Why is it 'Canon vs. Nikon', how about Sony?

dinneenp

Hi,
I'm looking at buying a budget dlsr, I have been looking at a lot of websites, magazines etc. A lot of reviews, people etc. seem to go on about Canon vs Nikon or only consider models from those two. I guess that they're in the business the longest and were the main players.

What about Sony (and other brands)?Sony cameras get some very good reviews and have a lot of good features- live view, IS in body, a lot of shortcut buttons etc

Also would you consider a Sony for a newbie to dslr and if not why?

Cheers,
Patrick

melekalikimaka

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I'm looking at buying a budget dlsr, I have been looking at a lot of websites, magazines etc. A lot of reviews, people etc. seem to go on about Canon vs Nikon or only consider models from those two. I guess that they're in the business the longest and were the main players.

What about Sony (and other brands)?Sony cameras get some very good reviews and have a lot of good features- live view, IS in body, a lot of shortcut buttons etc

Also would you consider a Sony for a newbie to dslr and if not why?

Cheers,
Patrick

sony are new to the sldr market thats why... canon and nikon dominate the market, sony cameras are excellent, lens can be quite expensive tho

DaireQuinlan

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I'm looking at buying a budget dlsr, I have been looking at a lot of websites, magazines etc. A lot of reviews, people etc. seem to go on about Canon vs Nikon or only consider models from those two. I guess that they're in the business the longest and were the main players.

What about Sony (and other brands)?Sony cameras get some very good reviews and have a lot of good features- live view, IS in body, a lot of shortcut buttons etc

Also would you consider a Sony for a newbie to dslr and if not why?

Cheers,
Patrick

If I wanted to buy a TV I'd buy Sony. If I wanted to buy a camera, I'd buy a camera from a camera manufacturer. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax. I'd buy a sony camera about as soon as I'd buy one from Samsung or JVC or something.

And before someone jumps down my throat, I -know- that Sony bought up Konica-Minolta. That's not the point.

FoxT

When I decided to buy a camera, I considered only Canon or Nikon. My reasoning was as follows:

Sony, Samsung, etc., probably make perfectly good cameras
but
I want to buy most/all of my gear secondhand
and
As I trade up over the years I want to be free to sell any surplus gear easily.

To be fair to Sony & others, on reviews I have read since then, they do seem to make excellent products, so if you dont care about the used market then there is no reason not to go with them if you like them. Your photos will look just as good either way!

melekalikimaka

Konica-Minolta lens also work on sonys. but yes as daire said, sony arent exactly specialist in the field, puts many off

Rb

Why wouldn't you pick Canon or Nikon? I genuinely cannot see a reason to buy into a system outside of the big four but particularly those two.

Sleepy

I looked at them when deciding to buy my first DSLR and discounted them for the high cost of lenses and lack of availability of second hand gear as I wasn't aware of the Konica - Minolta heritage at the time.

I think they'll become a real contender in a few years but at the moment any Canon lens made since the early eighties works with a Canon dSLR and Nikon can claim an even longer history of compatible lenses though not with the same level of compatibility (i.e. some older lenses won't work on some Nikons).

Given the dominance of both Canon and Nikon over the years, even though old Minolta lenses will work on a new Sony dSLR, there's simply nowhere near the same number of them available on ebay etc.

If you're just looking to get a good camera and one or two lenses and have no intentions of ever upgrading, Sony's cameras are a good buy. If there's a chance you'll get hooked on photography and end up buying more lenses and equipment, however, you're better off sticking with one or the other of the market leaders.

Dara Robinson

One of the lads in college has a sony. His words and not mine, he is "stuck" with it at the moment.

I have used his and it feels flimsy, its not very intuitive and lacking in quality a bit

Like melekalikimaka and Daire said, Nikon and Canon just dominate.
And while Minolta were a great company when it came to film they sucked when it came to digital, so sony buying up Minolta has not done much tbh

duffarama

If I was bothered to go "full frame" I'd pick up a Sony a850 tomorrow, the colour rendition is supposedly very, very good. Also the Zeiss lenses are worth every penny.

However, I'd most likely make the same choice I did 3 years ago and buy Olympus. Great jpegs straight out of the camera, superb lenses, no dust on the sensor, smaller cameras.

SinisterDexter

Yeah down with those Cakon heads! Olympus Rule!


Or not. Canon and Nikon will be better for you in the long run for getting secondhand lenses, am seriously thinking of changing to Canon or Nikon for that reason. But yes Olympus's are great cameras.

duffarama

SinisterDexter wrote: »

Yeah down with those Cakon heads! Olympus Rule!


Or not. Canon and Nikon will be better for you in the long run for getting secondhand lenses, am seriously thinking of changing to Canon or Nikon for that reason. But yes Olympus's are great cameras.

I never said they rule, I said for me I'd choose the same again. The lenses are much better than the cameras!

The only secondhand lenses I buy are for my film cameras, all digital stuff is bought new, not because of a lack of choice, just personal preference

SinisterDexter

Don't back down now Duffarama! We can take them on! Damn all you Cakon heads!:p (and yes I decided the word was Cakon.... I don't know why..... who knows why.... call me if you do.)





[/weird mood]

duffarama

backs slowly out of the thread

sNarah

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Konica-Minolta lens also work on sonys. but yes as daire said, sony arent exactly specialist in the field, puts many off

True, which is why I bought my Sony primarely. Turns out they are not exactly 100% compatible. No match made in heaven sort-of-stuff.

Sleepy wrote: »

I think they'll become a real contender in a few years but at the moment any Canon lens made since the early eighties works with a Canon dSLR and Nikon can claim an even longer history of compatible lenses though not with the same level of compatibility (i.e. some older lenses won't work on some Nikons).

Given the dominance of both Canon and Nikon over the years, even though old Minolta lenses will work on a new Sony dSLR, there's simply nowhere near the same number of them available on ebay etc.

.

By few on ebay, you must realise it actually means VERY few, usually only 10 to max 25% cheaper then retail prices. Very little choice available, new Sony lenses come very expensive.

So for a first camera, yes it will suffice, the quality is excellent, but if you intend to keep forwarding in photography, Sony will make you a LOT poorer than Ni/Canon.

Dara Robinson wrote: »

One of the lads in college has a sony. His words and not mine, he is "stuck" with it at the moment.

I'm afraid, that looking back now, I would not have bought the Sony, eventhough I am happy with it, mainly for above reasons. I do feel "stuck" with it as well, since it was an expensive purchase and I do not have the luxury to buy another expensive camera.

Also, no other photog I know shoots Sony, so borrowing each others lenses, flashes etc. (which happens frequently in our camera club) is not possible. (To gain some experience before actually buying the gear).

So, there's the opinion from a Sony shooter why Ni/Canon are the top
brands, and why they will remain so for another few years imho.

Hope that helped.

Borderfox

If I was shooting studio solely then I would buy an a900, cheapest full frame 20+ mp dslr around. I amnt though and need to go high ISO so that means Canon or Nikon

ThOnda

My colleague bought on his trip to H-K Pentax K-7 and it does exactly what he needs, not to mention that the camera seems to be a bit smarter and more capable than the user so far. Feels quite solid, weatherproof, IS in the body with all Pentax lenses quite a few decades backwards, purely win-win situation.

Lenses and accessories are not so accessible in every single camera shop, but you can get them either locally or on the net.

Chorcai

This is going to end up like a Xbox Vs PS3 thread.








PS3 FTW ! Canon fanboy :p

pete4130

Don't forget Nikon have used Sony sensors in their cameras over the years.....

Martron

I have aan a230 . the down fall is i cant borrow my mates nikon gear. and sony have odd lens thread sizes for filter etec.

other than that its a good camera i got for beginner.

And xbox is way better than ps3

cnocbui

The most viable alternative to Canon and Nikon are Olympus and Panasonic - IMO.

These cameras tend to be a bit smaller and more easily portable. Olympus lenses are as good as the big twos.

For DSLR capabilities and quality when travelling, or just in a small package, Olympus and Panasonic have created the micro four thirds cameras and lenses which are rather interesting.

I wish Samsung was being run by someone with brains and that they had joined the four thirds party, because that would have brought Schneider-Kreuznach lenses into the mix.

I can dream, can't I?

jaqian

One good thing about Sony compared to other cameras is that they have stabilisation built in, that means every lens is stabilised unlike some systems where it is in the lens.

DaireQuinlan

jaqian wrote: »

One good thing about Sony compared to other cameras is that they have stabilisation built in, that means every lens is stabilised unlike some systems where it is in the lens.

Pros and cons to this though. It's less effective for telephotos than stabilisation in lens, and telephotos are where you're most likely to need it, and they also cheaped out. The sensor actually shifts around the place, by anything up to 10% in any direction. This makes actually getting shots that you've framed a bit of a crapshoot. They could have fixed this of course by making the sensor larger by 10% in every direction and then cropping in-camera but that would have cost them.

5uspect

Chorcai wrote: »

This is going to end up like a Xbox Vs PS3 thread.








PS3 FTW ! Canon fanboy :p

pffft, PC gaming ftw.

Heebie

I shoot on a Pentax K20D, with a K10D as a backup body, and my next camera will probably be a K7.

The body of the K20D gives you a lot of features for the money.. and the array of available lenses is immense, since it will take lenses made back as far as the 1950's right through to brand-new lenses.

Samsung markets a camera that is essentially the same as the Pentax line, although it doesn't have the same firmware.. it takes all the same lenses, and is probably worth looking at.

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I'm looking at buying a budget dlsr, I have been looking at a lot of websites, magazines etc. A lot of reviews, people etc. seem to go on about Canon vs Nikon or only consider models from those two. I guess that they're in the business the longest and were the main players.

What about Sony (and other brands)?Sony cameras get some very good reviews and have a lot of good features- live view, IS in body, a lot of shortcut buttons etc

Also would you consider a Sony for a newbie to dslr and if not why?

Cheers,
Patrick

Calina

I've been on holiday and so not reading quite as closely as I should have.

OP, if you require advice regarding the choice of a DSLR, it's generally helpful if you let us know roughly what you want to use the camera for; it makes for more targeted advice.

Any tribal debates of the Nikon vs Canon or Nikon & Canon vs the rest tend not to last too long around here.

My own opinion on what brand to go with for a starter, would be to go for a Canon or Nikon, based solely on the secondhand market mentioned above.

My first DSLR (i'm still a learner) was an Olympus E-420. I love the camera. I think it's great, and I doubt I'll ever get rid of it. It was purchased new. However, I also have a Canon EOS 20D that I picked up second hand on adverts.

The Canon will probably see more use down the line from me, but the live view on the Olympus alone, makes it leaps and bounds ahead of the Canon from a learner standpoint.

The live view is helping me figure out what shutter speeds should be used in what situations and what ISOs etc. and though it doesn't always give you a 100% accurate preview of what you'll end up with, it's usually near the mark.

I've only gotten the Canon over the weekend, so I plan to bring both cameras out, use the live view on the Olympus to figure out the settings, and then translate the settings over to the Canon and take the pictures. Hopefully with enough of this, after a few days/weeks/months in different situations, shutter speeds will become second nature to me.


So I suppose what I'm saying is; for your first DSLR, I recommend anything with live view, as it will help significantly. I think Olympus made a very user-friendly camera with their E-420 and it has helped me a lot, but if you're planning on sticking to one brand forever, and want to build up a collection of lenses, flash guns etc. straight off the bat, then stick to Canon or Nikon.

AnCatDubh

As to the title of the thread, Sony are absolutely fine and produce stunning images in the right hands. The end product from a Sony or Canon or Nikon can be, for all intensive purposes, the same. Take a look at any magazine that does a dSLR head to head and no matter what the brand is evaluated there will be very little in it. Reviews may side with the canon or nikon in the final shake out but the differences tend to be technically minute and you may never arrive at a situation where you would notice such differences. (This, assuming you are comparing similar models entry canon to entry nikon to entry sony).

All noted manufactures produce excellent dSLR's. All noted manufacturers produce excellent optics.

To me, the Nikons and Canons will take you further eventually BUT for most, you will probably be long dead before you'll ever arrive at that point and if you do arrive at that point still alive then what you are about to buy at entry level will long since be irrelevant.

I can't remember the name of the guy but some professional of international repute (wildlife or nature or something) who shall remain nameless because my memory is awful , changed from Canon to Nikon lock, stock and barrel. Nice if you can do it but hardly a particular trend.

I've heard the feel of the camera "in hand" has been a buying choice for some people and i'd guess is a factor. Then again I haven't heard of anyone who's sold a dSLR because it feels wrong. Having said that, the positioning of the camera's controls are undoubtedly suited to whatever a standard hand size / structure is, so if your hand is different then everything mightn't be exactly in a comfortable place.

Remember - photographers are the biggest flock sheep going so it may be best for you to purchase what micko or fred has down the road so you feel part of that social grouping and who was it that said the best camera is the one you have with you. A lot of wisdom here. Mobile phones and disposable film cameras can be great if that's all you have available to you

cnocbui

Spot on.

Waking-Dreams

It's possible that once you get used to a particular brand/model you tend not to deviate. We're bombarded with so many options these days, as though options are the pinnacle of commerce's greatest achievement but sometimes it's too easy to get bogged down in endless choices. Sometimes the simplicity of certain models is more saleable and attractive to the consumer, not what the "professionals use" yada yada. Because as you know, manufacturers use this line of thought when they market their products.

Anyways, I started with a Sony A350 and am happy to stick with Sony, saving for the A900 (someday!). Certainly, at the moment they have a lot of catching up to do in the lenses department, but Sony are a massive corporation that produce a wide range of products. I'd imagine in 3-4 years they'll become more established than at the moment.

AnimalRights

As was said earlier in the thread by all accounts Sony is pretty poor in comparison to Nikon and Canon at high ISOs

smelltheglove

I havent used a sony dslr however I did start off with Konica Minolta who Sony bought. From speaking to various people I always remember one particular thing, one person stated to me that Konica Minolta in the beginning was probably the best dslr on the market but they were terrible at worldwide marketing and lost out to nikon and canon, whether this is true I cant say but the image quality was superb, the iso handling was brilliant, focus was always spot on and one of the most attractive features was that the IS or VR with Nikon was built into the camera rather than the lens so if Sony have adopted this feature then I'd say it would be a huge plus.

I went Nikon myself as I upgraded around the time of the Minolta buyout which meant Sony didnt really have what I was looking for. One thing to remember also, if you want to buy equipment second hand you would find it harder with Sony as there are not as many around as nikon or canon but if cash flow isnt a problem for that sort of thing then go for it.