Canon 20/30D vs. Sony Alpha A100 -- suggestions for DSLR Newbie?

[Sparrow]

I've been into photography for a few years now (I am 24). In addition to my multiple film and digital PnS, I do have a Canon Rebel film SLR, but haven't ever had time to really explore all of its possibilities, and I've never purchased lenses for it. Now that I've graduated from college, I have a lot more spare time than I used to, and I want to get very involved in photography, and to make it a serious hobby. Digital SLRs have fascinated me ever since they came out, and so I have finally decided to make the investment.

I think I have it down to three cameras- the Canon 20D, 30D, or Sony Alpha A100. I want a camera that has great potential, with myself being the one holding it back, not the other way around!

* My budget for either the body-only or the kit is anywhere between $1000 and $1500.

* The camera weight isn't much of a concern for me, although it should be light enough to comfortably ride on my shoulder all day, but heavy enough / substantial enough to withstand bumps/jostles without getting damaged.

* I'd prefer to keep the MPs up in the 8+ range.

* Image quality is extremely important. I would say that image quality (including brightness/contrast/sharpness/noise/etc.) is the greatest concern of mine.

* I do quite a bit of indoor shooting, as well as low-light shooting. I don't do a lot of action shooting, but I'd like the ability to be there if I need it later on.

* I am very fond of Canon - I like dealing with brands that have been involved in their product area for a very long time. In fact, that was something that made me uncomfortable about Sony- they don't have nearly as much SLR experience as Canon ... should this be a concern of mine?

I guess my questions are as follows:
- How much of an impact does the in-body IS make on the Alpha A100? I have an inherited tremor in my hand- nothing major, but it definitely contributes to some bluriness. I am debating whether it would be just as effective for me to have a decent IS lens on hand for low-light shooting? Or would it be useful to have the IS available in all conditions?

- Would you personally recommend the 20D, 30D, or Alpha A100? One thing that made me hesitate is that I had my mom do some local store research for me one day while I was at work. A sales rep at one of our local camera stores told her that an amateur should absolutely NOT purchase any of those cameras, and that the rebel XT would be much more suited to my use. Is this true? Am I wasting my money by purchasing one of those three?

- I am very interested in taking low-light and action shots. Specifically, I am a huge Disney Park fan, and we take many trips to their parks. I would love to eventually take great fireworks shots, as well as shots of the parks at night (buildings, attractions, etc). Are the 20/30D and the Alpha A100 fairly equally suited for low-light photography, or is one better than the other? Or does that skill depend more on the lens than the camera itself?

- In addition to low-light scenic shots, I also take quite a few close-up shots of flowers/bees/birds/etc, scenic shots of local areas of interest-- true-to-life color saturation, brightness, and sharpness are important to me. Although I am very comfortable navigating graphics software, I like to do minimal image modifications on the computer.

- Lens pricing is a concern of mine. I know that I can easily invest thousands in glass alone over time, but between the two, who has the best value in lenses? Are Sony/Minolta lenses cheaper or pricier on average? What about quality? Are they fairly comprable in quality, or is one far superior? Remember, I am a complete newbie with regard to lenses.

- Are there any points that you would recommend I specifically consider? I am feeling a bit overwhelmed right now. As stated before, I am not new to the camera world, but I AM new to understanding all the lingo out there- do any of these cameras have serious downfalls I should know about?

Thanks in advance for any help you are able to offer! I greatly appreciate it.

[forno]

I am new to the DSLR but a mate of mine that is a pro reckons you wont go wrong with Canon/Nikon

More accesories and 3rd party bits too

[Vich]

The Alpha's too new for anyone to really say, but it's a contender.

Camera store guys aren't the best source of good advice. The XT is fine, but saying an amature should "definately not buy a 20D/30D" is hogwash.

I would recommend a used, in-warranty 20D for under $800. It has nearly everything the 30D has for $400 less.

As for low light IS lenses, first understand that zoom lenses never go below f2.8. The cheaper ones (under $1000) are generally f3.5 to f5.6.

Only the prime lenses go below f2.8, and last time I looked the shortest prime that has IS (from Canon) is the 300mm.

Recently; Canon came out with the 17-55 f2.8 IS for $1200.

Point being, if you want IS on a true low-light lens, you'll need to get in-camera IS (not available on Canon). Maybe Sigma has an option I don't know about.

The 17-55 f2.8 IS is also pretty well above your budget, unless you happen on a camera for under $400. Actually, a used 10D would do nicely, and those generally run under $500. Very nice camera, albiet 3 year old technology.

The XT gives excellent results. You would need to see if you like it's ergonomics, and it's a little minimal in a few other areas (Viewfinder, build quality). It's an excellent starter camera for someone partial to Canon.

Hope that helps.

[coldrain]

The Sony A100 is a capable camera in the lower ISO settings. ISO 800 and above get an annoying noise in it though, a noise quite a bit worse than the Canon EOS 30D. The 30D's ISO 3200 is quite a bit better even than the 1600 ISO of the A200.

On the other hand, it does offer IS in the body, so with static subjects you sometimes do not need to go to those higher ISOs.

The IS is mainly very nice when you make long tele photos, or when you make photos of static subjects in lower light without flash, handy in museums where you are allowed to make photos, but without flash, for instance.

The Sony A100 has the same sensor as the Nikon D200, so it may also have the downsides of the D200, but I can not be sure yet because I have not seen enough smples yet. What annoys me of the D200 is that it has difficulty showing smooth transitions in skin tones and towards shadows for instance. I do not like at all what it does there, it is like it clips to certain values making effects like you have too strong jepg compression.

So all in all I would for now go for a Canon DSLR, because of their sensor. But if you do not need the use of the higher ISOs, and you can live with the imprefections of the 10mp sony sensor, then the A100 is a nice choice too.

I do like the Canon lens lineup more though, as far as I can see.