Upgrade From A100 to Canon XSi or 40D?

Hi there, I am currently looking at the aforementioned upgrade / replacement for a couple of reasons...

1. Going on a trip, which includes a tour of base camp of Everest and I am finding information on which lens would be good for the Sony to be hard to come by.

2. The list of lenses available for the Canon's seems endless compared to the Sony.

3. More people are shooting the Canon's and information for a newbie is a lot easier to find.

4. Don't feel like switching all my lenses, batteries etc when I do get bigger into photography, rather just have one brand to start and build on it.

There are some of my reasons, what do you guys think? I can sell the Sony for a few bucks so getting rid of it is no problem. Also, if you support this decision, is it better to upgrade to the 40D over the XSi, even though it is less pixels, but more expensive?

Thanks for any replies!

 

I will go for the 40D (If I could afford it). For only a bit more money, you get a pentaprism (instead of mirror), twice the framerate, weatherproofing, slightly more detail and less noise (predicted, even though less megapixels), ISO 3200 max sensitivity and more advanced autofocus. Though probably, your current Sony is good enough for your trip. If you had an old P&S, I would encourage you to upgrade but the A100 is a modern SLR. I would suggest you practice your photography instead.

 

Definetly agree with you on this point. I am not much past an auto mode shooter, but have the desire to get much better. I just don't feel like going ahead and spending more money on lenses etc until I am confident that I made the right gear choice. I should have bought the Rebel XT sitting beside the Sony, but the old girlfriend wanted 10MP instead of 8.

 

Aww.. too bad. The Rebel XT is a great camera. Too bad people who don't know much about cameras and photography in general go for megapixels. My 6MP Pentax K100D makes the 12MP Canon Powershot G9 (prolly the best P&S around) look like junk. Any way, the A100 is also a fairly good camera.

 

If I were you, I'd go for the A700. Since you already have a lens or so, you don't have to worry about buying a whole new array of equipment and just get the body. But, that's totally based on opinion.

 

I just went down to the photo shop to look at the 40D and stumbled upon the A700. The salesman said it was a better purchase, and it was pretty much par price wise with the 40D. So now I'm really confused. I also found a swell Sony / Zeiss lens. So now I am wondering if I should by the lens now, learn how to use it, and hopefully the price drops by the time I leave for my trip. Or just do the whole thing and go to a Canon... Lost...

 

Getting a new body wont improve your image quality that much. Lenses are more important and lighting is really important. If you found a nice lens, buy it and put it on your A100. The A100 is a very nice camera.

 

Well I took the proper step first I think, I enrolled in a photography class starting tonight... realized no matter how good the lens or body I won't take proper pictures if I don't have a clue to start.

 

This is why I recommend sticking with "Canikon" due to the vast selection of lenses, and strong third-party support. But Sony/Minolta does have a pretty good selection of lenses. What exactly are you looking for that you see in Canon but not in Sony/Minolta?

 

I looked at the Sony A700 when I was looking to purchase a Camera and eventually decided on the Canon. The availability of good quality glass, if I want to sell and buy used glass the chances are so much higher with the Canon and all but one of my lenses will move with me to full frame camera should I eventually decide to go. I like the Sony A line of cameras and seem very well built and have read a lot of good things about them. It is just a choice you need to make. And taking classes is a great idea.

 

Unless you bought one of the pro Canons, you'd probably get a more durable camera with the Sony. As for lenses, Canon does give you a lot bigger choice.

 

I see that most people have Canons. On the sidelines at sports games nobody really has Sony/Minolta gear. Also the point was brought up about more used lenses, and I've heard you can rent Canon. It really comes down to the fact where I see more Canons/Nikon mentioned anywhere on forums that anything else, and it makes me wonder if there is a real reason for it.