Canon XTi vs. Nikon D40x vs. Sony A100

[lrogier]

I have narrowed it down to these three in pursuit of my first DSLR. I am wanting to stay under 750 or so but get 10 MP.

I have Minolta Maxxum lenses already (55mm, 28-85 f/3.5-4.5, 70-210 f/4). This makes the Sony very attractive because it backs the start up costs way down. Overall, I don't like the menu on the Sony as well, but I guess that is a matter of learning how to use it.

Would it be worth it to stretch the dollars up to $1000 or so and pick up 55-200 for the Canon or Nikon, and forget about the lenses I already have?

I will be using this camera for hobby photography (architecture, nature, people, portraits), to learn and experiment with.

Anyone have any input on which of these three would be best? Or if there is a significance difference?

Is having the lenses a good enough reason to buy the Sony, even though it is Sony's first camera? (Does anyone know if future Sony cameras will be backwards compatible on the lenses? Are they even planning future cameras?)

My understanding is that the Canon has the best image quality, Nikon has the best menu, and Sony uses my lenses

Any help??

[fionndruinne]

Canon doesn't have the best image quality per se, they have the best high ISO image quality. Nikon also has much better ergonomics than the XTi (some folks disagree, but consensus seems to be so, and I'm of that mind). Sony has rather bad noise, even at ISO 400, which is pretty much flawless on the Canon and the Nikon.

Give us an idea of what kind of shooting you intend to do the most of. For example, low-light would point you in the direction of the Canon or the Nikon (the XTi would have the most fully compatible large-aperture lenses).

However, I'm not sure but that Maxxum 70-210mm f/4 sounds like a good lens, and has a wider aperture than the 55-200mm models you mentioned. Not by a whole lot though.

[timmciglobal]

I guess it really depends what you want to do. You do have some sony usable lenses which is a real bonus and you can find the A100 for dirt cheap online these days.

If your budget is small I'd say buy the A100 and put any extra into glass or flash versus stretching for XTI or D80 if you're not going to buy decent glass.

Tim

[coldrain]

The D40x is rather cut down in features, the D80 is more comparable to the A100 and XTi.

In what time span do you plan to buy a new camera? This week Sony will probably show some new DSLRs (at least one), and it may be interesting to see what they will introduce.

The 55mm lens you have is worthwhile (but 50mm lenses for an XTi and D80 are not expensive), the 28-80 probably will not be spectacular on a DSLR anymore and will miss some wide angle, and the 70-210 F4 is quite ok... not upto the Canon 70-200 f4 L standard by far, but usable and you have it already.

In november or so Canon will have their new cheap 55-250 IS on sale. In case you want to go for an XTi or 30D.

If you are mainly photographing in day light, and you can add a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro to the A100, I think I would go Sony in your case... because of the 55mm and the 70-210 f4. But again, I would wait a bit to see what Sony is going to introduce, because rumor has it that the A100 is out of production (which then would mean a replacement would be near) and a midrange model would be introduced too.

[lrogier]

Thanks for your replies.

I am planning on buying sometime in the next week or so. If Sony is set to introduce a new camera soon, I might wait and see what they have. But I don't want to wait too long.

The photography I want to try is mostly architecture, nature, and people. I want it to be artistic, experimenting with shadows and lighting. I love Ansel Adams and would love to try some nature photography along those lines as well.

For me, it is basically going to be an all-purpose, first DSLR to experiment with and try a lot of different things without processing film like I used to have to do (which is why I quit).

[Rooz]

sounds like you may be wanting a wide angle lens aswell.

[lrogier]

What wide angle would you recommend?

[coldrain]

As standard zoom lens wide angle (replacement of that 28-80.... with the 1.5x crop factor the 18-50 becomes 27-75) the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro.

If you want to go wider (you don't have to right away, 18mm actually is quite wide), the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 EX DC HSM. That is the best ultra wide angle zoom available on the Minolta/Sony mount.

If you would go for a Nikon or Canon, the Tokina 12-24mm f4 is also a very nice option, and a bit more expensive the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM for the Canon... but at ~$700 that probably would be a bit over budget ;)

[lrogier]

Do you think used lenses are worth looking into? Or stick with new?

[griptape]

Do you think used lenses are worth looking into? Or stick with new?

Lenses hold their value extremely well. You're not likely to find any great deals by going with used lenses, but if you find a trustworthy seller, it would save you a few dollars.

[SpecialK]

Just my 2 cents, but I would go with the Sony and your existing lenses, Figure out what you really want or need as you "experiment". You can always salvage some of the investment when you sell the whole outfit. And if you are into "art", noise may be helpful. Plus, you have built-in stabilization. www.keh.com is a popular spot for used lenses, and people post their "happy" stories about cheap lenses all the time. You might be able to find a good manual focus wide angle for cheap :-)

[Rooz]

What wide angle would you recommend?

coldy listed the ones that are best to look at which will depend on which dslr system you pick. the only reason i mentioned wide angle is that i'm also an ansel adams fan and alot of his shots are using wide angle lens'. much wider field of view and a slightly different perspective than the 18mm narrow end of a kit lens, (which is actually around 27mm in 35mm equivalent terms).

there is of course also the olympus e510 you could look at. the d80 and k10d may be too pricey for you. nevertheless, if those 3 you listed originally are the only cams you are looking at then imo the xti presents the best features/ IQ bang for buck. the sony's advantage is if you want to keep your old lens' and i don;t know if they are much good so i can't help.

[lrogier]

Any opinions here on the 18-70 f3.5-5.6 that comes with the a100 kit? Decent lens for a fairly wide angle? It is not as bright as the sigma or tamron 18-50 f2.8, but it's also not gonna bust the budget. Then I could look for a decent wide angle perhaps even going as wide as 10-20 and save up for it.

I am leaning towards the a100 kit with the 18-70, to go with my 28-85 (though they would be almost identical in some ways I think), my 70-210, and my 55mm to get started. I am finding it hard to convince myself to start completely over right now on this first one. Later, if I don't like it, I can always sell it and get something else, I suppose.

[coldrain]

The 18-70 from Sony is actually really rather bad. That is why I recommended the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC macro...
The 18-70 is everyone's favorite doorstop, its optics are :eek::(:p:mad:

[DonSchap]

Best budgetary lens combo: SONY A100 w/ the TAMRON 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)

You use this and you have just about all bases covered, outdoors, and with the HVL-56AM flash attached, indoors is done, too. One lens ... one solution ... practically no dust contamination, either, because of reduced lens swapping.

Good luck in your decision.

[lrogier]

What do you think about the Sigma 18-50 with the f3.5-5.6? I know it's not as good as the f2.8, but on a budget, is it decent enough to be worth the $100 it would cost in order to get a wide angle lens.

And what about the Tamron? Are there any differences with the Sigma to take into account?

[DonSchap]

If you want to know about the SIGMA 18-50 f/3.5-5.6, ask NickCanada. He's had the lens for quite a while and can probably provide real time feedback with how it handles. Personally, my experience says it shoots darker than the 18-250 ... because it closes up that aperture so fast, as you zoom.

Here's a similar chart detailing the 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 and you can clearly see the gulf at only 40mm, a full f-stop of light is lost:

28377

The 18-200(250) does not hit f/5.6 until it is at 70mm ... and not before. What this means is that indoors you will be using a flash with a 18-50(70) that much sooner, to get decent-looking handheld shots.

[speaklightly]

I happen to really agree with Don. Sell the Minolta lenses that you now own on e-bay for the Christmas market. Get the Tamron 18-250mm lens, it is a single lens solution, that lens is hard to beat for consumer quality. As soon as the new Sony A-700's get on the dealer's shelves, the A-100 body will probably drop like a rock. Buy an A-100 body at the low point right before Christmas.

Use the A-100 as your learning tool, equipped with a Tamron 18-250mm lens, naturally. Then, when you have all your ducks in a row, sell the A-100 body and move to the A-700, keeping the Tamron 18-250mm lens.

The next step is to sell the Tamron 18-250mm lens, and move over to some very nice Zeiss glass. Anyway, that is what I would do.

Sarah Joyce

[erichlund]

I happen to really agree with Don. Sell the Minolta lenses that you now own on e-bay for the Christmas market. Get the Tamron 18-250mm lens, it is a single lens solution, that lens is hard to beat for consumer quality. As soon as the new Sony A-700's get on the dealer's shelves, the A-100 body will probably drop like a rock. Buy an A-100 body at the low point right before Christmas.

Use the A-100 as your learning tool, equipped with a Tamron 18-250mm lens, naturally. Then, when you have all your ducks in a row, sell the A-100 body and move to the A-700, keeping the Tamron 18-250mm lens.

The next step is to sell the Tamron 18-250mm lens, and move over to some very nice Zeiss glass. Anyway, that is what I would do.

Sarah Joyce

OTOH, if he sells the Minolta lenses, he's no longer tied to the Sony as a camera choice.

[Rooz]

Use the A-100 as your learning tool, equipped with a Tamron 18-250mm lens, naturally. Then, when you have all your ducks in a row, sell the A-100 body and move to the A-700, keeping the Tamron 18-250mm lens.

not sure this makes alot of sense sarah. learning on an a100 and then upgrading to an a700 ?? if he's a fast learner then he's wasted money on the a100 and if he keeps it for a year or so then there will likely be an a900 around the corner. plus is it really worth the upgrade from the a100-a700 ??

besides which, as erich said, if you're gonna sell your lens' anway why bother with the a100 at all ? it's not the best out there by any measure. may as well grab the a700 if budget permits cos at least that looks like a solid performer on paper. or look at a better performing dslr from another system since there is no reason to go sony unless that is a preference.

[DonSchap]

Back in 2005, I remember looking down at my bag of Minolta-glass and thinking ... "Wow, just when I was finally ready to make the leap into digital SLRs ... Minolta pulls the darn plug!"

I had no Canon ANYTHING! I mean ... this was a fresh start. But, the time for the DSLR had arrived and I made my play. I looked at the Nikon D70s and the Canon EOS 20D ... and wound up buying the relatively new and lauded EOS 20D ... and over the next eight months, the obligatory ton of new glass to go with it. There were various reasons that I wound up with what I did, but SONY made no clear statement when and if they were ever going to show up with a new digital SLR camera (Personally, I hate that part about all these camera companies.).

Then, 10 months later, the SONY A100! It was not quite the finished product I wanted, in my estimation, but it was close enough to use all the glass I had, still in the bags, again. For the past year, I have shot both the Canon and the SONY in an effort to understand the differences between having IS and not having it.

Actually, for me, personally, I've had a steady hand ... so I can acheive really decent handheld shots ... but then again, after climbing a set of stairs or walking two miles to get your position ... handheld can be real torture. So, yeah ... IS in the body is good stuff. Especially ... when none of your glassware has it.

Moving on to present day: The EOS 40D is a disappointment to me, personally, for reasons I have sighted in other threads. I fully expected an effort to support the non-IS-equipped glass ... and it just did not happen.

So ... here comes SONY ... with the "finished" A100 -> the A700 and finally, the camera I originally wanted back in October of 2005 is ready for use.

Buying an A100, as an "introductory" choice, really does offer quite a bit to almost anyone ... if you do not plan on using external devices on it. You've got relatively copious amounts of low-priced quality glass available and rather superior "G" lenses,too. But, from my own experiences, if you are going to use external strobes and flash support ... the A700 would the better choice.

So, don't be too hard on the A100 ... because despite its shortcomings, it does deliver an excellent shot ... runs rings around handheld Canon and Nikon bodies in low light, with non-IS-equipped lenses.

Have a wonderful, good shooting day! :D

[lrogier]

This is great information and food for thought.

Here's a question for you guys:

If I took an identical shot (say for instance natural lighting, ISO 100) with each of these three cameras and laid them side by side at 8x10, would there be noticeable differences? Would you be able to tell which came from which camera?

I know that the Sony has more noise as you go up in ISO (I think that is correct), but is it going to be noticeable without very close comparison?

I am having a hard time justifying the 1400 for the A700. (In other words, out of the question right now). And selling the lenses I have would not bring enough to replace them with anything comparable I don't think.

For just under a 1000 I can get the Sony or Nikon with two lenses (18-55 and 55-200) but I think they are going to be lower quality lenses than what I already have. So I would be spending more money to take a step backwards in lenses. For about $700 I can get the A100 with a Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6 as a starter wide angle lens (the 2.8 is out of my budget), or the A100 with the 18-70 (the doorstop someone called it).

Honestly, I am leaning towards keeping the lenses I have and getting the A100 (waiting a couple of weeks to see if the price drops any).

(Remember, it's easy to spend someone else's money ... :D but I am on a budget here trying to get the most bang for the buck).

But seriously, folks, thanks for the help and discussion. It has been tremendous for me.

[fionndruinne]

So, don't be too hard on the A100 ... because despite its shortcomings, it does deliver an excellent shot ... runs rings around handheld Canon and Nikon bodies in low light, with non-IS-equipped lenses.

Ah, except for the fact that Canon and Nikon both have good-looking and usable ISO 1600, while the Sony A100 looks grainy at 400, and downright noisy at 800! Good luck with the Sony in low-light if there's any kind of action going on in your photo!

[DonSchap]

Look, the A700 addresses every shortcoming the A100 had ... in grand style ... and you still pick on the A100. It's too late, its "finished" upgrade is here. It is a terrific starter camera for almost anyone ... offering you relatively decent in-the-body IS ... an incredible range of glass ... and last but not least ... a doorway into a future unlike any other camera at this time. Just try and get Canon-mount primes for less than $200 each (other than the 50mm f/1.8, of course). This is the budget man's dream, even if he did pony-up and buy the A700 right out of the gate.

Smirk if you want to ... but the SONY/Minolta team is still going and growing. Here's your entry point ... the A100 for just about $500, in about three more weeks. That's pretty sweet .. in my estimation. :D

Heck, that wireless controller is easily worth $200!

[coldrain]

A terrific starter camera is one where you do NO have to think about upgrading right away, Don.