Canon or Sony

[TJ K]

So I'm thinking of the canon xti kit or something like that or the Sony a300x w/ 2 lense kit for my first camera. Which do you think is better and I will mostly be doing landscape like nature in the mountains and things like that but also some everyday stuff. Thanks.

 

[William Petruzzo]

Go with the Canon. They've been doing this for so long they've built some credibility. Sony, frankly, hasn't. Not to knock on Sony. I mean, I wouldn't buy a Canon TV probably, either.

 

[Joe S]

the question should be Canon or Nikon, Sony is not a major player in this game at this point.

 

[8power]

If you want zeiss/leica qualities of micro-contrast and color rendition go with the sony a-mount, ignoring the kit lens and buy some minolta glass.

minolta did manufacture lenses for leica in the past. saying that the adopting parent: sony have no credibility is absolute nonsense.

Sony aquired (and 'are', now) Konica Minolta's camera body business lock,stock and barrel, just a re-badge, in effect. KM had decades of experience in this field.

The alpha bodies are 100% blood-relatives of the alpha/dynax/maxxum SLR evolution.

The minolta 9xi was more advanced in design and spec than any comparable canon/nikon camera. The Nikon F3 was in a class of it's own because its solid construction and attention to precision components, not because of its photographic spec.

KMinolta/Zeiss/Leica lenses produce pictures that have an amazing 3-D, real-life quality to them.

Unless you've used them, you can't diss them.

 

[Photo Phil]

If you want zeiss/leica qualities of micro-contrast and color rendition go with the sony a-mount, ignoring the kit lens and buy some minolta glass.

minolta did manufacture lenses for leica in the past. saying that the adopting parent: sony have no credibility is absolute nonsense.

Sony aquired (and 'are', now) Konica Minolta's camera body business lock,stock and barrel, just a re-badge, in effect. KM had decades of experience in this field.

The alpha bodies are 100% blood-relatives of the alpha/dynax/maxxum SLR evolution.

The minolta 9xi was more advanced in design and spec than any comparable canon/nikon camera. The Nikon F3 was in a class of it's own because its solid construction and attention to precision components, not because of its photographic spec.

KMinolta/Zeiss/Leica lenses produce pictures that have an amazing 3-D, real-life quality to them.

Unless you've used them, you can't diss them.

Personally I like My Sony, I cant complain. It just feels right, its not to light but i has a weight to it that I like. I never played with a Nikon or Canon so i'm not going to knock them. But I believe they are both very good cameras I bought a Sony a200 because the price was right for me. As I keep reading I think that I did wrong and probably should of bought a Nikon or Canon. But that statement just made change my mind that i did a good job in purchasing the Sony. Thanks

 

[Iron Flatline]

Go with the Canon. They've been doing this for so long they've built some credibility. Sony, frankly, hasn't. Not to knock on Sony. I mean, I wouldn't buy a Canon TV probably, either.

Breathtakingly uninformed. Sony is the rebranded Konica and Minolta companies, they know a LOT about lenses and camera bodies. Also, Sony makes the sensors for Nikon and a few other companies - they know a LOT about every part of camera manufacturing.

the question should be Canon or Nikon, Sony is not a major player in this game at this point.

Yet.

Decide on a camera based on how it feels when you hold it, and what kind of lenses are available. In your case, get a feeling for the wide-angles, because when shooting landscapes you want to capture as much as possible.

 

[William Petruzzo]

I think I have a blender that was purchased was purchased from a rebranded company, of whose former brand was top-notch. The blender just broke. Companies have lots of reasons for rebranding and an awful lot can change in the process. I don't know much about Sony, but I do know that Canon's been doing it since the 30's and Nikon even before that (although, admittedly Nikon didn't formally adopt their name until the 80's). But regardless, Sony might be a great camera maker with a lot of history, but it strikes me that there's a reason Canon and Nikon dominate the market, even among professionals. It's going to take some proving on Sony's part before I believe they're actually producing a worthy contendor.

I stick to my guns. It's just a safer bet to stick to Nikon or Canon.

 

[chizuck]

So I'm thinking of the canon xti kit or something like that or the Sony a300x w/ 2 lense kit for my first camera. Which do you think is better and I will mostly be doing landscape like nature in the mountains and things like that but also some everyday stuff. Thanks.

I would look for reviews and pictures taken with each and see what catches your eye. I have a Olympus E-510 and really like it but I have not played with the others much. I really come down to what you like and fits you best.

Hope this helps
chuck

 

[Dao]

Is the Sony camera a good camera? Personally I think so. Is the XTi is a good camera? I think so too.

What about pictures that come out from those cameras? Most of the time, they all looks good if the person behind the camera knows what he/she is doing.

I really think most of the entry level camera are pretty decent. What make one camera better than the others? The answer will be different from user to user.

Myself, at this moment, I will still choose the XTi over the Sony (I got my XTi back about 6 months ago) because I found that it is more popular and because of that, more third party companies make stuff for it. If you want to get a non-OEM battery grip, I have more choices to choose from. If I want to get a good quality non-oem lens, I have more choices to choose from ..........


However, it doesn't mean it will stay the same 5 years from today. It is all market driven. You never know how well Sony will market their camera systems.


What about the oem lens support? At this point, I think Canon do have its advantage over Sony. But it is only matter if you want to do more with your camera.

 

[TJ K]

So if I get an xti what is a good lense I can get for a decent price that is good for landscape and maybe some regular stuff too. Thanks I am definately leaning towards the canon now but how are Nikons I just have always liked canon more.

 

[Amber_Cullen]

I say the canon as well, whenever I upgrade I'm going for an xti, its a great camera

As for a lens I have no clue, hopefully someone will be able to help

 

[Dao]

So if I get an xti what is a good lense I can get for a decent price that is good for landscape and maybe some regular stuff too. Thanks I am definately leaning towards the canon now but how are Nikons I just have always liked canon more.

What is your budgets on the camera and lens? Typically, the kit lens that come with the camera will do a good job. However, the lens that come with the XTi is not as good as the others such as the one come with Canon XSI/XS in terms of optical quality.

As for the Nikons, they are also very good as well. I do not own Nikon camera, all I know is model such as D40, D40x or D60 do not have an internal focus drive motor. And because of that some of the good lens from Nikon (i.e. 50mm f/1.8) cannot be autofocus with those camera. However, it can autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses. (or lenses from 3rd parties that have build-in focus motors)

 

[Sirashley]

Personally, I would tell you to save your money and buy the Sony a200. It will do everything the Xti will do, and then some (Internal stabilization)... The a200 does not have live view like the a300 does, but to me that didn't matter. Bottom line, if you are looking for an entry level camera, buy the Sony. That is what I did and I am so glad that I did. There are a ton of Maxxum lenses floating around, not to mention the Sigma and Tamron lines.

If people were given an a200 and an XTi without the names on the cameras, and told to go out and shoot, I'd be willing to bet that more people would come back preferring the Sony. I think many people are just brand loyal. Go and pick yourself up a copy of September 2008 Popular photography. There is a in depth review of the Sony a200, it is a fair analysis with the pros and cons of the camera. I can tell you that my cousin has an XTi and I have shot with it extensively. Photo quality between the two is nearly identical, with the Sony performing a tad better at lower isos and the Canon performing better at higher isos (1600-3200). The high iso performance is the weak point of the a200.

Anyway, my point was the cameras are nearly identical. My recommendation to you would be to go and hold both cameras. That was one of the decision makers for me. Personally, I felt that the Canon felt cheap and the body was smaller ( I have big hands so naturally I would like a larger bodied camera). I also liked the menu system and layout better on the Sony, this is another thing you should be mindful of. Last but not least, the Sony was at the time, 160$ cheaper (Not sure what it is now)

On a final note, I can't stress enough how important it is to go and hold the cameras. Go to a store where they actually have them powered up. Obviously I am pro-Sony because I own one and think it's a great camera, but you may end up falling in love with the Canon after holding it, you just won't know until you hold and try the cameras... After holding the cameras and playing with the menu system, you will know which camera is right for you

 

[ANDS!]

Get the Canon. It will have a more robust second-hand market, and when it comes time to upgrade, there will be more people looking for a Canon body than Sony. This isn't a knock on Sony or a pump for Canon, just the economics of the current photographic second hand market. Do a search on your local Craigslist for Canon and for Sony (as it relates to dSLR's) - you'll see what I mean.

 

[Tolyk]

I say the canon as well, whenever I upgrade I'm going for an xti, its a great camera

As for a lens I have no clue, hopefully someone will be able to help

Not the thread jack, but why upgrade from an XT to an XTi ? It's not enough of a leap and really just a waste of money. You're going from one entry level camera to another that the only thing it has over the XT is more megapixels. If you're going to leap up to a 10MP canon SLR, look into the 40d for sure.


As to the OP, there's nothing wrong with any brand, and as others have pointed out, Minolta glass is fantastic. As is Pentax, as is Canon, etc.. It's all about the functionality of the cameras and what suits your shooting style.

Sony bought Minolta because Minolta was the first to have in-camera stabilization, and Sony wanted the technology. It doesn't make the cameras less worthwhile just because they're called Sony now (a bias I'm trying to get over myself)

If you've got a good Camera store nearby, go in, try out all the models, look at the lens lineups, consider what will suit your needs. Also, if possible, look into renting the setup you are leaning towards buying. First hand experience with it will help determine if it's the right choice for you. Good luck