Beginners Kit: Sony A350 VS Cannon 450D

[78finn]

I am a beginner and have been researching/shopping around for a solid entry level DSLR for a while now and have it narrowed down to two contenders:

Sony A350 and Cannon 450D

The point of contention between these two cameras for me is the Sony has In Body Stabilisation – the Cannon does not have this, but out performs the Sony when it comes to higher ISO settings.
The reason this is a point of contention is because I plan on doing a lot of dimly lit photography in places where I either won’t be able to take a tripod or it just simply is practical.

So my question is...what is more of an advantage the Sony with its IS or the Cannon with its better high ISO performance?

As I understand it I will be able to shoot at higher ISO/shorter exposure in dim light with the Cannon, but be able to shoot lower ISO/greater exposure time with the Sony because of IS.

I’m also aware that I can purchase Cannon lenses with built in IS, but I’m a beginner on a very (VERY) tight budget, and the lenses I was recommended to look at are expensive – for me at least.

Just after a few opinions – please...nothing to technical as I’m a novice trying to navigate the jargon...

One thing I did like with the Sony was its build quality, tilting LCD and operating system...a bit nicer than the Cannon...but really it’s all about the pictures it takes...
Any help would be very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Mickey
(UK & Melbourne - Australia)

 

[FrankLamont]

The Sony a350 has unfortunately a lot of noise as compared with its Nikon and Canon counterparts (D60/450D).

That's one factor.

 

[skieur]

That's a very tricky question. The Sony A350 produces grain in some but not all high ISO shots. The grain is fine, low level, and does not show up in many prints and illustrations that I used in a photo book, that I recently had printed. Noiseware Professional and other programs can reduce it or take it out completely but sharpness in some areas of the photo may be compromised. Complicating things further I have shot down to almost 1/4 second wide open with Sony's image stabilization without any noise at all.
The A350 however does require good lenses to make the most of its potential image quality. Fast glass at 2.8, Sony G lenses, or Zeiss lenses will get the most out of this camera. The version of Live View, tilting LCD, and Minolta style user friendly design adds to its plus factors.

I am not by the way, knocking Canon. Good noise specs are balanced by a limited version of live view in the 450D and slightly slower autofocus.

Bottom line is that I have found no DSLR to be ideal and consider them all to be consumables. Buy the one, that best suits your needs. You will find that you can work around some camera problems and issues but not others.

skieur

 

[eterrisinCYQX]

A big factor is where you are, as well. I considered an A350 for a long time before deciding on the Canon Rebel XSi (450D). The biggest factor by far was dealer networks-the Canon came from a real photo store while I would have had to get the A350 from a Sony electronics outlet. Just another thing to consider.

 

[skieur]

A big factor is where you are, as well. I considered an A350 for a long time before deciding on the Canon Rebel XSi (450D). The biggest factor by far was dealer networks-the Canon came from a real photo store while I would have had to get the A350 from a Sony electronics outlet. Just another thing to consider.

Yes, that would certainly make a difference. I bought the A350 from a camera store and "negotiated" $250 off.

skieur

 

[Omitinibu]

id recommend the alpha 300 over the alpha 350. identical in every way with the exception that the 350 has more megapixles crammed into the same sensor which actual hurts its performance when speed shooting and the amount of noise a photo creates at higher ISOs.. that being said i own an A300 and i love it! just bought the Rc1000 remote and vertical grip for extra batter life as well.. well worth the money if your into night photography and hrs worth of photo taking.. Go with the A300.. or at least compare them b4 u deside

 

[musicaleCA]

Being completely biased because I own one, I'd go with the 450D. The reason for me was that Canon has a fantastic line-up of glass.

 

[skieur]

id recommend the alpha 300 over the alpha 350.

The reason I bought the 350 is body only and I chose the lenses. No kit lenses!

skieur

 

[smallville]

Hi Mickey,

I am also a starting dslr photography this year and am buying my camera for xmas,

The cameras i have looked at is the new sony range and canon and nikon.

The best suited camera seems to be the sony A380 if you can strech ya budget to this itd £499.00 gbp from jessops however you can claim cash back from sony for £70 for buying this camera its a deal ran by jessops only so you only pay 429 in the end. The reas on why i suggest this camera is it has 14.2 megapixles and live view and steady shoot built in this camera iso is preety dam good also and the lenses for sony are pricey however tamaron and sigma do some nice compatiable lens aroun 150 ponds each so i chose this camera as sony have re-newed the hole interface making it friendly to use. my friend has the 450d and if ya dont no what ya doing the settings are complicated. also the sony new range all have sd memory card support and sony pro duo and hdmi out put the new ranges are 230 , 330 , 380. I was going to buy the 330. however it has a 10.2 megapixles max. the only diffrence between the 330 and the 380 is the 14 megapixles but with the cash back offer on till the end of jan2010 its seems the best option and as for nikon the d3000 seemd cany but far to expensive for the lenses and stablization is need all the time gets cosyly.


MY verdict buy the sony alpha 330 or the 380 youl have loads of fun i am.

 

[Dao]

The point of contention between these two cameras for me is the Sony has In Body Stabilisation – the Cannon does not have this, but out performs the Sony when it comes to higher ISO settings.
The reason this is a point of contention is because I plan on doing a lot of dimly lit photography in places where I either won’t be able to take a tripod or it just simply is practical.

So my question is...what is more of an advantage the Sony with its IS or the Cannon with its better high ISO performance?

As I understand it I will be able to shoot at higher ISO/shorter exposure in dim light with the Cannon, but be able to shoot lower ISO/greater exposure time with the Sony because of IS.

One thing I'd like to point out that IS is great for stationary object. If you are planning to take photos in a low light situation such as live band, IS is not going to work. Fast lens + high iso performance is a better choice.

In other words, IS cannot freeze the motion, it helps compensate the camera shake.

 

[Garbz]

I have a question. Are you buying into a system looking into getting into photography as a hobby? Or is this likely going to be your first and last camera?

If you're in this for the long run, consider that Sony has pretty much made it their life philosophy in screwing around consumers and industries for a quick buck. Canon have been in photography from the beginning. Sony saw there was a bit of money to be made, and bought their way in. If times get tough for some reason Canon would be likely to fight its way through, Sony would be likely to sell and bail.

 

[Photoform]

Doesn't the 450D come with the kit lens with IS? Wouldn't that make the point of stabilization moot?

I'm just a novice, but I read early on that in-body stabilization is not preferable to lens.