMO.

I disagree, and upon reading this thread for the first time, I'm glad to see you went with Sony. I made a similar decision last year between a Rebel XT, D40, and K100D, and I have not once regretted buying Pentax. I got a better camera for my needs and a better deal, There are plenty of reasons to buy CaNikon cameras, but they are far from the be-all end-all of the DSLR market. While they have advantages, it would be hard to argue that they're giving you the most for your dollar, and many of their "second-tier" competiiors are pushing the value envelope with features not found on the "leaders'" competitive cameras like in-body shake reduction (Sony, Olympus, Pentax) while their competitors cut what should be standard features to shave costs (D40 with no focus motor? Seriously? Rebel build quality?). Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to buy CaNikon cameras, but there are also plenty of reasons not to. Their marketing very effectively creates the impression that they are the only two camera companies on Earth that matter, which is great for business, but it isn't the truth.

Welcome to the dark (horse) side.