Sony A300 vs Canon EOS 1000

[SnoWolf]

Dear guys

I have been thinking about to buy a new dslr camera, the question is which one? to be honest i have been thinking about two cameras Sony DSLR A300 and Canon EOS 1000, not talking about accessories etc ... If u just make a compare between the two cams, which one is better?

Kind Regards

 

[skieur]

Dear guys

I have been thinking about to buy a new dslr camera, the question is which one? to be honest i have been thinking about two cameras Sony DSLR A300 and Canon EOS 1000, not talking about accessories etc ... If u just make a compare between the two cams, which one is better?

Kind Regards

Tilt screen, live view with fast autofocus, and Minolta, Sony, and Zeiss lenses are the advantages to the Sony A300. I am not familiar with the EOS 1000, which probably has a different name here.

skieur

 

[Big Mike]

I believe the EOS 1000D is the Rebel XS.

not talking about accessories etc ... If u just make a compare between the two cams, which one is better?

Not really a fair question. A DSLR is part of a system and you should give that system a good look when choosing a camera...because you will be choosing that system as well.

 

[dascrow]

I have a Sony A300 and so far I'm really pleased with the results. I'm a newbie and still learning. For my needs it's been a great camera.

 

[SnoWolf]

Thanks guys for giving me your thoughts.

btw...

Tilt screen, live view with fast autofocus, and Minolta, Sony, and Zeiss lenses are the advantages to the Sony A300. I am not familiar with the EOS 1000, which probably has a different name here.

skieur

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1000d.asp

 

[SnoWolf]

I believe the EOS 1000D is the Rebel XS.


Not really a fair question. A DSLR is part of a system and you should give that system a good look when choosing a camera...because you will be choosing that system as well.

Bro, i dont mean to talk in general... i just wanna make some kind of a compare between the two cameras. hopefully u understand me well.

 

[Big Mike]

I get where you were going...I was just trying to steer you in a better direction

Really, most of these cameras are very similar...with small differences. It's like asking whether you should get a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord...a Ford 1/2 ton or a Chevy 1/2 ton...a Coke or a Pepsi.

In this case, I think the biggest difference is that the Sony has built-in stabilization while the Canon doesn't. The Canon however, is part of Canon's system, which is very good.

The standard advice in this situation is to hold both cameras and use them a little bit. The one that feels better to you, is probably the best choice.

 

[SnoWolf]

I get where you were going...I was just trying to steer you in a better direction

Thank you for the reply, and be sure i got your point and i understood which direction u were talking about.

btw, I think both cams has Live View option or ... ?

 

[wharvey86]

I have an a300 and love it! Features are real easy and fuunctional, the tilt screen is cool (even though i now realize i prob use it alot less than i thought i would !) the autofocus is very fast and most importantly it takes nice pictures!

 

[skieur]

Buying into a system is often mentioned when considering a camera, but in a lot of cases it is meaningless. Manual film lenses were replaced by automatic film lenses. Lenses without autofocus motors were replaced by lenses with autofocus motors. Some lenses used for film were replaced by lenses designed for digital. The quality of lenses has also improved as well as size improvements.

If they reduce the chip size and improve the image quality at the same time then lenses and camera bodies will get smaller. Bottom lines is that lenses are becoming more consumable, rather than lasting for a very long time.

Also relevant to the lens/system issue is that if you are not planning on buying a large number of lenses and system accessories, then it really does not matter.

skieur

 

[dEARlEADER]

Buying into a system is often mentioned when considering a camera, but in a lot of cases it is meaningless. Manual film lenses were replaced by automatic film lenses. Lenses without autofocus motors were replaced by lenses with autofocus motors. Some lenses used for film were replaced by lenses designed for digital. The quality of lenses has also improved as well as size improvements.

If they reduce the chip size and improve the image quality at the same time then lenses and camera bodies will get smaller. Bottom lines is that lenses are becoming more consumable, rather than lasting for a very long time.

Also relevant to the lens/system issue is that if you are not planning on buying a large number of lenses and system accessories, then it really does not matter.

skieur

meh... the ability swap lenses with buddies... the longevity of RAW format support... the quickness of RAW format development for third party applications... the ability to use a wider range of lenses, accessories.... the volume and availability of the used market are all things to consider when going with a system...

you may think you'll only buy one body and a lens or two, but you are closing doors if you become hooked...

the system matters...

 

[Frequent Traveler]

I'd choose the Sony a300. It has anti-shake/"super steady shot" tech in the body so every - that is every single pea-pickin' lens used - is anti-shake. From primes/normal lenses to macro lenses to tele-zooms to super-zooms - every single lens. So, your 85mm f1.4 (already pretty fast) Carl Zeiss lens is also anti-shake allowing for better low-light performance. Nice.....

I agree with the need for a solid system - it's frustrating when you're trying to find something and discover it's simply not available.... as in, "where are those Sony T/S lenses again? Ohhhh, we don't have those...." Arrghhhhh!

However, with a photographic system there are MANY variables to consider. Not the least of which is availability of a good selection of camera bodies, lenses, and flash-guns.

Fortunately, all of the 5 major manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, and Sony(Minolta!!!!), CURRENTLY have adequate lens selections and most have adequate flash-gun options.

I use "adequate" b/c, honestly, how many people are really going to buy a 600mm f4 super-telephoto or a 24mm Tilt/Shift lens or a 16mm fish-eye? Seriously?

Yea, not many.

How many people will buy a "standard" zoom or a 70-300mm - nearly all. In fact, some of those people may even eventually buy a fast 24-70mm or 70-200mm and some fixed-focal length "gems" (be they macro/wide/portrait/tele). Which company offers those kinds of lenses? Yup, all of them.

My point is that most photographers lens needs are already present in the Big 5 line-ups.

For flash-gun needs, again most photographers needs are met in the Big 5 line-ups - though Canon and Nikon are light-years ahead.. ;D

So, how much lens/flash-gun over-lap is necessary to say a system is "adequate"?

This is why i think the Holy Grail "Whole-System" argument is not as thoroughly valid as it once was simply b/c MOST photographers NEEDS are met and all the Big 5 are expanding their line-ups.

Anyway, i believe every one of the Big 5 manufacturers offer some incredible camera value today and for not a lot of money.

Which one is "best" for you depends on your personal handling preferences.

 

[maeling]

G'day, I have come to you with the same question. Made up my mind on an a300 then saw the price on the eos1000d A$100 cheaper. methinks i will go sony with IS and zeiss. tks

 

[AUZambo]

I love my A700. It's easy to use, control buttons are easily accessible limiting time used to change settings, and it is pretty inexpensive considering it's comparable to the Nikon D300. That said, I'm beginning to wish I had gone with either Canon or Nikon simply because the high ISO performance with Sony is no so hot and is always one of the lower items in third party reviews. When I had my Sony A100 I couldn't go any higher than 400, and even at 400 I had more noise than I wanted. With the A700 I can use 400 with hardly any noticible noise (unless it's very dark), but I still try to stay away from 800.

I know for 95% of photography you don't normally need to go over 400, but I've found several situations when I've wanted to freeze action indoors, 400 wasn't quite good enough for me, but 800 was too noisy.

I might be able to remedy this with a good noise reduction program. The ones I've used so far (CS3, photoshop elements) eliminate too much detail for my taste.

It could be that most cameras doing have this problem, but I seem to remember a thread from a while ago where someone with a higher end Canon was saying he could ramp the ISO up to 3200 and still not have much noise. When I push my ISO up to that level it renders the image unusable unless you are shooting for a super grainy image.

Other than the ISO issue i've absolutely loved my camera. If I can find a solution to the noise I'll certainly stick with Sony and will eventually get the A900 when I feel my knowledge and skills can justify it.