Canon EOS 350D vs Sony A100?

[eyerouge]

I've decided to buy one of those but can't decide on which one to go with.

Please help me out, any reasoning and hints would be great.

*

Budget
Not above £1300 for any of them including two kit-lenses.

Size
Doesn't matter. They're almost the same size and the difference is none for me. Sony is somewhat heavier but it also doesn't bother me.

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
8 or 10? Would seldom print out images that are larger than an a4, but it would be nice to have the option is I wanted to. Also, cropping an image would be easier with 10 I guess.

How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
10, also only reason why I'd go with the Sony since the 350 has rave reviews and most are very happy with it.

Do you care for manual controls?
Who doesn't?


What will you generally use the camera for?
All around, mostly peeople, snapshots. etc.

Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
Plenty of times about a4 in size. Sometimes larger if possible. However I'd rather have better quality cam than the possibility to make huge printes of semi-crappy shots.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Yes.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Not often, if snapshots aren't included, which they are.

Are there particular brands you like or hate?

I'm very interested in Canon but since I don't have any lenses already I'm free to buy whatever brand. Decided that I want one of these two models, brand doesn't matter - quality of the picture does.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?

Canon EOS 350D / Sony a100

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)

I've never shot with image stabilization before. Only digital camera I've had was Minolta Dimage 7Hi (which died on me 3 days ago, hence I want a real one now...) so I don't know if I need it - probably do if it works very well in lowlight/indoors.

I loved the possibility to change the position / angel of the viewfinder and the a100 has an extra thing (FDA-A1AM) that you can buy that enables you to do so. It amazes me that so few cameras have that per default in their construction - once you try it out you'll never want to be without it. Haven't seen that option for 305D - does it even exist?

The anti-dust function in the sony doesn't interest me and is not a plus from my perspective. Neither is carl zeiss since I won't ever afford those :P

[AlexMonro]

If I remember correctly, Sony have taken over Konica-Minolta and have incorporated KM's anti-shake image stabilisation system into one of their new DSLRs, the Alpha-100. The advantage of this approach is that you only pay for the IS once, in the camera body, rather than each lens, as Canon's system requires. However, remember that any form of image stabilisation only helps with camera shake, it won't help freeze motion blur of a moving subject in low light - for that you want to look at high ISO noise levels, to enable as fast a shutter speed as possible.

Can't immagine why you say you're not interested in Sony's anti-dust feature, which is a secondary function of the anti-shake, unless you never change lenses, in which case, why get a DSLR?

There's probably a wider range of lenses and accessories available for Canon at the moment.

[eyerouge]

Originally Posted by AlexMonro

...The advantage of this approach is that you only pay for the IS once, in the camera body, rather than each lens, as Canon's system requires. /../

Can't immagine why you say you're not interested in Sony's anti-dust feature,

There's probably a wider range of lenses and accessories available for Canon at the moment.

Thank you for pointing out the lens cost advantage, it never occured to me untill now.

Wrote that I wasn't interested in the anti-dust feature mainly because 1) where does the dust go 2) that alone isn't a good enough reason for me to buy a camera that maybe deliverse less quality images compared to eos 350D 3) Even if a camera didn't have anti-dust one could clean it fairly easy 4) Dust (textile fibres etc) are so light-weight sometimes that some of them probably will have to be manualy removed/cleaned even if you do have Sonys version of the anti-dust thingie.

The range of lenses will be, and in most aspects already is, sufficent for any normal user that decides to go with the Sony. They've announced plenty of lenses for all kind of needs.

[pagnamenta]

Whether you go with the Sony of Canon, you will have to still buy lenses. The IS is a nice feature, but not necessary. I've gotten along fine without it. I have used Sony point and shoot cameras, and I'm not at all impressed. This is Sony's first dslr, I'd like to stick with a company that has been producing quality cameras for decades . Canon is my choice.