# Which digital SLR?? Sony A100, Nikon D80, or Canon EOS 400D?



## Chumpy (Oct 9, 2006)

Hi
I'm about to purchase a 10mp digital SLR.

I'm torn between the Sony A100, Nikon D80, and Canon EOS 400d.

Is there a comparison of these cameras, in terms of performance?? ie. startup speeds, battery power, continuous shooting etc etc?

I quite like the Sony's capability for digital image stabilisation on the camera body. I believe the Canon is built into each lens (??) What about the Nikon??

Which has the best / cheapest ranges of lenses??

I'm a newbie, so don't have any kit to bring forward from other cameras.

If you were buying from scratch, which would you buy, and why??

Thanks


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 9, 2006)

My personal order of preference would be Nikon, Canon, then Sony.
I'm sure if you search dpreview.com you'll come up with some reviews and comparisons.  Canon and Nikon both sell lenses with stabilization built in, not all lenses from them have it, though, just the IS (Canon) and VR (Nikkor).
Best and cheapest?  Can't have both, Canon and Nikon both have cheap lenses, and awesome lenses.  I personally feel that Nikon's cheap glass is better than Canon's cheap glass, at least as far as kit lenses go.  This is all my opinion and nothing more.


----------



## digital flower (Oct 9, 2006)

Is this something like you are looking for?


----------



## Digital Matt (Oct 9, 2006)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...anon_eos400d,nikon_d80,sony_dslra100&show=all


----------



## Chumpy (Oct 10, 2006)

Thanks to all for the replies. Some good info., and good links.

I was leaning towards the Sony..... then the Canon....
I think the Nikon is nice, but in my novice opinion some of the sample pics are poorer than those on the Canon or Sony (and the Nikon is more expensive by quite a way)

I like the idea of the Canon, but it doesn't have the Image Stabilisation built in the body like the Sony does. To buy Canon lenses with IS built in, would costs a small fortune.

Is IS used much in Digital photography??
How good is it??

Or would I find I never use IS anyway??

Thanks





			
				Digital Matt said:
			
		

> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos400d%2Cnikon_d80%2Csony_dslra100&show=all


----------



## niccig (Oct 10, 2006)

Whether or not IS is useful depends some on what you shoot.  If you shoot a lot of handheld/low light stuff, then it might be a good thing to have.  If you'll be mostly using a tripod (landscapes and such), it may not be worth paying extra for.  I have a Konica Minolta high-end p&s (I believe the A100 was developed by KM, but is produced by Sony since they bought out KM's photo operations) that has image stabilization in the body, and I haven't noticed it working that well (still lots of movement blur at lower shutter speeds).  I've never used an IS/VR lens though.


----------



## fmw (Oct 10, 2006)

The camera you choose is probably not all that important since it will be obselete next year anyway.  More important is to choose a system that you can live with over the long haul.  In a nutshell, go with the Canon or Nikon, both of which have extensive, proven, high quality systems.


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 10, 2006)

I'm inclined to disagree there; the Minolta AF mount has been around a fair while now and the system includes the Dynax/Maxxum film and digital cameras as well as a not insignificant number of very good lenses. Sony have now taken over this system since they are very keen to break into the dSLR market, and I don't see them suddenly getting scared and dropping out. I'll agree that Canon and Nikon have more lenses and accessories which are more widely available, but that doesn't mean you should rule out the alternatives.


----------



## fmw (Oct 10, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Sony have now taken over this system since they are very keen to break into the dSLR market, and I don't see them suddenly getting scared and dropping out. .


 
Like Konica did after 50 years of making SLR's?  

Canon and Nikon are imaging companies with optics at the core of their corporate being.  Sony is an electronics company with optics as a side line.  I would stick with one of the leaders whose support of photographic products for the future is not even remotely in question.  

I'm not denigrating the products at all.  But after years of pro photographic work I learned the value of having a complete, flexible, (scalable to use a computer word) and expertly supported photographic system available.  That may well be available from Sony but we just don't know.  With the other two we know.


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 10, 2006)

I don't doubt that if you want to have a truly extensive system of bodies, lenses and accessories available, and be able to buy the gear or get it repaired anywhere in the world at anytime, Canon or Nikon are the way to go. Although interestingly there's a discussion in another thread right now in which it's being argued that even Nikon's failure to go full-frame means that _only_ Canon can be considered a sensible choice from the whole future-proof-system / camera-as-investment point of view. After all is Nikon really as 'complete' and 'flexible' as Canon if it doesn't offer full-frame? It's not something I agree with, but IMO it shows that the idea of Canon and Nikon as the two and only two safe choices is debatable.

Anyway that's getting off the point a bit. You mentioned your years as a pro. And people recommending Canon and Nikon regularly mention their suitability for professionals. With good reason. But the original poster here said three words that are fairly relevant here... "I'm a newbie". There was no mention of a desire to become a professional wedding or portrait photographer, photojournalist... or anything else profssional for that matter. The things that make Canon and Nikon the most suitable for professionals don't necessarily make them the most suitable for everyone else. If you do indeed wish to be a professional photographer then by all means go for Canon or Nikon. But since that hasn't been stated yet I don't see why the alternatives shouldn't be considered.


----------



## forzaF1 (Oct 12, 2006)

I have owned the D50 and now I use the D200. The D80 has similar stats to the D200. I have held the D80 in Wolf Camera, too. I would definately say the D80. I was very impressed by the pictures it took with such a reltively compact design. I think you'll love it.

Just my $.02

-John


----------



## fmw (Oct 12, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that if you want to have a truly extensive system of bodies, lenses and accessories available, and be able to buy the gear or get it repaired anywhere in the world at anytime, Canon or Nikon are the way to go. Although interestingly there's a discussion in another thread right now in which it's being argued that even Nikon's failure to go full-frame means that _only_ Canon can be considered a sensible choice from the whole future-proof-system / camera-as-investment point of view. After all is Nikon really as 'complete' and 'flexible' as Canon if it doesn't offer full-frame? It's not something I agree with, but IMO it shows that the idea of Canon and Nikon as the two and only two safe choices is debatable.


 
It is a question of resolution, not of frame size so the argument is a little specious. The advantage of full frame isn't resolution at the moment, it is compatibility with 35mm wide angle lenses.  Nikon can make a full frame DSLR by simply putting a full frame sensor in any of its cameras. There is no magic or impediment to that. The first full frame DSLR was actually the Kodak which was built from a Nikon body. The lenses and system are already there. If pros demand a full frame DSLR from Nikon, they will get one. They demanded Canon's IS technology and finally got VR.

Nikon has always been conservative and slow to adopt technology while Canon has always been at the innovative forefront of it. It has always been that way. Both companies have maintained excellent systems. The methods are different, the results are pretty similar.  I think it is fair to say that users of both systems are satisfied with the choice.

Sony isn't in the same ballpark yet.  One day, perhaps.


----------



## Wolff (Oct 31, 2006)

All of the posts thusfar have delt with the quality of the cameras so I'll go in a slightly different direction in the Nikon vs. Canon debate. For me, both are great cameras so the deciding factor was comfort. If you have held a Nikon and then a Canon you notice that where things are located on on the body are very different. I'm right handed and the Canon set-up fit me best. My sister is left handed and the Nikon set-up fit her best. If it comes down to a tie you may just have to try the cameras on for size and see what fits you best.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 31, 2006)

I am with Wolff with this. 
To re-iterate a quick story, I fell in love with the Ruger P-89 when it was first introduced. (At least from the magazine point of view). 
When I went to purchase one, I picked it up and immediate put it back down and told the guy at the counter to get me a 1911 instead. I have picked up a D-2000, D-20, D-70, D-50 and a Canon D-5. I still have my KM 7D and wont part with it. But if I had to switch, I would go with the Canon over the Nikon. It feels better in my hands, and seems like a natural pointer, much like a 1911. 

Go with what you feel most comfortable with.


----------

