Sony A-100 or Canon 350/400D?

[FidelCastrovich]

Hello all,

I'd like to buy a DSLR for my father. It would be his first DSLR. He now uses an old Fuji s5500 (I think) and he's been complaining about its performance. I should point out that he used to be a professional photographer around a quarter of a century ago, but since has abandoned 'real' photography.

So he could, theoretically, enjoy a good and solid performer.

Now, the ideal camera for him would be easy to use, with a simple menu. It would also have a reasonably bright viewfinder. It should also have reasonable performance in the 400-800 ISO range. Not 5D reasonable...just reasonable. Needless to say, the Fuji is ridiculous above 100.

Now, the reason i'm even considering the Sony, is that i have a 50mm f1.7 and the 'beercan' 70-210mm f4 leftover from my film days. Both are pretty good lenses which could be useful to him.

So, which would be the better choice? The internal stabilization of the Sony is a big plus, of course.

Thanks,
Emil.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Sony, you have lenses for it. for the canon you have to buy lenses.

 

[ChickenFriedRyce]

Sony definately! Since you have the lenses.


I wouldn't go with the A100 now because I've heard it's very noisy (as is in the photo). The A200 is a much better improvement.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Sony, you have lenses for it. for the canon you have to buy lenses.

Thanks for the quick reply.
You're right, but the most useful(18-55) range i would have to buy anyway, with either camera, so my two lenses don't REALLY shift the balance.

Maybe i should take my two lenses out of the equation, and just compare the Sony and the Canon.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Any other opinions or experiences?

 

[notelliot]

Thanks for the quick reply.
You're right, but the most useful(18-55) range i would have to buy anyway, with either camera, so my two lenses don't REALLY shift the balance.

Maybe i should take my two lenses out of the equation, and just compare the Sony and the Canon.

sure they do. buy the rebel, and then go buy a 50/1.8 and 70-200/4 and tell me how much money you just saved.
if you buy the sony, you pretty much have everything (in terms of focal range) covered.

 

[jstuedle]

Is there any reason Nikon was not in your mix of possibilities? A lot of the recent bodies can mount and meter that great old MF glass. There are 40 million lenses to choose from floating around out there. If he was a pro, then he knows what there were and how they performed.

 

[eravedesigns]

The sony a100 is a very nice camera to start out with but its being replaced by the A200 or above so I would pick one of those. I just upgraded to the A700 and their new build quality is amazing. Sony knows what they are doing now with DSLRs and the A100 was them just breaking the ice. Go for it! btw the access to minolta glass is a great thing

 

[FidelCastrovich]

sure they do. buy the rebel, and then go buy a 50/1.8 and 70-200/4 and tell me how much money you just saved.
if you buy the sony, you pretty much have everything (in terms of focal range) covered.

You're certainly right. I'm just not sure how much of a difference it would make to him. Because he wouldn't go out and buy the nifty-fifty or the tele. That's why i'm saying that maybe all i really need is a comparison, or unrelated opinions of the two cameras.

jstuedle - Nikon is out of the game because aside from the old Minolta glass, i own and use Canon gear. I'd like to be able to show him the ropes with the new camera - with the Sony, I'd have to learn, but at least i have some nice glass as a bonus. Getting a Nikon is bringing a third player into the field.

Thanks guys, keep 'em coming. :thumbup: