bobbyc Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 my wife and i are debating between the canon t3i and the sony a55. both have great reviews..the sony has a few more features over the canon. i purchased the a55 for her but it was just a couple days ago so it can be returned. it seems to me i am getting caught up in a name...and the appeal of the many $$$ lenses, but the sony seems to have more than enough lenses to meet our amateur needs. i was wondering if anyone here could point out reasons why i should go with the canon over the sony or keep the sony. i get a bit lost in the tech jargon, i just want to make sure i'm not making a mistake by getting the sony which appears to be a great camera with a lot of nice features, over a reputable name like canon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Frankly for me the decision was predicated on the fact that I had probably $4000 in lenses for an existing SLR (actually, two bodies...) So even though my point-and-shoot is a Nikon P7000, my DSLR is a Pentax same as all my existing lenses. Now they are old, and don't auto-focus, but I'm new to the DSLR thing and never used autofocus SLR's so no skin off my nose. I didn't like that the mirror didn't have SLR-Like split prism and used a 'contrast meter' for focusing. Eventually over the course of several years I got a long lens, intermediate, and wide angle---Pentax sized their basic DSLR lens range to overlap with zooms so you can get away with only three from fisheye to long telephoto. Not the fastest lenses, but if I need a 400mm F2.8 for shooting long range fast-motion, I have one from the SLR and I just manually focus. You are probably fine just sticking with what you have... Chances are in 2 years the bodies will come down in price and you will either stick with what you have or upgrade. Whichever brand you go with, just make sure the bodies in the pro range are compatible with the lenses you buy now. Bodies come and go...lenses seem to last forever! Though my SLR is now...uh...31 years old and still works great. My only regret on THAT purchase was when I lived in Japan I didn't buy the LX to go with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Personally I would either go with a Canon or Nikon if I was looking to get into a DSLR. While Sony might have a decent selection of lenses they will never reach the level or saturation in the market that Canon and Nikon have. When it comes to buying used glass Nikon wins since most Nikor lenses will work on the newer DSLR bodies (there are exceptions based on the fact that some lenses have the autofocus motors in them while others use a in body motor to control your lens functions.) With canon you have to stick with the latest EF/ EFS lenses on the crop bodies but they've been making the EF mount lenses since the early nineties at least. If you decide to take your new SLR on vacation and loose your battery or charger or maybe even your eye piece (which you will) you will almost always find those bits at even the most rinky-dink of camera stores...try that with Sony. Also, when it comes to renting lenses for those special vacation spots, family times or other photo shoots you'll almost always have an easier time finding just the right lens with Nikon or Canon. my opinion is that the same principal applies to accessories like flashes and battery grips as well...you simply have more support with the big boys and that to me is money saved in the long run, especially if you really get into it. My last quip is a personal one...I've never had a Sony product last more than a year without some catastrophic failure...DVD players, MD recorders, head units and televisions....and those are relatively simple things compared to a DSLR. That and their approach to forcing proprietary **** down the consumers throat irks me to no end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Come to think of it, my Sony Disc camera crapped out after 3 years... And that was after I found out my camera was "too old" to employ their disc-to-memory stick adapters so I was constantly swapping floppies. Reminded me of my Amiga. So for work the point-and-shoot Nikon got the nod. Same software since 2004, and that camera is still employed knockaround for really dirty stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgeezer Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 If you are serious about photography and want something more that a simple pocket "point and shoot", then I agree: you should stick to Nikon or Canon. Both are excellent choices. I favor Nikon because my first serious camera was a Nikon F1 that lasted for 40 years of slides. I sold it only because 35mm film was beginning to disappar and I figured I'd better get on the digital band wagon. I have a simple DX40 with two lenses. It can be a "shoot and point" camera or I can go back in time and figure depth of field and other wise manipulate all parameters with ease. I would suggest, with either camera, that you buy two lenses that cover the field from 18 mm to, say 300mm. This will cover about 99% of all your work. Big megapixels help in that you have more detail.. The newer Nikons and Canons can exceed slide film for grain/pixels. This is to say you can have very large files with more detail that one is likely to use in a lifetime. G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I played Kodachrome in a loop for four hours the day they made the announcement... But I retain my 35mms...and The Boy even uses them! Though he is trending more towards the digital since we don't have a home darkroom any longer. My three lenses for the pentax cover 18-400, with the most used being the 45-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240zip Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 This is the best site for digital camera reviews http://www.dpreview.com/ I went with Canon because I had a huge selection of lenses. If you're serious, consider a full-frame digital SLR. For the money, some of the Lumix series DLSRs are good. Check the reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Do you need a DSLR? Lenses get expensive, and it doesn't do as good of post-processing on camera, designed to leave it up to the user to fiddle with pics later. I bought a canon t1i refurb on sale from canon direct. It was $589 for the body, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens, and 55-250 f/4-5.6 lens (both with image stabilization). It was a great deal. Do I need it? probably not. it was more of a purchase to learn to shoot. My girlfriend opted for a Panasonic FZ40 camera. It's a fantastic high end point and shoot with very nice lens: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072106panasonicdmcfz40.asp If I take a pic with auto settings on my canon vs. her lumix on auto, hers will be significantly better looking (but, you shouldn't be using an SLR in full auto anyway). You can't take an LSR with you everywhere because you'll have to change out lenses most of the time (if you're not using something spiffy like 18mm-200mm, which will be expensive but cover all bases). It'll be heavy. You get the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 thanks all for the info. do we need a dslr?,,,prob not. we have a pretty nice olympus point and shoot...and my wife has taken thousands of pictures with it. but i have this obsession with bigger and better....same holds true on my z : ). she's pretty creative, and i figure with a nice camera she can take pics of the kids and have them printed and recoupe the price of the dslr after just a few sessions. i have dropped litterally thousands of dollars on pictures of our little ones. i haven't played with a whole lot of the new point and shoots but ours is just not fast enought to capture that smile in the split second they give us. just playing in auto mode the picture and capture is a huge improvement. this camera shoots 10 fps, so i can capture without worry. plus our little boy will be getting into sports in the next year or so and i want some quality pictures of him in action. the more i've read...the more i think i'll keep the sony. there are a ton of lenses, esp with the minolta line up working on the sony cameras. plus the price of the lenses is less expensive because the image stabilization is built into the body. plus the translucent mirror makes for extremely quick focus so pictures can be snapped rapidly. i'm thinking i'll keep the kit lense and then pick up a 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6...it runs around $250 for the sony and about $150 for the minolta...appear to be the same lense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I bought this book, it's pretty good and simple to understand: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1307054018&sr=8-3 definitely worth $15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue72 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I have a Sony a500. I already had a Minolta prior to this, so I didn't want to have to buy new telephoto and wide angle lenses. I like the Sony; it hasn't let me down yet and it actually does really well in low light situations. I'm not a professional or expert in the matter by any means, but the camera does what I need it to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Don't spend big money on the brand new body. Get a 1 or 2 year old (NIB) DSLR body and spend the savings on good lenses. Lenses are forever. I vote Canon over Sony if you think you are going to get more serious into it. Besides, if you get out of it, the Canon lenses will be easier to unload. Edited June 2, 2011 by cygnusx1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockerstar Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) I shoot a Nikon, and recommend it to anyone who is looking for a DSLR. I had a friend who picked up a Sony aXX package from costco (since it was "such a great deal") and had a chance to play with it for a few minutes. In my opinion, it felt very cheaply made and I didn't like the feel of it. Lens selection is pretty darn limited as well. If you ever get into photography as a hobby you will definitely be wanting more lenses, which is really a limiting factor with the Sony cameras. Stick to a Nikon or a Cannon. The only reason I would get a cannon over a Nikon is if you had a collection of lenses already. They are both great cameras, but the menus of Nikon are easier to navigate, imo. What's your budget? You can pick up a Nikon D60 or a D40x for a pretty decent price and have some money left over to spend on lenses and accessories! It took me about 8 months to outgrow my D60, although I still shoot it all of the time. My next buy will probably be a babied D90. I spent about $460 on a manufacturer demo D60 used exclusively by a Nikon sales rep about 2 years ago, and their prices are even lower today. Check out eBay for great deals on factory refurb cameras with a warranty! Edited June 3, 2011 by cockerstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 hahaha...well i guess i'm goin canon....now torn between the t3i and the 60d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Canon has so many models it spins your head. There is also a ton of feature overlap. You can't go wrong with either one. Look at sample photos from each and read about the materials and construction of each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 They actually released t3 and t3i at the same time. http://photography.bhinsights.com/content/canons-newest-eos-rebels-t3-and-t3i.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Cygnus brings up a good point, buying a model discontinued or a couple of years old really won't be a 'sacrifice' in terms of functionality. Once you get to a certain level of mega pixel, you just start making big files if you don't crop or do a lot of poster work. I actually started buying my old original point-and-shoot off e-bay for $75 to use at jobsites and 'sacrificial cameras' when things are splashing or the camera is likely to get damaged. I have a full array of slipover lenses, and PLENTY of batteries and chargers now for a Nikon CoolPix 4300. Great little camera and more than enough for shop work at the house, to carry in the car for accident photos or the occasional 'cop abusing power' video... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Yeah I agree...megapixels are nice and all but unless your doing large scale prints all your doing is taking up memory...It's the glass you should spend all your money on and it's the glass that makes the photo (Speaking in generalities so don't kill me all you protographers out there). The difference between 12MP and 18MP is really nill if your printing at 6x8 or 8x12 but if you shoot poor quality glass on the 18MP and a nice L series lens or other prime type lens on the 12mp camera you'll be fooled to think it was the big mama-jama with the nice clear image. Of course if you can afford new I would buy new simply for the larger rear screens, live view, HD video, FPS rating, warranty and what not and just shoot the kit lens and rent when the mood strikes. One thing I would absolutely do if you buy Canon is to buy this 50mm right off the bat... at 1.8 this is a fantastic low light portrait lens for very little money. It does feel a bit cheap but it's lite and fast...did I mention cheap? In a crop body it's really 85mm (ish) but still very usable. Also protect you investment with some filters and buy a circular polarizer and ND filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proxlamus© Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I have the Canon T2i.. LOVE it. I was pissed when the T3i came out days later. the 50mm 1.8 f/stop lens Sparky is talking about is about $119 now at Mikes Camera here in town. Also Bobby, with your kids, the video that comes out of the T3i is outstanding. 1080p video?! hell yeh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 As a pro photographer for over 30 years I have both Canon & Nikon in my history. They are the top 2 w/ pros for a reason. On another note, the technology of the “enthusiast†level camera of the current year is far superior to the “pro†level camera of several years old. The difference is huge also with lenses w/ vibration reduction (Nikon) & image stabilization (Canon) now allowing 3-4 F stops of low light capability. Better quality sensor w/ low noise & ridiculously forgiving in speed. How can I say, “SWEETâ€! Get yourself the newest model DSLR w/ all bells & whistles meeting your needs for only a few hundred. Read up in dpreview.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.