Sony v Nikon v Canon

chrism_scotland

chrism_scotland

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,958
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently I have my Sony A300 and I'm in the process of selling it with the intention of buying an A700.
I'm also selling my Beercan and Ive realsed that aside from that I have little keeping me to the Sony Alpha system and I'm taking a look at Nikon and Canon but just wondering what DSLR's in the Nikon/Sony range are similar spec to the A700, been looking at the D90 is that similar to an A700?
 
EOS 40D and D90, or D300 at a push if you get a used one (and you'll still have to put a few quid in). Used D200 or or a Fuji S5 Pro, which are about £450-500 these days, the S5 being new.

Why change though? The A700 that you're eyeing up is good piece of kit, and the lenses you have seem pretty extensive. The only reason I could see for changing to Canon or Nikon is if you need access to a big range of pro-spec long lenses and even then you have the Sigmas to fit a Sony/Minolta mount.
 
Why are you also selling your lens before you've made your mind up if your staying with Sony or not ?
 
I have the a700 and wouldnt change it for anything (except maybe the a900 :) )

Checked through all the different types, but decided on the 700 as the best for me. It all depends on what you want.
 
Hi there.

I've been considering a similar change - I had Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs and bought a Fuji S5. Image quality wise, the Fuji has a quality that certainly differentiates it from the the Four Thirds cameras. For me though, I really like the build quality of the S5. I began to wonder about resolution and bought a Nikon D80. Ultimately, it made me appreciate the Fuji even more!

However, the Alpha 700 has a better screen, higher resolution and is much faster. The Nikon D90 has a similar quality screen, as well as a second lcd... but is more expensive than the Sony.

I imagine the Canon 40D is also a worthy option, but again the 3 inch screen on the Sony really appeals. And the 50D is more dosh again.

Unless there are certain Nikon/Canon lenses that appeal, if I were in your position I think I would go for the A700
 
Sigismund said:
Hi there.

I've been considering a similar change - I had Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs and bought a Fuji S5. Image quality wise, the Fuji has a quality that certainly differentiates it from the the Four Thirds cameras. For me though, I really like the build quality of the S5. I began to wonder about resolution and bought a Nikon D80. Ultimately, it made me appreciate the Fuji even more!

However, the Alpha 700 has a better screen, higher resolution and is much faster. The Nikon D90 has a similar quality screen, as well as a second lcd... but is more expensive than the Sony.

I imagine the Canon 40D is also a worthy option, but again the 3 inch screen on the Sony really appeals. And the 50D is more dosh again.

Unless there are certain Nikon/Canon lenses that appeal, if I were in your position I think I would go for the A700
Click to expand...
Sound advice indeed. :)

I moved from canon to Nikon two years ago simply because at the time, the D200 was miles better than the 30D and 40D for build quality and weatherproofing. More than that thought, the size and handling was better. Nikon has a smaller range of lenses, especially at the prosumer end, and if handling hadn't been a major thing, I'd have stayed with the Canons. However, in your case, Sony do some great lenses and unless you are after 60mm f/5.6 lenses, then Sony is worth sticking with IMO.

There's a point there somewhere - tell me if you see it :)
 
To be honest I think the D90 is the only thing that would tempt me away from the A700 but I already have a few lenses like the Sigma 10-20 which wouldn't be cheap to replace, that and the lack of in-body IS will probably make me stick with the A700 its just that I've always like the way the Nikon feels in the hand, was tough between the A300 and D60 when I bought my current SLR.

I've noticed that the Canon/Nikon lenses to replace what I have would be pretty dear.
 
Rough prices....

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - about £100
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (amazing kit lens) - £200+
Nikon 18 - 105mm f/3.5-5.6 - £220
Nikon 18 - 135mm f/3.5-5.6 - £290
Sigma 10-20mm (Nikon Fit) - £400
Nikon 12-24mm f/4 - £750+
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 - £750
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (amazing) - £400 approx
 
specialman said:
Rough prices....

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - about £100
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (amazing kit lens) - £200+
Nikon 18 - 105mm f/3.5-5.6 - £220
Nikon 18 - 135mm f/3.5-5.6 - £290
Sigma 10-20mm (Nikon Fit) - £400
Nikon 12-24mm f/4 - £750+
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 - £750
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (amazing) - £400 approx
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, it would really just be my Sigma 10-20 that would cost the most to replace.

Could sell my Minolta 50mm for about £100 and buy a Nikon, and probably sell my Sigma 10-20 for about £250 so wouldn't be too much extra to pay.

Can anyone wit a D90 comment on using lenses that do not have in built IS?
 
If you are comparing similar generations of both, no. They both have their own pros & cons but imo overall they perform similarly.
Of course if you update an in-body IS body all your lenses effectively get upgrades too ...

As for low light abilities it depends upon what bodies you are comparing (e.g. an A700 with firmware V4 & D300 are indistinguishable) & how you process.
 
heidfirst said:
If you are comparing similar generations of both, no. They both have their own pros & cons but imo overall they perform similarly.
Of course if you update an in-body IS body all your lenses effectively get upgrades too ...

As for low light abilities it depends upon what bodies you are comparing (e.g. an A700 with firmware V4 & D300 are indistinguishable) & how you process.
Click to expand...

Thanks Scott, I'm just sorely tempted by the D90 at £740 with the 18-105 VR Kit Lens, soo tough, that and I quite like the handling of the D90.
 
OK, so you save £60 up front with the Nikon but can you replace your 10-20mm, spare battery etc. without spending more than that?

& when you are spending more than £700 an extra £60 is less than 10% - don't spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar ;)
 
Yeah I think your right Scott, besides if I get the A700 I've got all my kit, and replacing the 10-20 would cost a lot, even if I sold mine.

With my Minolta 50mm, Sigma 10-20, Minolta 35-105 and Tamron 55-200 I've got a nice kit, still considering a flashgun and will replace the 35-105 with the Tamron 17-50 likely in the medium term.

I'm quite happy with Sony but just looking around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top