Sony v Nikon

wilsnunn

wilsnunn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
215
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Sony A-700 or Nikon D300 (or indeed D300s) i have been looking at both, and cant see much difference, apart from £200.

Daniel
 
If you are looking at body only prices I would have thought that the difference was more like £400+ at street prices (A700 is ~£550)?

They are both very good cameras & the Nikon is ultimately a little better overall but it certainly loses the vfm battle.
If you don't need that little extra in the body then £400 buys some nice glass.

However, get yourself to a camera shop & try handling them both.
 
In-body IS versus better autofocus and more £££. I haven't used either but these are the main differences on paper, so it depends what you shoot (Nikon must be better for sports, and sony for landscapes and portraits?). Sony looks potentially very promising so it may be a good time to jump the ship.
 
Don't forget to look at lens price and availability. Sony is catching up with the lens range but there prices are a bit hard to swallow at times. People always says there's years of Minolta stuff on ebay 2nd hand but the more people have bought into Sony the more these prices have gone up and in my view there's still more 2nd hand availability in the two biggest brands.
 
Ive not had the joy of playing with a D300 but i did manage to compare the A700 and D90, i was going to change to Sony a few weeks ago for the in-body IS. After playing with the Sony i wasnt that impressed to be honest although if you can find the Argos deal actually in stock anywhere its a bargain. Jessops in Meadowhall are doing the A700 + 18-70 for £649 which is bit of bargain too.

The Nikon was far better made and really well laid out (must resist!), availability of lenses is better as well. Considering the sony lenses dont have IS they are very expensive.
 
I was in the same boat, I was going to buy a Sony A700 for the inbuilt body autofocus and the in built image stabilsation. The other camera I was looking at was the D90, but the body on both cameras didn't seem as well built as I would hope.

The a700 had the decent body features and the D90 had the Nikon badge :)

After looking at a good 50+ reviews online, I found the Pentax K20D.

It has the same body features of the A700, inbuilt AF and Image Stabilsation. And it has features from the D90 (and D300), like the Top Plated LCD screen.

The body built quality is comparable to the D300, magnesium alloy that has been weather sealed.

And I got it with a lens for £649!

My friend has just purchased a D90 and he said to me "i can believe I paid an extra £200 more than you and got a camera that seems to be £200 cheaper than yours".

Out of the two you are looking at though I would go for the A700, due to better value for money on the body.
 
Euan said:
Considering the sony lenses dont have IS they are very expensive.
Click to expand...

sony lens don't need IS,but the prices are similar to those of canon and nikon when your talking their top glass,in fact..any glass

canon 70-200

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens/p12847

nikon 70-200

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957

sony 70-200

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-70-200mm-f2-8-g-lens/p1017263

canon 24-70

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-l-usm-lens/p12835

nikon 24-70

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051

sony 24-70

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy...carl-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-zoom-lens-/p1025375

canon 100mm macro

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8l-macro-is-usm-lens/p1033229

nikon 105mm macro

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-105mm-f2-8-g-af-s-vr-if-ed-micro-nikkor-lens/p1012423

sony 100mm macro

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-100mm-f2-8-d-macro-lens/p1013643

as you can see,it's swings and roundabouts :p

best advice is to go and try them out,and then decide :thumbs:
 
The a700 is a lovely camera. I had one for a couple of years before switching to Canon. I know people say the build quality isn't so high, but I never had a problem with it (or the a100 I had before) and the difference in build between it and the Canon 40D wasn't obvious to me. Never even held a Nikon so cannot compare with that I am afraid.

The AF is its weak point for me, and this was the reason for moving to Canon. The Sony isn't great at high noise either but newer firmware has improved things dramatically. I think Sony is better here than its reputation would suggest.

Lens choice is often said to be limited but I am not convinced. Sure, some specialist lenses are missing from the line-up (long teles for example) but the stuff most commonly used is available (sony's usual line, Sony's Zeiss range, Sony/Minolta's G range or the mainstream 2nd hand Minolta stuff). Look at the total cost of kit and there isn't much between the brands, although special deals can sometimes tilt the balance one way or another.

One thing to be careful of is Sony's proprietary hotshoe, which makes their flashes a bit of a pain to use off camera as you might need adapters.

In-body IS is great though. I don't see too many stabilised wide angle/normal/macro primes around for other brands, if that's what you are into.

I've rarely heard a bad word about the Nikon though...
 
The point i was making about sony glass being expensive is you are getting a canon one with IS for very similar to a sony without. The canon non IS 2.8 is £899 the Sony is £1372 quite a price difference which to me makes the fact that the sony has sss not such good value.
 
Euan said:
The point i was making about sony glass being expensive is you are getting a canon one with IS for very similar to a sony without. The canon non IS 2.8 is £899 the Sony is £1372 quite a price difference which to me makes the fact that the sony has sss not such good value.
Click to expand...

maybe that is sony's way of getting something back for the in body IS.however,should you decide that you want the IS version(as i feel most tend to want)it's gonna cost you...£2k in the case of the nikon version!!

also,some of the big two's lens don't give you the option of having or not..an IS or non IS version of them,and canon's new IS 100mm macro is almost a grand compared with sony at around £500..as said,swings and roundabouts...

however..nikon and canon both have years in terms of experience,catalougue/range on sony..and my biggest gripe would be the hotshoe.although said to be better in design,makes it difficult to get accessories to fit without an adapter.
 
I did the same as Luke got Pentax K20d + 18-55 and 50-200 from Jacobs for £700.

Brilliant camera loving every minute with it.
 
stan the man said:
also,some of the big two's lens don't give you the option of having or not..an IS or non IS version of them,and canon's new IS 100mm macro is almost a grand compared with sony at around £500..as said,swings and roundabouts...
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more with that, i was very very close to selling all my Canon gear and getting an A700 for the inbody IS, it was mainly the lack of 2nd hand stuff that was putting me off to be honest.
 
Euan said:
The Nikon was far better made and really well laid out
Click to expand...
I'm surprised thay you say that - the A700 has a better chassis & ergonomically is excellent.
Perhaps it's the fact that you are viewing from a Canon background e.g. I find Canon worse for handling from my Minolta/Sony background than Nikon, Pentax & Olympus & it could be that they are opposite poles i.e. just very different?
 
Having never used a sony this is a slightly biased view but I find the nikon menu system very inturative (sp) and easy to navigate. The thing that always suprises me is the sony lens prices. As has been pointed out lots of times in other threads handle both cameras and see which you find more comfortable and also which menu system seems easier to use, these really do make a difference to how you feel about the camera and how much you will use it, all in my opinion of course. :)
 
Davec223 said:
The thing that always suprises me is the sony lens prices.
Click to expand...
This is changing though as Sony add more of their own & retire Minolta based versions (there is more than a little suspicion that Minolta still get some fee for those which is an additional cost) e.g. look at the price of the Nikon 24-70/2.8 & look at the Sony.
They are very similar but then add in that the Sony becomes stabilised on an Alpha body whereas the Nikon ...
 
I have used a Sony A100, but found that my old D50 gave far sharper/less noiser results. Yes the D300s is a LOT dearer, but you're getting some pretty advanced stuff; LV, HD with stereo ext mic and nice easy menu. But then, I love Nikon Dslrs!
 
wilsnunn said:
Sony A-700 or Nikon D300 (or indeed D300s) i have been looking at both, and cant see much difference, apart from £200.

Daniel
Click to expand...

Looking at the camera options in your Avatar, I'd recommend a D700 over all of them. ;)
 
jvee said:
I did the same as Luke got Pentax K20d + 18-55 and 50-200 from Jacobs for £700.

Brilliant camera loving every minute with it.
Click to expand...

They are great aren't they!

I would challenge anyone to find a better camera for the same money (or even an extra 200quid).
 
Luke_ said:
After looking at a good 50+ reviews online, I found the Pentax K20D.

The body built quality is comparable to the D300, magnesium alloy that has been weather sealed.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike disagreeing with a fellow Pentax user .. the K20D has a fiber reinforced polycarbonate body and a stainless steel chassis.

The new K-7 has a magnesium alloy body.

The K20D is still the best built camera in it's class though.
 
Luke_ said:
I would challenge anyone to find a better camera for the same money (or even an extra 200quid).
Click to expand...
for my needs an A700 is - faster fps & AF.
& whilst Sony doesn't claim any of their bodies to be waterproof at least the A700/A850/A900 series seem to handle adverse conditions very well.

of course your needs may differ ;)
 
Mike.P said:
As much as I dislike disagreeing with a fellow Pentax user .. the K20D has a fiber reinforced polycarbonate body and a stainless steel chassis.

The new K-7 has a magnesium alloy body.

The K20D is still the best built camera in it's class though.
Click to expand...

Ahh my mistake, obviously the salesman saw me coming :|
 
saw a tog drop a A700 from waist hight with what looked like a medium zoom on and it snapped the lens off and left the mounting ring on the lens. magnesium or plastic I don't know which is best.
 
D300. D300s is a bit pointless, basically paying 500 quid for video. If you want to spend £500 on video then you get a video camera :lol:
 
mr bizzare said:
saw a tog drop a A700 from waist hight with what looked like a medium zoom on and it snapped the lens off and left the mounting ring on the lens. magnesium or plastic I don't know which is best.
Click to expand...
Surprising, are you sure that it didn't leave the lens mounting ring on the body as that would be more normal?
having said that I suspect that the same would have happened whether it was a Canon, Nikon, Oly, Pentax or whatever body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top