Sony vs. CanoNikon

[sambam]

I have a Sony a200. Got it to see if my interest in photography could be taken further, it turns out it can, and I'm wanting to get some actual *work* in photography.

The problem is the a200 just isn't up to scratch, especially in strange/low light conditions. Part of this is due to the lenses I'm using (kit lenses).

Wanted to know whether the more advanced Sony models compete with the Canon/Nikon models? If they do then I'll invest in a-mount lenses, if not I'll save it for a CanoNikon, and buy lenses for whichever brand I eventually go with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

 

[norvic-boy]

For newbies Sony are very good cameras... especially the a200. Its easy on the pocket, and does everything a new tog would want it to do. Its also easy if you delve into M modes etc. Canon also do nice entry level cameras, I personally have a 450D. And I can't fault it. I went from using the automatic mode to M mode within months because I found it so nice to use, however its not as easy on the pocket as the sonys.
I know nothing about Nikons sorry, couldn't even tell you their entry model.

Hope this helps!

 

[itsdavedotnet]

Sony are good at lower end cameras, but lacking on the top end. There is also a (slightly) limited selection of glass available, next to no second hand equipment, and canikon are more mature systems.

If you're in this for the long run, I'd recommend you jump ship, regardless of how much more bang for buck sony bodies appear to offer However, there are plenty of sony midrange cameras that are great, the A900 sounds an insane price for a full frame, pretty good, camera...

 

[Nifkin]

Investment advice required! Can Sony compete, or am I best with a Canon/Nikon.

Welcome to TP. Am I right to assume that if the answer to your question is 'yes, Sony can compete', you will choose a Sony DSLR system? Is this due to brand loyalty, or have you actually been and played with a Sony, a Canon and a Nikon to see which feels best in your hands? If you haven't already done this, I'd highly recommend that you do

EDIT: Sorry, missed the bit about you already having a Sony.

 

[CT]

All I would say, is if you're going to invest heavily in any camera system -look carefully at the full range of lenses and accessories available. You need a 'system' camera - one which is backed by a full range of lenses and accessories to tackle any photographic situation you might care to. There are very few true system cameras left today, so choose carefully.

 

[ShawWellPete]

I've tried both, having had a Minolta 7D then an Alpha 700 before switching to Nikon (D700). There is a lot of rubbish spoken about Sony, mostly by people who have never owened one.

I was looking to buy some pretty serious lenses and my choices were either the A900 (better detail and resolution) or the D700 (better high ISO). The choice was made easier for me as I was offered a D700 in part payment of some services.

The Sony mount has a couple of huge benefits, the in body anti shake and the huge range of second hand Minolta lenses that are compatible with the mount.

The top end lenses are also, at least, comparible with Nikons. The Sony 70-200 2.8G is head a shoulders above the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR.

The real benefits are in the mid priced set up, before getting the 70-200 2.8G I had the following lenses

Minolta 50mm 1.7
Sigma 10-20mm
Sigma 24-70 2.8
Minolta 70-210 F4 (Beercan)

You could buy that lot for about £700 (second hand)
Because of the anti shake, they all acted as VR lenses. Even the lightweight 50mm which was great in low light.

In my opinion, Canon or Nikon cannot possibly compete with that set up for anything like a similar price.

Food for thought before you go jumping ship!

 

[sambam]

wow... thanks for the quick replies!

I've played around with my friends Canons and Nikons, and have the a200 DSLR. I found all of them comfortable, and couldn't really distinguish a difference in the moderate amount of use I got from them.

I have no problem with the Sony's 'feel' etc and have found it very easy to use, but that is to be expected like you said norvic-boy. It is designed to be easy to use.

I am in it for the long haul, and will be looking at a very varied portfolio to be honest. To begin with I'll need a robust body, and set of lenses that can "do-it-all" in a sense. But then as time goes on and funds become available, I would spend money on specific lenses/kit for specific jobs.

I'm going to be doing band work (studio, set-ups), gig work, portraits & helping out on weddings.

I loved the Nikon, but my friend has an exceptionally good Nikon, so I think it was just pure awe at how amazing the camera was in comparison to mine!

I'm fairly lacking in knowledge on the 'kit' side of things, so wouldn't really know what to look for to cover what I'll need in the beginning.

 

[woof woof]

Sony make some great cameras and if someone wants to give me a Sony full frame camera I'll go home very happy.

 

[Nifkin]

removed

 

[sambam]

Wow... Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for!

Price is a massive factor at the moment so thanks for that.

The High-ISO capabilities seem a big thing to me, I think mainly because at the beginning I won't be doing many large prints, and working in low-light (gigs).

But like you said, I could probably get a wider variety of lenses using the a-mount system, for a lot less money.

Thanks Pete.

 

[sambam]

well Nifkin, yes I would stick with Sony, because at the moment I could do without the cost of a buying a new body and could upgrade my lenses, and save up for a much better body in the Sony range, and already have decent lenses to go with it.

 

[bobiscuit]

My main camera is an A350 - I chose it because it felt better in my hands than the competition (at the time, Canon 450D/Nikon D60).

I also feel like I could do with an upgrade now. I'd like to have a more useable ISO range - I almost never go over ISO 200 because it's just too noisy unless the lighting is perfect and I can get very fast shutter speeds (in which case I don't need high ISO).
Also I'd really like a camera with micro focus adjustment for lenses, as well as more frames per second, weather sealing, and it would be nice to have the option of hiring lenses sometimes!

To stick with Sony I'd need to look at the A850/A900 - too expensive.

So something like Canon 50D would be good... But a full set of lenses with image stabilisation would be a huge cost, so I'd lose 2-3 stops right away compared to any Sony.

There isn't really an ideal option. :shrug:

 

[Denyerec]

Do you know any other friend-photographers with pro kit? If so, buy their brand.

Easiest advice I can give to anyone who's moving up, is buy the same brand as someone you know who already has a stack of gear.

They all take great photos (*), but having access to equipment on loan from a friend that you otherwise can't afford is a MASSIVE benefit.


* Canon AF issues nonwithstanding...

 

[Jaffster]

Don't look at the names/brands - decent glass is what you need.

I own the Sony A300 which is basically the A200 with Live view and the camera has paid for itself and all it's glass as I've used it to shoot several weddings (and I'm being booked more and more so must be doing something right).

Don't bother buying another cropped sensor camera, you're going from poor to slightly less poor. Keep the Sony, get some fast glass. The Minolta lenses are pretty good, infact most of my wedding shots are taken with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7.

It is only when you start to look at full frame cameras that Sony are lacking, the A900 flagship camera is good and I've been considering making this my next purchase for some time now, but it doesn't compare to the Canon 1D and Nikon D3 etc.

Still, it's several thousand pounds cheaper and unless you're a full time professional who needs to high ISO capabilities of the 1D/D3 shooting sports/wildlife then it's no real difference.

 

[woof woof]

"Still, it's several thousand pounds cheaper"

A fairer comparison would be between the Sony A850 / 900 and the Canon and Nikon offerings around the same price point.

 

[Anorakus]

Speaking as an ex-Minolta user, the α900 looks a lovely solid piece of kit. If it had been around at the time I made my decision to go digital with Canon, I'd have been sorely tempted, just by it being compatible with all those full frame compatible Minolta lenses on eBay

Sony appear to have gone for megapixels with the α900 at the expense of high ISO performance, compared to the D700 and 5D2. Canon realised with the G11 that mp count isn't everything - maybe Sony will get into the high ISO race in a big way with their next flagship body?

A.

 

[Brian_C]

To answer the OP's question - are Sony's up to the job. Yes they are!! I use a A700 with a couple of lenses and I'm producing an income from it. I did go through a faze of wanting to jump ship, mainly because of the "kudos" or lack of with a Sony. But Sony has come on leaps and bounds. Read the Sony forum of DPreview to pick up a solid vibe of the Sony community.

Should you jump ship - well from a purely techical view point Sony's A550, A700, 850 & 900 can cope with demanding jobs (sure their are short comings, but there are also shortcomings with Canon and Nikon) - but from an investment point of view I suppose it depends on what you have invested in Sony lenses, flash, grips......

I know for sure I won't be jumping ship anytime soon.

 

[Brian_C]

.....also can I just add. Try not to get dragged in and fooled by the "I'll be better if I get a newer camera" foolishness. Just cause you've bought a "better", more feature laden camera will not automatically produce better results.

 

[puddleduck]

nses on eBay

Sony appear to have gone for megapixels with the α900 at the expense of high ISO performance, compared to the D700 and 5D2.

Thats one way to look at it, but the camera is aimed at the low ISO market, where it performs superbly.

I moved from a D700 to A900 because I don't care about high ISO. At low ISO, the A900 is a good deal better than the D700 for image acuity.

I think the high ISO use case is over-stated in many instances.

 

[norvic-boy]

wow... thanks for the quick replies!

I've played around with my friends Canons and Nikons, and have the a200 DSLR. I found all of them comfortable, and couldn't really distinguish a difference in the moderate amount of use I got from them.

I have no problem with the Sony's 'feel' etc and have found it very easy to use, but that is to be expected like you said norvic-boy. It is designed to be easy to use.

I am in it for the long haul, and will be looking at a very varied portfolio to be honest. To begin with I'll need a robust body, and set of lenses that can "do-it-all" in a sense. But then as time goes on and funds become available, I would spend money on specific lenses/kit for specific jobs.

I'm going to be doing band work (studio, set-ups), gig work, portraits & helping out on weddings.



I loved the Nikon, but my friend has an exceptionally good Nikon, so I think it was just pure awe at how amazing the camera was in comparison to mine!

I'm fairly lacking in knowledge on the 'kit' side of things, so wouldn't really know what to look for to cover what I'll need in the beginning.

If you're in for the long haul, I would say go with the 450D. I'm not being bias but the range of photography I've used, the 450D has had no limits. Absolutely pucker bit of kit. Have a look at my flickr. All my wildlife shots have been used at the highest ISO on the 450D, it stops at 1600 which is low, but gets the job done! Linky Linky! The quality at this end of the ISO has been good... very good.

And the glass available is top-notch quality stuff! And if you did for instance buy the 450D and felt a bit short on cash, then there is alot of 2nd hand (cheaper) glass!

I think the high ISO use case is over-stated in many instances.

This just backs up what I said about the 450D and its ISO. Thanks andy!

 

[noneforit]

Ive got a Sony A200 and have asked myself the same question many times!!!

The ISO on the A200 is bad above 400 I do agree so to compensate you need some fast lenses. As mentioned, either a Minolta F1.7 or the Sony F1.8 (both are fixed focal) would be a good bet to start with. Ive got a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 and its a decent enough lens (much better in low light than the kit lens and it seems to much better built) and only cost £132 of Ebay 2nd hand.

Unfortunately the Kit Lens for the A200 isnt much cop (IMO) so it would be worth considering a faster lens before jumping ship. Look on Ebay 2nd hand as you wont lose much by selling it on later if you do decide to change models.

Im going to stick with my A200 for the time being and invest in a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 soon. Once Sony have announced some better bodies I will consider upgrading

 

[sambam]

Thanks for all the comments people.

All those who mentioned Sony's working for them thanks, making me think twice about being so quick to jump ship.

Anorakus:

Sony appear to have gone for megapixels with the α900 at the expense of high ISO performance, compared to the D700 and 5D2

This seems a bit odd to me 'cos Sony have done a massive "our cameras work in low-light" ad campaign, but having played with Nikon & Canon, they do seem to have the upper hand.

and like noneforit said... above iso200/400 max the noise is just unbearable on the a200. I've done gigs and I'm shooting on iso800 at 1/20. Lens isn't helping much 'cos max I'm getting out of it is f/5.6 @50mm on 18-70mm lens. That sort of shutter speed is useless for gigs.

I suppose my main query is regarding the higher end Sonys... I don't want to invest in glass/kit if the higher end Sonys will be significantly poorer than a CanoNikon choice!

noneforit how much have the minolta lenses affected your need to use the higher iso settings on the a200?

thanks norvic-boy I will look into the 450d.. one of my friends is a wedding photographer and has lots of Canon kit, so that would be a plus as a few have said already.

brian c thanks for info on a700... I'll look into those too. But on your comment about better camera/better photographer, it's not a case of that at all, I'm very happy with my photography but the camera/lenses performance aren't up to scratch when it comes to slightly poor light conditions, that's the only reason I'm looking to upgrade really. If i don't have to I won't, I'd rather have the money

Jaffster definately get your point about cropped sensor, full-frame would be better investment in the long run.

 

[noneforit]

Although I dont own either of the Prime Lenses (Sony 1.8 or Minolta 1.7) I have used them both on my A200 and the wide aperture allows for a faster shutter speed. I usually shoot at ISO200 and even bumping upto 400 using one of these lenses in low light allowed for a decent shutter speed. Obviously at F1.7/F1.8 you have got a shallow depth of field so gotta take that into account

 

[pete.rush]

All I would say, is if you're going to invest heavily in any camera system -look carefully at the full range of lenses and accessories available. You need a 'system' camera - one which is backed by a full range of lenses and accessories to tackle any photographic situation you might care to. There are very few true system cameras left today, so choose carefully.

I think CT has hit it on the nail........

he problem is the a200 just isn't up to scratch, especially in strange/low light conditions. Part of this is due to the lenses I'm using (kit lenses).

That's you problem straight away. You need to invest in quality (doesn't have to be expensive) optics. Get the right lens on the camera and that will significantly improve your images, as long as you understand the basics of composing an image.

As for lenses for sony, there is a large pool of very good Minolta lenses out there, but predominantly on the 2nd hand market, pricewise for the current sony lenses, I would say tend to be abit more expensive than their canon / nikon equivalents and the range is limited at the moment, but that will be addressed, at the end of the day your investing in a complete system, so do your research.........

 

[puddleduck]

I would say tend to be abit more expensive than their canon / nikon equivalents and the range is limited at the moment, but that will be addressed, at the end of the day your investing in a complete system, so do your research.........

There are nearly 400 auto focus Sony fit lens around from all manufactures currently. 397 at the last count IIRC.

Certainly not as many as Nikon or Canon, but honestly, nearly 400 isn't a bad count really.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Wanted to know whether the more advanced Sony models compete with the Canon/Nikon models? If they do then I'll invest in a-mount lenses, if not I'll save it for a CanoNikon, and buy lenses for whichever brand I eventually go with.

I have an A700, it's an excellent camera. With v4 firmware the high ISO in-camera jpgs are much better than on the A200/300 (and if shot in raw and processed on a computer better still).

Lenses, well, there's 25 years' worth of A mount lenses available on the second hand market since Minolta introduced the first auto-focus SLR (yes, even before the "more mature" Canon and Nikon systems). This is slightly more than the "next to no second hand" mentioned earlier in the topic.

Canon and Nikon have a greater range of new lenses than Sony, so if you wanted a 300/4 (rather than 2.8) you could get a new one rather than needing to hunt around on ebay for a s/h Minolta like I did. However neither of them have autofocus Zeiss lenses available, where Sony do so there is a fair amout of "swings and roundabouts."

 

[AndyWest]

There is always the cheap option of purchasing old manual focus lenses and adapters. These fast prime lenses can be bought for as little as £10 for a good Helios 58mm f2 prime lens. A Super Takumar 50mm f1.8 will be about £25 to £50 for a good one. At least this way you could see if it was lenses that you needed to purchase or a new body.

 

[Pathway]

Not trying to start any arguments here but A200 to Canon 450D is not really much of an upgrade in any area - A200 to A700/A850/A900 would be a significant step up and any of the higher end Canons/Nikons would be so as well.

Just my 2p, if you are in it for the long hall you should be looking to take a bigger step up than one entry level to another (and don't forget the Sony sensor is the same as the Nikon in many cases - made by...Sony)

 

[Chiggs]

Just moved up from A200 to A850 with 28-75mm f2.8 lens. Bought it at Focus (Cameraworld) is it better ? your to right it is......I am one happy puppy.

It "feels" better, its easy to use, the magnesium body is quality and at full frame its simply outstanding. The penta-prism view finder is just awsome. Off out to shoot with it this weekend and cant wait.

 

[stevel123]

Just moved up from A200 to A850 with 28-75mm f2.8 lens. Bought it at Focus (Cameraworld) is it better ? your to right it is......I am one happy puppy.

It "feels" better, its easy to use, the magnesium body is quality and at full frame its simply outstanding. The penta-prism view finder is just awsome. Off out to shoot with it this weekend and cant wait.

I've just been doing some photography for my son's school and really suffered with ISO noise with my 350 and 50mm 1.4 / 70-400G as others have pointed out, above ISO 400 and it is noticeable. My point: Is ISO performance significantly better with the A850 ?

 

[Jaffster]

Sony are good at lower end cameras, but lacking on the top end. There is also a (slightly) limited selection of glass available, next to no second hand equipment, and canikon are more mature systems.

If you're in this for the long run, I'd recommend you jump ship, regardless of how much more bang for buck sony bodies appear to offer However, there are plenty of sony midrange cameras that are great, the A900 sounds an insane price for a full frame, pretty good, camera...

So all the Minolta lenses on eBay don't fit the Sony cameras? The 'Alpha' mount is the same fitting as the old Minolta lenses.

I'm fully confident with the Sony cameras, all mainstream lenses are there and readily available to buy. The 'limited' selection only really shows when you go looking for rarer, less popular lenses.

 

[trencheel303]

I have a Sony a200. Got it to see if my interest in photography could be taken further, it turns out it can, and I'm wanting to get some actual *work* in photography.

The problem is the a200 just isn't up to scratch, especially in strange/low light conditions. Part of this is due to the lenses I'm using (kit lenses).

Wanted to know whether the more advanced Sony models compete with the Canon/Nikon models? If they do then I'll invest in a-mount lenses, if not I'll save it for a CanoNikon, and buy lenses for whichever brand I eventually go with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

Don't forget also that Sony has built in image stabilisation whereas CaNikon don't.

I don't get why people are saying that Sony aren't as advanced yet. They've gone full frame, what more could folk want?

 

[SimonTALM]

I've not used Sony stuff but I am quite sure that they are capable of pro work and will give comparable results to Nikanon.

In addition to the obvious does the camera technologies give you what you want rule there are 3 considerations I would suggest anyone thinks about when selecting a system (or considering switching);

1) Availability of S/H kit; I don't know how available S/H Sony Quality Glass is, I suspect no where near as available as Nikanon stuff and therefore are the prices higher? Of course this is only an issue if you are considering buying S/H, if you are buying new the the resale value could be important to you.
2) Availability of Hire Options; Hiring difficult yo find or expensive kit for a one off event can be useful as a Pro but I've yet to see anyone hire out Sony accessories or lenses (admittedly I've not looked as I haven't the need )
3) What you can beg, borrow, steal of friends; If you have friends with the same system you may be able to borrow spares off them should you need to.

It's your decision but don't let the Sony / Nikon / Canon fanboys sway you.

 

[puddleduck]

I don't get why people are saying that Sony aren't as advanced yet. They've gone full frame, what more could folk want?

I was in the somewhat unusual position of owning a Sony A900 and a Nikon D700 and top of the line glass for both.

I own a Sony A700 and have a Nikon D300 coming shortly - I can tell you the D300 and Sony A700 are identical in sensor performance, and very closely matched.

IMHO the A900 - for what I shoot - is superior in image quality to the D700. Its probably the same sort of gap between a D3 and a D3X. The A900 delivers superb low ISO (ISO800 below) that easily betters the D700 for detail and accuity.

Certainly the cameras - from A200 up to A900, produce image quality on a par with any Nikon body - no surprises, as Nikon uses Sony sensors for most of their bodies.

Then we have the lenses...

The Sony 24-70 easily matches the Nikon 24-70.
The Sony 16-35 matches the Nikon 17-35 (I prefer the Nikon 17-35 for build quality) - IQ is a wash.
The Sony 70-400 "G" lens makes the Nikkor 80-400 VR look like a 3rd rate embarasment.

For longer lens - such as the 300mm+, then Nikon has the superb 300mm f/4 AF-S readily available, nothing really like it in Sony. Indeed I ended up buying back into Nikon somewhat due to acquring a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S lens. Purely motivated by the glass there.

Frankly, these sort of "vs" questions are pointless because its the person behind the camera that makes more difference than any brand. But the Sony brand is very solid - especially the full-frame options which go toe-to-toe with Nikon's finest and more than hold their own.

 

[trencheel303]

Not only that but the full frame A-900 looks beastage, love the shape at the top of the prism housing!

 

[Chiggs]

[QUOTE But the Sony brand is very solid - especially the full-frame options which go toe-to-toe with Nikon's finest and more than hold their own.[/QUOTE]