(Hope not to dis-please all the Canon users and fans out there by this question)
I am looking to buy a new camera and pretty much had my mind to get a Canon 40D. However I discovered that I might get a company discount of up to 40% on Sony products -
Now I have to choose between the Sony DSLR A-700 or the new Canon 40D.
The Sony to me (which is almost the same price as the Canon, without any discount) seems a better deal - its 2MP more (12MP sensor), little bigger sensor size, and the Sony LCD display is amazing. The body is supposedly better sealed against dust and moisture, etc. Moreover Sony throws in accessories like wireless remote control with the camera.
Can you please help me make my decision by helping me with the following queries -
How is the Sony Image quality compared to the Canon ? ( I have used Sony advanced point-and-shoot DSC-H1 and have been very pleased with its image quality). Is there a difference in the noise, etc. Do high ISOs work well with the Sony. How is the Sony Auto Focus and Image Stabilization compared to Canon systems. (Sony uses in-body IS rather than lens IS)
Finally, Why should I buy a Canon and not a Sony. What are the pros with Canon - Is it a wide array of lens and accessories, or is there more to Canon than that ?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 31, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Camera bodies change every 3 or 4 years or so. I would research the lenses available and choose a system based on the entire system's ability to meet your current and future needs. Special emphasis should be on future needs. Sony's lens inventory is limited compared to Canon's. However if Sony's lens offerings meet your needs then make a choice based on how the cameras feel in your hands. The 2 MP difference is not a big deal.
I have the a700 and am very pleased so far - it's a huge step up from the a100.
Posted by Keith Bauer on November 1, 2007 at 10:40 AM
I'd think very carefully about the FULL system, not just the camera body. As noted, they change fairly quickly in this digital age. 2 mp difference is certainly not a deciding factor. I'd go with the company that you think has the system that meets your needs AND that you believe will be around in the photo industry to support it for as long as you need them to.
Posted by Paul Mc Cann on November 2, 2007 at 5:37 AM
You really want to handle any camera before purchasing it. Don't be embarrassed, go to the shop and spend as much time as it takes to familiarise yourself with it, even if the assistant constantly hovers you.
I used Canon SLRs from 40 years back up to a 10D more recently. I never really took to the digital Canon SLR interface. Upon trying a Minolta 7D I found it much much more to my liking. Perhaps it felt more like an old film slr, I don't know, but certainly Minolta appeared to employ more photographers in their development department because the camera just felt right. Picking it up just made me want to take pictures.
Don't get misled by a huge catalogue of accessories and lenses. You will probably use two lenses more than any others. Your penchant will dictate what those two are.
And don't forget you have built in anti shake with the Sony. The nay sayers will claim it is not as good as those systems that use a lens based anti shake system but I've never seen any definitive confirmation of this claim.
Paul is so right. Sure some cameras have more lenses to offer than Sony, but jeeze, how many lens does a person plan to purchase and actually use. They don't come cheap.In the field I keep with me my most two favorite lenses, I only have four, which covers everything I want to shoot. I liked the feel and the operation of the Sony A100 better than the Canon or Nikon, and have found the appropriate lens for what I want to do. Many other companys now make lens for the Sony and I do hope to upgrade from the A100 that I have now to the Sony A 700. Like I said, Paul gave some good advice.
Gaurav, your camera will be replaced within a few years. The lenses are for ever. Sony has nothing that comes close to any lens that Canon has.
Posted by Gaurav Manglik on November 4, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Thanks all for your comments.
The extra 2MP is obviously not that big a deal. The LCD display in Sony is great but there is no Live View. Canon is a choice with which one cant really go wrong. Sony's handling seems great though, and I am still stuck with the following trade-offs
1) Obviously Canon has a larger array of lens, and as a System is much better known, tested, etc. However all the good Canon Lens with USM (ring-type) and IS are above $1000. With Sony, any Sony or Minolta lens is automatically Image Stabilized. Since IS is not on the lens, the lens is cheaper (even though the glass itself is overpriced)
2) Sony doesnt have Live View. I dont think this is a huge problem, and as many people pointed out - bodies change - so a subsequent Sony body would most likely have Live View. Canon 40D on the other hand does have live view (though not without some probems and compromises with th esmoothness of operation)
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Gaurav,
If you do have a 40% corporate discount with Sony, including lenses, I'd have to go that route so long as the focal lengths you are looking for exist or are planned for production. If the discount does not include lenses, then I'd go back to the drawing board. Lenses are the foundation and are the main part of the system you are buying into. Are the focal lengths you will want to use covered? Do you need any special features such as macro or tilt-shift?
Sony have some Zeiss co-branded lenses that should be excellent performers and the Minolta G (I think they were called) lenses were solid performers comparable to the Canon Ls. As Paul mentioned, you will probably own only a handful of lenses ever and you'll probably only use 1 or 2 of them most of the time.
Minolta (now Sony), Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Canon have all been around for a while. I don't think any of them are about to fall of the face of the earth.
As for myself, I shoot Pentax and Canon. My 40 year old Pentax 50/1.4 is easily on par with my modern Canon 50/1.4. I have a Pentax 28-80 3.5-4.5 that has shot some nice slides on an autofocus film body that would stand up squarely with Canon's 28-105 3.5-4.5
Posted by J Coates on December 30, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Sony basically bought Konica Minolta. KM actually still makes lenses but under different subsidiary name. Sony has been making the imaging sensors for Nikon and many others for years. Sony has been making digital imaging and recording equipment and optics for decades. Sony Alpha mount lenses are some re-badged KM designs. Some are new Sony. Some are Zeiss designs made in Japan under Zeiss quality control experts. Many KM glass is great, cheap, and work on Sony. Sony DSLRs are truly a mix of legacy KM engineering, optics, interface design with Sony resources, expertise, engineering, design, and marketing. If I could get Sony stuff discount, it is a no brainer.
Canon is excellent too.
Posted by James Walley on January 31, 2008 at 5:35 AM
Gee...could you get me an A700 at your company discount?
Posted by alex reissig on March 17, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Another coment on Sony: Take a look at the new cameras/lenses on the horizon. Sony is positioning itself to be one of the top contenders in the DSLR market, just as Minolta used to be in the film era. I don't think that you will go wrong with Sony. I just recently replaced my old Canon D60 with a Sony A200. I am not disapointed.
I'm very late replying to this post, but did want to point one thing out: a previous post above says " Sony has nothing that comes close to any lens that Canon has." That's a bad opinion that needs to be corrected. I sold my KM 7D in November and purchased a Canon 5D, 17-40mm, and 70-200mm 2.8. I couldn't be happier with my new Canon rig ( especially the FF sensor ), but the Canon 70-200mm is NOT better than the Sony 70-200mm. The Sony 70-200mm SSM is probably the best zoom made today, PERIOD. If you saw the bokeh alone on the Sony from a shot set at 2.8, as a Canon owner, you'd realize your Canon isn't the best.
Having said that, Sony glass (which is actually Minolta G glass) is expensive, more than it needs to be. But if you want incredible optics, the KM-made Sony's are hard to beat, even though they're 40% more in price.
Also, all those Minolta white G lenses of the 80's and 90's all fit Sony bodies, and no one with real equipment knowledge can argue that the G series from Minolta isn't killer glass optic-wise. Plus, you get IS on every single lens that Sony and Minolta make or made, since it's in the body. THAT part I miss.
Lastly, keep an eye open on Sony's next body: 24MP FF sensor, and I bet it's a good chunk of cash lower that the 1Ds MKIII.
Discussion
14 repliesI am looking to buy a new camera and pretty much had my mind to get a Canon 40D. However I discovered that I might get a company discount of up to 40% on Sony products -
Now I have to choose between the Sony DSLR A-700 or the new Canon 40D.
The Sony to me (which is almost the same price as the Canon, without any discount) seems a better deal - its 2MP more (12MP sensor), little bigger sensor size, and the Sony LCD display is amazing. The body is supposedly better sealed against dust and moisture, etc. Moreover Sony throws in accessories like wireless remote control with the camera.
(Full DPReview comparison can be seen here)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=sony_dslra700%2Ccanon_eos40d&show=all
Can you please help me make my decision by helping me with the following queries -
How is the Sony Image quality compared to the Canon ? ( I have used Sony advanced point-and-shoot DSC-H1 and have been very pleased with its image quality). Is there a difference in the noise, etc. Do high ISOs work well with the Sony. How is the Sony Auto Focus and Image Stabilization compared to Canon systems. (Sony uses in-body IS rather than lens IS)
Finally, Why should I buy a Canon and not a Sony. What are the pros with Canon - Is it a wide array of lens and accessories, or is there more to Canon than that ?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Just found this on DPReview - I think it will help me a lot.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=24775584
Hopefully, this info might be useful to others as well.
Would not mind hearing further opinions from people on this forum.
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4724/camera-test-sony-alpha-700.html
I have the a700 and am very pleased so far - it's a huge step up from the a100.
I used Canon SLRs from 40 years back up to a 10D more recently. I never really took to the digital Canon SLR interface. Upon trying a Minolta 7D I found it much much more to my liking. Perhaps it felt more like an old film slr, I don't know, but certainly Minolta appeared to employ more photographers in their development department because the camera just felt right. Picking it up just made me want to take pictures.
Don't get misled by a huge catalogue of accessories and lenses. You will probably use two lenses more than any others. Your penchant will dictate what those two are.
And don't forget you have built in anti shake with the Sony. The nay sayers will claim it is not as good as those systems that use a lens based anti shake system but I've never seen any definitive confirmation of this claim.
Just handle them both first !
The extra 2MP is obviously not that big a deal. The LCD display in Sony is great but there is no Live View. Canon is a choice with which one cant really go wrong. Sony's handling seems great though, and I am still stuck with the following trade-offs
1) Obviously Canon has a larger array of lens, and as a System is much better known, tested, etc. However all the good Canon Lens with USM (ring-type) and IS are above $1000. With Sony, any Sony or Minolta lens is automatically Image Stabilized. Since IS is not on the lens, the lens is cheaper (even though the glass itself is overpriced)
2) Sony doesnt have Live View. I dont think this is a huge problem, and as many people pointed out - bodies change - so a subsequent Sony body would most likely have Live View. Canon 40D on the other hand does have live view (though not without some probems and compromises with th esmoothness of operation)
If you do have a 40% corporate discount with Sony, including lenses, I'd have to go that route so long as the focal lengths you are looking for exist or are planned for production. If the discount does not include lenses, then I'd go back to the drawing board. Lenses are the foundation and are the main part of the system you are buying into. Are the focal lengths you will want to use covered? Do you need any special features such as macro or tilt-shift?
Sony have some Zeiss co-branded lenses that should be excellent performers and the Minolta G (I think they were called) lenses were solid performers comparable to the Canon Ls. As Paul mentioned, you will probably own only a handful of lenses ever and you'll probably only use 1 or 2 of them most of the time.
Minolta (now Sony), Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Canon have all been around for a while. I don't think any of them are about to fall of the face of the earth.
As for myself, I shoot Pentax and Canon. My 40 year old Pentax 50/1.4 is easily on par with my modern Canon 50/1.4. I have a Pentax 28-80 3.5-4.5 that has shot some nice slides on an autofocus film body that would stand up squarely with Canon's 28-105 3.5-4.5
Canon is excellent too.
Having said that, Sony glass (which is actually Minolta G glass) is expensive, more than it needs to be. But if you want incredible optics, the KM-made Sony's are hard to beat, even though they're 40% more in price.
Also, all those Minolta white G lenses of the 80's and 90's all fit Sony bodies, and no one with real equipment knowledge can argue that the G series from Minolta isn't killer glass optic-wise. Plus, you get IS on every single lens that Sony and Minolta make or made, since it's in the body. THAT part I miss.
Lastly, keep an eye open on Sony's next body: 24MP FF sensor, and I bet it's a good chunk of cash lower that the 1Ds MKIII.