# Canon Rebel XTi vs Sony Alpha 200



## LuisAugusto (Mar 18, 2008)

As my profile says I own an old Minolta X-300s with two lenses:

-Minolta 18-70mm Macro 1:4
-Vivitar 100-300mm Macro 1:5

Of course as you probably already guessed it's a film reflex.

I'm thinking on going digital, and my budget allows me to have 2 big options:

-Canon Rebel XTi with 18-55mm
-Sony Alpha 200 18-70mm and 75-300mm

I like a lot the A200 because it's compatible with Minolta plus it have a lot more zoom (but a little less macro), and it's superior in the spec sheet.

However, must people tend to recommend the Rebel over the Sony.

Could you give some advices and help?

Sorry for my poor english, and thanks in advance.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 18, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> As my profile says I own an old Minolta X-300s with two lenses:
> 
> -Minolta 18-70mm Macro 1:4
> -Vivitar 100-300mm Macro 1:5
> ...



I don't know Canon details but there's no question that Nikon and Canon are the SLR leaders in the world today.  As Canon is one of your choices, my recommendation is that you go that route.

By the way, your English is MUCH better than my Spanish!


----------



## reconstyle (Mar 18, 2008)

Why the XTi over the XT? you could use the extra money for another lens if you get the XT....


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I don't know Canon details but there's no question that Nikon and Canon are the SLR leaders in the world today.  As Canon is one of your choices, my recommendation is that you go that route.



Ok, I'll take that in consideration, because you're right there are a lot more accessories and lenses for Canon. 



Socrates said:


> By the way, your English is MUCH better than my Spanish!



Thank you very much.

Here is a big comparative chart:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAM...ections[]=1095&sections[]=1358&submit=Compare

The XT is only 8.0 MP and 7 focus points, but you're right, it's a good option.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 18, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> Here is a big comparative chart:
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAM...ections[]=1095&sections[]=1358&submit=Compare
> 
> The XT is only 8.0 MP and 7 focus points, but you're right, it's a good option.



Megapixels aren't nearly as important as you think. I shoot with a 6.3 MP camera and that's more than enough for large prints.

It's generally accepted that the XT is superior to the XTi anyways. I vote that you save the money in getting an XT and use the spared cash on a good lens or a good flash.

Don't let numbers sway your decision. I say go with a more robust camera over one with more AF points and megapixels any day of the week.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 19, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Megapixels aren't nearly as important as you think. I shoot with a 6.3 MP camera and that's more than enough for large prints.
> 
> It's generally accepted that the XT is superior to the XTi anyways. I vote that you save the money in getting an XT and use the spared cash on a good lens or a good flash.
> 
> Don't let numbers sway your decision. I say go with a more robust camera over one with more AF points and megapixels any day of the week.



Ok, thank you very much.

One more question: Is the A200 (or A300 if available) a bad option? In film based reflexes I'm a fan of Minolta, and I have those 2 lenses I mentioned and I forgot my Macro 1:1 from Minolta.

And, here in Mexico, the Rebel XTi is at 954 dollars with tax included (15% here in Mexico), the Alpha 200 is at 795 with taxes too, and with the 75-300mm is at 1,000.

I'll check for the Rebel XT price.

Again, thanks a lot for your help.


----------



## audiobomber (Mar 19, 2008)

CanAm said:


> It's generally accepted that the XT is superior to the XTi anyways.


 
I don't recall ever hearing that. The Xt is superior in what ways? I know the XTi gets criticized for being too small (?), but I thought it was the better camera.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 19, 2008)

IMHO I like Canon lenses better than Sony ones... so I would choose Canon of the two.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 19, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> IMHO I like Canon lenses better than Sony ones... so I would choose Canon of the two.



I want to buy a Sony A2/300 and buy sigma lenses for it, same with the Rebel XTi or XT.

I have use both lenses, 18-55mm with the canon and the sony 18-70mm, and the second seems to be better.

But every photographer I know seems to hate sony  And they possibly have their reason so that what is keeping me from buying one.


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 19, 2008)

I have the XTi, and my best friend has the XT...and after playing with hers im very happy to have the XTi. The screen is bigger, the info on what you are shooting in on the LCD screen, I think it focuses a bit easier. JMO


----------



## sultan (Mar 19, 2008)

The sony is fine. Go for it and the lenses. Get both the megapixels and the glass for the same price as the XT without the megapixels or the XTi without the glass. Photographers are used to their Nikons and Canons and reccommend them. They are good cameras but the A200 is almost as good and costs less. I would say go for it.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 23, 2008)

I bought the Sony A200, and it will arrive in 2 days 

I played with my 3 options, Nikon D40x, Canon Rebel XTi and Sony Alpha 200, and overall the A200 beat them all, just a personal opinion, probably influenced by my minolta loyalty.

Leaving for future possible buyers:

Nikon D40x:

It's a very nice camera, very compact and the kit lens are far better than XTi ones. But it has "little annoying" problems all over the way, you can even find a post about them here. However, I liked it a lot.

Canon Rebel XTi:

Another nice camera for low budgets as mine, it has pretty much the same features that the A200 with the exception of Image Stabilizer (Sony Super Steady Shot). As far as I tested (and read) it has a better performance than A200 at high ISOs (less noise), but the kit lens aren't not even close to D40x and A200 ones.

Sony Alpha 200:

My favorite out of these 3. It's more cheaper than their counterparts (at least here on Mexico), it features Sony Super Steady Shot, a very good kit lens, quite better than those found in the XTi, with a little more zoom than the standard (18-70mm), up to 3,200 ISO (while the other are up to 1,600). On the downside, it has a noise problem at high ISO, however, as far as I have read, it has a very above average quality in Long Exposure shots. Features a slightly bigger screen (2.7"), and 2.8 shots per second (while XTi and Canon feature 3.0, but the difference is ridiculously small, for making 1 picture difference it will be around 5 seconds).


----------



## MX962 (Mar 23, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> I bought the Sony A200, and it will arrive in 2 days
> 
> I played with my 3 options, Nikon D40x, Canon Rebel XTi and Sony Alpha 200, and overall the A200 beat them all, just a personal opinion, probably influenced by my minolta loyalty.
> 
> ...


Ha I have a minolta x700 ,370s,800si,a maxxum 9ti ,9000, and a 5000 i got at a yard sale for fun,and every thing you can imagine for each of them ,But my Canon system is what I use ! For the long run I would go with Canon .


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Mar 24, 2008)

Luis, I promise you that you will love your A200. Great choice! You'll love Sony. I love my A200 and I received the two lens kit on Thursday. It's a beautiful camera and has so far given me the most quality that it can.

The only thing I hate is that the flash doesn't pop high enough so at wide angles, you see a shadow of the lens in the picture but can easily be fixed.

I hope that this is another Sony fan at TPF.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 24, 2008)

MX962 said:


> Ha I have a minolta x700 ,370s,800si,a maxxum 9ti ,9000, and a 5000 i got at a yard sale for fun,and every thing you can imagine for each of them ,But my Canon system is what I use ! For the long run I would go with Canon .



That's nice I guess, but I'm 100% sure Sony will have a big part of the cake in a near future, so I bought an A200 because was the best camera at the best price and I believe in Sony, they bought Konica Minolta, they have 24 lenses already (ok, a lot of them are the same Minolta lenses, but still), they own the 11% of Tamron and they made an agreement with Carl Zeiss (there are already 4 Carl Zeiss lenses, and 8 more to be released soon), plus almost all Sigma lenses are compatible with Sony Alpha Mount.

I used all 3 cameras, and the A200 seems and felt like was the best choice, I have enough lenses options for it, and even if it isn't the best company, Sigma lenses are good and at a nice price, plus, my A200 will stabilize them, and, if I could afford expensive lenses in the future, there are the G series and Carl Zeiss, plus some non-G good lenses.

I thought a lot this, because this, and my old Minolta X-300s, will be the cameras I will use at my career at the university (In Mexico it's called "Diseño y Comunicación Visual" Which is more or less "Design and Visual Communications")

And by the way, loyalty has absolutely anything to do with the amount of stuff bought.



ChickenFriedRyce said:


> Luis, I promise you that you will love your A200. Great choice! You'll love Sony. I love my A200 and I received the two lens kit on Thursday. It's a beautiful camera and has so far given me the most quality that it can.



I hope you're right, I really loved the camera when I used it at the local store (quite a few times). About the kit lenses, how good is the 70-300mm? I'm thinking on buying that one or the Sigma 70-300mm APO, which adds Macro to the list (1:2 at 200mm-300mm).



ChickenFriedRyce said:


> The only thing I hate is that the flash doesn't pop high enough so at wide angles, you see a shadow of the lens in the picture but can easily be fixed.



Yeah, I read about that, but in exchange, the flash actually works with Macro, Did you already try out that? 



MX962 said:


> I hope that this is another Sony fan at TPF.



Likely to happen, I was Minolta fan, and for my humble point of view, sony has been making a good job.

I really liked the times I used it, quite more than D40x and Rebel XTi.

So far, I already love it, and mine hasn't even arrive


----------



## MX962 (Mar 24, 2008)

Oh dont get me wrong I love Minolta thats why I own so many of them,till they left me high and dry in the digital revolution,and waiting what neer 5 years for a decent minolta digital to come out,thats why I whent else where is all,I'm not into waiting for some one to catch up is what I'm trying to say.... Cheers


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 24, 2008)

MX962 said:


> Oh dont get me wrong I love Minolta thats why I own so many of them,till they left me high and dry in the digital revolution,and waiting what neer 5 years for a decent minolta digital to come out,thats why I whent else where is all,I'm not into waiting for some one to catch up is what I'm trying to say.... Cheers



Ok, I got your point now 

But I'm, more likely to be a lot younger than you, so I didn't feel those 5 years.


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Mar 24, 2008)

The 75-300mm is pretty good. It's very nice but it can be like carrying a log on your camera. Great if you want to "shoot" a bird or an airplane.

About the flash, yes I have tried it with the macro and yes it does work but in the near future, I hope to purchase an additional flash for portrait purposes. I just need to find one for cheap. :]


----------



## Early (Mar 24, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> Ok, thank you very much.
> 
> One more question: Is the A200 (or A300 if available) a bad option? In film based reflexes I'm a fan of Minolta, and I have those 2 lenses I mentioned and I forgot my Macro 1:1 from Minolta.
> 
> ...


Those lenses were made for the old manual focus cameras and won't match up with the Sony.  You'd have to use Minolta Maxxum lenses for that.


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 24, 2008)

If you're deciding on a Canon, look at a 30D You can get them for $799USD new at bhphotovideo.com and you can find them for probably $600-$700 used and in very good condition.

It's superior to the XTI. I'm not sure about the Sony specs but the 30D is 8mp, has spot metering, 5 fps, faster AF (than the xti), a top LCD, scroll wheel for much more intuitive controls, and other things that make it a very, very good camera for a good price. It's the last gen of the XXD series as the 40D just came out, but it's by no means an underperformer.

Sony just announced that they developed a FF sensor not that long ago, so if they put it in a DSLR, they'll be set for catering to a pro market. You really can't go wrong with most any system out there.


----------



## MX962 (Mar 24, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> Ok, I got your point now
> 
> But I'm, more likely to be a lot younger than you, so I didn't feel those 5 years.


LMAO:mrgreen:Have fun with what ever you get thats the main thing


----------



## shorty6049 (Mar 24, 2008)

Welcome to the Sony club! you wont be disappointed. I have the sony a700 and its absolutely awesome. I had the a100 and it was a great first camera, and i've heard good things about the a200 as well.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 24, 2008)

Early said:


> Those lenses were made for the old manual focus cameras and won't match up with the Sony.  You'd have to use Minolta Maxxum lenses for that.



I'm aware of that now, but thank you for the warning 



ChickenFriedRyce said:


> About the flash, yes I have tried it with the macro and yes it does work but in the near future, I hope to purchase an additional flash for portrait purposes. I just need to find one for cheap. :]



And, I want an external flash too, but here in Mexico everything is at least 30% more expensive than in USA.

Ok, is good to know that the 70-300mm has a decent quality, I will like to test both of them tough, thanks again 



shorty6049 said:


> *Welcome to the Sony club!* you wont be disappointed. I have the sony a700 and its absolutely awesome. I had the a100 and it was a great first camera, and i've heard good things about the a200 as well.



My pleasure 

Just one day more and it will be in my hands


----------



## shorty6049 (Mar 24, 2008)

as for a flash, if you have anyone who trusts you in the US, you could maybe have them buy it and ship it to you or something too... or check out ebay for an old minolta flash, like the HS 3600, or 5600, i belive both of those will work on the alpha, because they're just the minolta versions of the sony HVL56am and HVL36am


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 24, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> as for a flash, if you have anyone who trusts you in the US, you could maybe have them buy it and ship it to you or something too... or check out ebay for an old minolta flash, like the HS 3600, or 5600, i belive both of those will work on the alpha, because they're just the minolta versions of the sony HVL56am and HVL36am



The problem is that Mexico charges 26% extra for any product coming for outside, for example, If I buy in ebay a 200 dollars flash then I will have to pay 52 bucks more here in Mexico, plus another 40 dollars of shipment, which will lend me to a 46% percent more expensive flash, so it's even better to buy here. 

Yes, I live in a poor, yet, expensive country, sadly reality haha.


----------



## skieur (Mar 25, 2008)

I just bought the Sony A350 with the Sigma 18 to 50mm F. 2.8 macro and I am waiting for the Sigma 70 to 200mm f. 2.8 which will be coming out in April.

I find the autofocus quite fast and I understand faster than the Canon according to the write ups.  The new approach to live view is great with no lag time or black out and I am use to tilt LCD on one of my other cameras so that is super too.

skieur


----------



## compur (Mar 25, 2008)

LuisAugusto said:


> I like a lot the A200 because it's compatible with Minolta



The A200 is compatible with Minolta _Maxxum_ lenses but not with
your Minolta X300 lenses.  Minolta AF lenses use an entirely different 
mount from their manual focus lenses.


----------



## LuisAugusto (Mar 27, 2008)

compur said:


> The A200 is compatible with Minolta _Maxxum_ lenses but not with
> your Minolta X300 lenses.  Minolta AF lenses use an entirely different
> mount from their manual focus lenses.



I know that.

By the way, I thought about buying an A300, but at the end I decided that the around 250 dollars that they will charge me here where too much for live preview, even when the Sony implementation rules.


----------



## thirrouard (May 16, 2008)

I "upgraded" from a Minolta 7D to a Canon 30D. And well, what a disappointment!
The focus is faster, and the lens I got for the canon are USM, so it's a pleasure to focus, but talking about Image Quality, really, there is almost no improvement if any... the definition is a little higher, but that's all... 6 to 8Mp... I wanted an improvement in low light performance, I saw some test that said the 30D was so good at high ISO, but that's really bull****. The test are made in JPEG, but the RAW is aweful! my minolta was doing better at ISO 800 than the 30D at ISO 400...

Considering the alphas are the successor of the Minolta 5D and 7D, really, if they are cheaper in your country, then go for the sony!
I used a alpha 100 and really liked it. It felt like a lower version than the 7D, the 7D is semi pro when the alpha 100 200 300 are entry level, the 700 is the semi pro version, but the difference in image quality is not very hight, it's more about the built and options 
Stil I would rather go for the 700 if I had to go for a sony, but I'm more considering about selling my 7D (I still need better in low light) and 30D to get either a Pentax K20D or a Canon 5D...
The 5D is far more expensive, and older, and as I'm a little disapointed with Canons... But well, I have 2 primes I could use on the 5D...
The K20D is not as good as the 5D in low light, but seems good enough for me, better than my 30D and 7D: can shoot at ISO 800 without much noise, 1600 and 3200 with noise, but "manageable" (like what I got in ISO 800 with the 30D and 7D, it's noisy, but ok that's manageable).
With the 30D in ISO 1600, the noise is unaceptable. And I'm using the RAW, I just can't do anything because the definition is badly affected.
This is taken with the 30D: http://www.thirrouard.com/divers/zenphoto/maclan17/
some photography were taken in ISO1600, it's pretty easy to see, it's dark and when you watch even in modest size you can't see the details on the face...
it's REALLY grainy and I had to put in black and white because the colors were aweful and noise ninja wouldn't do the trick...

So yeah, don't listen to people who talk about Canon and Nikon like gods. They aren't.
They just are brand, and Pentax and Sony are very good brands too.
The only "bad" brand for now is Olympus, because they use very tiny sensor, and right now it's just a stupid strategy... less bokeh, less sensitivity... when we see everybody else go for FF...



Village Idiot said:


> If you're deciding on a Canon, look at a 30D You can get them for $799USD new at bhphotovideo.com and you can find them for probably $600-$700 used and in very good condition.
> 
> It's superior to the XTI. I'm not sure about the Sony specs but the 30D is 8mp, has spot metering, 5 fps, faster AF (than the xti), a top LCD, scroll wheel for much more intuitive controls, and other things that make it a very, very good camera for a good price. It's the last gen of the XXD series as the 40D just came out, but it's by no means an underperformer.
> 
> Sony just announced that they developed a FF sensor not that long ago, so if they put it in a DSLR, they'll be set for catering to a pro market. You really can't go wrong with most any system out there.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 16, 2008)

:meh:

Well, you do realize that any under exposed image at a high ISO will show a mass amount of noise?

Just jacking the ISO up won't cure the fact that there's not enough light in the venue.

Next time, try shooting a properly exposed image at 1600 ISO and then check it out before you start complaining about the noise being too much.. Most all of the really grainy shots in your gallery are under exposed and that's why there's a ton of noise.


----------



## thirrouard (May 17, 2008)

I do realize that. The problem is that the 30D isn't even able to go above ISO 1600 (my 7D neither), and I couldn't go really under f1.4 and 1/30 sec...
Yes, the light was VERY dim...
But in moderate light, I made some compared shot with my Minolta 7D, and at ISO800, with correct exposure, the 30D just do as bad as the 7D, if not worse.
Just check out this picture: http://www.thirrouard.com/divers/zenphoto/albums/maclan17/IMG_0370_2.jpg
it's taken in ISO1600 1/60 f2.2, and wasn't underexposed. For me, the chroma noise is really too hight. If it was a more grainly look it would be ok, but still stronger that I would like (note that the noise is already really visible even in this greatly resized picture. I will upload pictures resized on 6Mpixel so you can compare with the 7D...).
This chroma noise is what I hate the most on the 30D, and that begin to be annoying from ISO400...
The minolta raw may be already treated against this (and there should be an option on the canon to do so), but anyway I don't see any reason why would people want to keep the chroma noise. Ok, there is noise ninja, but honestly I was far happier when I just could have awesome pictures out of the box with my Minolta. Now I have to spend a lot of time on photoshot just to be happy with the shots.
For my compositions, I don't mind, but when I do a 600 photoshot, I would be happier not to have to PS them all...
Fortunatly, my 600 photoshot were taken in ISO 100 

Anyway, I'm not saying the 30D is a bad camera. It's better than the 7D still in some point, there is more pixels and I can surely notice that in a good way, there is some options that are nice (like you can shot straight in black and white JPG, there is not way to do that on the minolta), but I'm disapointed because I was expecting an improvement in IQ quality in ISO 800 and 1600, and in ISO 800, I would say the image are more noisy than on my 7D!... In 1600, the 30D get a slightly clearer image though.
But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO", well, when any real comparaison was done, I guess they only compared the RAW, because his ancestor the 7D was doing just as good as the 30D in hight ISO.
For exemple in dpreview, reviews I really like, that try to be scientific, but I realized they never compare noise with RAW... that's stupid...

Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands. What make me use the 30D instead of my minolta is because I bought 800&#8364; in very nice lenses, and I don't have the equivelent for the minolta, but if I had to go back, I would just buy new lenses for my Minolta...
And yeah, by the way, the lens really does matter more than the camera...
at least, if you are not willing to change "category" (for exemple 30D=>5D=>D3).

PS: I tested a 5D in a shop... in ISO1600, damn, the difference is HUGE... it's almost neater than ISO400 on my freakin' 30D ...
Problem with this camera is the price, + the price of the EF lenses that are still good on FF... glups... ok I'll stick either to my 30D or 7D...
And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D! Common!

NB: Minolta, come back please


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (May 17, 2008)

First you say this:


thirrouard said:


> * But to me, Canon's camera are really over-rated by users and review (for the reviews, I guess getting free cameras and gear help a lot, if you give me even a 1D mkIII and the good L zoom and primes that would go nicely with, I would make advertises for them anyday till my death lol), and most likely because canon users often bash other brands like "the sony are bad in hight ISO"*




Then this:


thirrouard said:


> * Anyway, my point is just that canon user should stop saying that other camera aren't as good as the other brands.*




And then you finish it off with this:


thirrouard said:


> * And Sony really sucks, the a700 is really good, but guys, it's the price of the Canon 5D!*



The Canon 5D (Body only) is $2200 from B&H, and the Sony A700 (body only) is $1300, also from B&H. Either your math is completely off or you just don't realize that's almost $1000 in price diffrence. And you're comparing two different classes of cameras.


----------



## manaheim (May 17, 2008)

I have been a big Sony guy for years... my wife used to say if I decided to buy a gadget that I would basically just go look at what Sony had to offer and buy that.  It was bad.

This includes cameras.

I've never had a Sony SLR, however.

My personal feeling is that Sony is an extremely bad company in a lot of ways.  Their politics and business tactics are beyond questionable, they constantly push proprietary sub-par technologies that hinder their customers and annoy the industry, and a great many of their products really are utter garbage.  Their tech support is horrible, too... and don't even get me started on ergonomics issues.

Oh yeah and they install root kits on their music CDs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

I will say that aside from these issues, I've generally found the Sony P+S cameras to be pretty solid... good optics, nice features, pretty reliable.

However, with all the other issues I have gone from a Sony slave to someone who refuses to buy any Sony products, ever.

Plus, IMO, if you're buying a DSLR you really want to stick with the leaders, and that's really Nikon/Canon IMO.

I know you already bought the cam, and I do hope you love it, but I am mentally incapable of passing by a thread on Sony without voicing my various concerns.  Sony needs to be smacked down... hard.


----------



## thirrouard (May 18, 2008)

ChickenFriedRyce said:


> First you say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunatly, I don't live in the US, so the cheapest way would be ebay, and a700 would be around 1000, when the 5D would be around 1200.
Very very thin difference between two different category of camera. Especially as the 5D is over priced due to the fact it's the cheapest FF anyway (I guess it's going to change when Canon will release the 5D replacement, if they ever do that).
Now if I want to compare things that are comparables, I got my 7D two years ago for 550 from the US on ebay, and the a700 that basically have just more Mpixels is 1000...
Considering the prices of DSLR decrease during those two years, and that the dollar was about 1 back then, there is something seriously wrong.
If I compare to what happened with canon, when I bought my 7D, the canon 30D cost around the double, 1000 (or more, anyway, only people who bought it back them could say for sure), and now the 40D that was released about in the same time as the a700 cost around 700.

So we can easilly say that sony increase dramatically increase his margin, and we are "paying the price" of it 

But price beside, the a700 seems a good camera. I just don't think it worth that much.


----------



## LuisAugusto (May 26, 2008)

Oh, by the way, I already have my A200, I love it, the kit lens sucks at anything lower than f8 but they are still useful. But the mixed between the Minolta AF 50mm F 1.7 (stopped down of course) and the sony is just awesome for the price even wide open it's good because the bokeh is good too


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (May 26, 2008)

I got my 50mm f/1.4 yesterday. It is heaven through the glass. Can't compare anything to it.


----------



## PhotoDonkey (May 26, 2008)

You know, I love my XTI, but I think if I had it to do over again, I might have gone for the Nikon D40.


----------



## tranceplant (May 26, 2008)

for the record. I have a sony a100 and I enjoy it. I love the sony lens and all the good sigma lens are made also for the sony mount. I was just a bit disapointed with the tamron lens, but that has nothing to do with the body.

Also sony has a very good anti shake included on the body, where as Nikon and Canon(I think) it is on the lens which makes the lens more expensive.

Sony is good and a bit cheaper. 
(Also all Nikon sensors are made by sony)


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (May 26, 2008)

tranceplant said:


> (Also all Nikon sensors are made by sony)



This is only true to an extent. They make the sensors for D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D70s, D80, D100, D200, and I believe the D300......... I just uggh aggravate myself. I know half of those, Sony makes the sensors for. But NOT the D3. Nikon implements different image processing engines.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 27, 2008)

thirrouard said:


> Especially as the 5D is over priced due to the fact it's the cheapest FF anyway (I guess it's going to change when Canon will release the 5D replacement, if they ever do that).


 
You're not making any sense. Quit while you're ahead.

The reason FF cameras cost what they do is due to the fact that FF sensors are expensive to make. It's not like Canon said "Hey, we'll make a camera, put a FF sensor in it, and charge $2000 over what our other cameras cost so we can make a ton of money."


----------



## elemental (May 27, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Plus, IMO, if you're buying a DSLR you really want to stick with the leaders, and that's really Nikon/Canon IMO.



I disagree, and upon reading this thread for the first time, I'm glad to see you went with Sony. I made a similar decision last year between a Rebel XT, D40, and K100D, and I have not once regretted buying Pentax. I got a better camera for my needs and a better deal, There are plenty of reasons to buy CaNikon cameras, but they are far from the be-all end-all of the DSLR market. While they have advantages, it would be hard to argue that they're giving you the most for your dollar, and many of their "second-tier" competiiors are pushing the value envelope with features not found on the "leaders'" competitive cameras like in-body shake reduction (Sony, Olympus, Pentax) while their competitors cut what should be standard features to shave costs (D40 with no focus motor? Seriously? Rebel build quality?). Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to buy CaNikon cameras, but there are also plenty of reasons not to. Their marketing very effectively creates the impression that they are the only two camera companies on Earth that matter, which is great for business, but it isn't the truth.

Welcome to the dark (horse) side.


----------

