Posted: 2/20/2009 9:02:55 AM EDT
|
I am in need of advice. Any opinions are greatly appreciated!...
I am buying a digital SLR camera and a zoom lens. Im trying to decide between Canon and Sony. I discovered that Sony puts their image stabilization in the body of the camera and that Canon puts the image stabilization in the lens. For this reason, Canon lenses with built in stabilization are much more expensive than Sony lenses. ($650 vs $250) Someone told me that Canon's lens based image stabilization is better than Sony's image stabilization. How much better? Better enough to pay about $400 more for? Does anyone here know anything about the quality of the image stabilization in the 2 cameras? Is there a difference in picture quality? Is the difference big enough to pay several hundred dollars for? I am buying the camera to take pictures of my son playing sports. Ultimately, Im trying to decide if I should spend the extra money (about $400 more for a lens with stabilization) to buy a Canon XS or if the Sony alpha SLR (which is cheaper - no stabilization needed in lens) will be enough camera to take pics at my sons baseball/football games. Is the Canon overkill? Id appreciate it if someone could help me with this. Id like to save money and buy a Sony but if the Canon is really going to make a difference when shooting sports games Ill pay for it. Ill just buy a little less ammo next time I go shooting... 
|
|
Yep. The Nikon D90 is the hot setup. |
www.dpreview.com will have tons of good information for you. I'd choose Canon every day of the week over Sony. The lens choices are excellent. I own some of the "L" glass from Canon and it is truly amazing. In before the Nikon vs Canon war. 
|
|
FYI, The Canon XSi has in body IS and IS lenses. I have the base kit (XSI + 17-55 IS) and can not make it take a blurry pic unless I manually set the shutter speed to ultra low.
I am planning to add a 55-250 IS soon (but all my spare money has been going into ammo and mags...) |
|
Quoted:
www.dpreview.com will have tons of good information for you. I'd choose Canon every day of the week over Sony. The lens choices are excellent. I own some of the "L" glass from Canon and it is truly amazing. In before the Nikon vs Canon war. +1 for DPReview Canon/Nikon are probably the best in the SLR/DSLR market when you go Medium format (or bigger) it's a whole different ball game |
|
Quoted:
I am in need of advice. Any opinions are greatly appreciated!... I am buying a digital SLR camera and a zoom lens. Im trying to decide between Canon and Sony. I discovered that Sony puts their image stabilization in the body of the camera and that Canon puts the image stabilization in the lens. For this reason, Canon lenses with built in stabilization are much more expensive than Sony lenses. ($650 vs $250) Someone told me that Canon's lens based image stabilization is better than Sony's image stabilization. How much better? Better enough to pay about $400 more for? Does anyone here know anything about the quality of the image stabilization in the 2 cameras? Is there a difference in picture quality? Is the difference big enough to pay several hundred dollars for? I am buying the camera to take pictures of my son playing sports. Ultimately, Im trying to decide if I should spend the extra money (about $400 more for a lens with stabilization) to buy a Canon XS or if the Sony alpha SLR (which is cheaper - no stabilization needed in lens) will be enough camera to take pics at my sons baseball/football games. Is the Canon overkill? Id appreciate it if someone could help me with this. Id like to save money and buy a Sony but if the Canon is really going to make a difference when shooting sports games Ill pay for it. Ill just buy a little less ammo next time I go shooting... If you plan to use the DSLR to shoot sports, then you will need a DSLR with fast focus acquisition and good hi ISO capabilities (to handle varying lighting situations - don't even think about trying to capture action in a dimly light gym without very good hi ISO capabilities i.e. basketball season). I own the predecessor to the current Sony's (a Konica Minolta 5D) and it does not capture action well. The current Sony offering (A700) will do better but its weakness is hi ISO, but Sony has improved in that aspect. Image stabilization (in-body or in-lens) will not help with capturing action. It will come into play when using the long end of a zoom lens. If I were buying today, I would seriously look at Nikon. Nikon has the best hi ISO capabilities IMO. Check out dpreview.com. Lots a reviews and user feedback. |
|
I was in your exact boat about 16 months back. I wanted the Sony since it is a rebadged Minolta and I had have some really nice Minolta glass and HS flash unit to go with my old film outfit. Well, the flash is not interchangable, and I figured I wanted better glass anyhow. I then looked at Nikon and Canon. Spoke with our photography dept. that has been a Nikon shop for 30 years. They told me to go Canon. ( Warranty repairs, service attitudes at Nikon, etc...) Maybe they just didn't want me borroing their lenses all the time? I don't know!? Anyhow I bought the XTi, 580EXII flash, 70-200 f4. and replaced the kit lens with the IS version. That is a major improvement in just optical quality of the glass. Just replaced the 70-200 f4 with the f2.8 IS. What a great piece of glass!! Careful, it is addictive!!
I suggest the Canon, but go for the D40 or D50. I sure wish I had. |
I have a Nikon D-60 and I love it! Cannon also makes great cameras but I would definitely stay away from the Sony. Also the more expensive lenses usually let in more light and are worth the cost. You can pay $99 for an 18mm to 55mm non VR or $700 for an 18mm to 200mm VR zoom lens. Here is a pic I shot with it
|
|
Quoted:
FYI, The Canon XSi has in body IS and IS lenses. Sorry, no it does not. Neither Canon nor Nikon do in-body IS. That said, I would go with Canon or Nikon over Sony because Canon and Nikon have been in the camera business a long time. There are a multitude of Canon and Nikon lenses out there and their quality is top notch. |
|
I prefer Nikon, but Canon makes a decent camera. Personally I've been looking at the Nikon D300.
ETA: I've owned and beat the shit out of a Nikon N65 35mm for the better part of 10 years, I'll never buy another SLR camera unless it is made by Nikon. Plus, the lenses I have from my 35mm days are compatible with Nikon's digital SLR camera bodies. So I already have several Tamron and Nikon lenses I can use with any Nikon digital SLR. |
|
Quoted:
Yep. The Nikon D90 is the hot setup. Kind of overkill, but yea, the D90 is a shit hot camera. I'd look Nikon, then Canon. I'd leave the Sony at the curb, I find their stuff to be overpriced for what it is. |
|
Don't get the Sony get the Canon. I use a Nikon D2X and about to swing for the D3. ONLY because I travel to shitty places so a rugged camera is a good thing. For normal shooting I'd suggest something around 10MP maybe even less and good glass. Don't get all worked up over the processor and image stabilization is something I RARELY use. It is something that can totally screw you up.
Seriously, IS is something you'd be better off not using. Get a tripod it will make all the difference in the world. I literally do 95% of my shooting in all situations without IS turned on. Get the very best glass you can afford and the fastest. Get a body with one of the last two generations of processor and 10MP or less. I cannot stress enough that good glass is the most important part of any camera outfit. Next comes the tripod. Forget the IS it is a gimmick that can screw you more than help you. |
|
wow surprised to see how many folks are skipping over the fact that Is is s suck ass gimmick...
High ISO is a good thing but too high and it gives nasty picts. Anything over 3200 is gonna suck and is kind of a gimmick too. 1600 is as high as I go. more important to me for the shooting I do is the lower end ISOs 50-100 With film and slide I never really shot over 100. Good glass and a tripod... Everything else is a gimmick. For ultra sharp get a remote shutter release. Probably want to use auto white balance and stay away from RAW until you get good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer Nikon, but Canon makes a decent camera. Personally I've been looking at the Nikon D300. You could get 2 AR's for the price of that thing. Hence why I've only been looking at it... 
I'm probably going to end up with the D90, but I want the D300. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
FYI, The Canon XSi has in body IS and IS lenses. Sorry, no it does not. Neither Canon nor Nikon do in-body IS. That said, I would go with Canon or Nikon over Sony because Canon and Nikon have been in the camera business a long time. There are a multitude of Canon and Nikon lenses out there and their quality is top notch. hmmm, must re-read the manual, I swore it did... Maybe it is sold like that since the kit lense is an IS?? |
|
I own an old Canon AE-1 Program and a couple of years ago bought a Canon digital SLR. I have to say I prefer the ease of use with the old AE-1. I just wish Canon would've have made the digitals to operate the same as the film versions. I can't stand having to read a thick technical manual to figure out how to get the digital to do the same thing as the the old film camera. I'm thinking about going back to using the old AE-1 so that I can do the nice shots that I was used to doing. I guess things change... 
|
|
Nikon, Canon or Pentax.
I purchased a Pentax K20d for the fact that I wouldn't have to replace the lenses I already had, that it takes all of the K mount lenses, has image stabilization built into the body and is the only body with dust and moisture seals. If I didn't already have four or more lenses for Pentax cameras I would have purchased a Nikon or a Canon. Dave |
|
Sony manufactures poorly built toys for children and has no business being in a discussion about cameras.
I switched from Nikon to Canon a few years ago because at that point Nikon had fallen behind in the dSLR race … they're both neck and neck now pretty much can't go wrong with either … and someone else said it, don't discount Olyympus either they're a decent manufacturer that was one of the first to redesign their bodies specifically for digital. |
|
I haven't tried it much but I don't know if image stabilization would really help you with sports.
What you want is a good camera with fast button-to-shutter response good and fast AF with tracking, probably fast motor drive speed, vertical grip if you shoot verticals, and a good FAST (f2.8) long lens with responsive autofocus. Depending on what position you are trying to get pics of, baseball is usually some really long shots... I have used a teleconverter with my longest lenses for baseball. I find a monopod to be very helpful for baseball, and football. Your camera will need good high ISO image performance if you shoot night games or indoor events. The good lenses are key. Especially if you're shooting anything at night under the lights or indoors you will need every bit of light you can get and you just can't afford to give up the up to two stops of light to use a ~5.6 lens versus a 2.8. I shoot Nikon gear as I appreciate their efforts to make things forward and backwards compatible - I can use my older manual focus lenses on my newest camera, and I started buying AF lenses even before I had an AF camera. With that said Canon does make good stuff too. Non Nikon/Canon brand lenses will probably be substantially cheaper as would be buying used gear. |
|
Quoted:
I own an old Canon AE-1 Program and a couple of years ago bought a Canon digital SLR. I have to say I prefer the ease of use with the old AE-1. I just wish Canon would've have made the digitals to operate the same as the film versions. I can't stand having to read a thick technical manual to figure out how to get the digital to do the same thing as the the old film camera. I'm thinking about going back to using the old AE-1 so that I can do the nice shots that I was used to doing. I guess things change... The AE-1 is a damn fine Camera Having said that I could never go back to film. I think with digital you'd be well served to learn the following for your camera and forget the rest: Flash settings White Balance RAW settings if it has it Aperture value (priority) Shutter priority Program mode You can throw in bracketing and I think that gets you the settings that you need to shoot good pictures. All the other stuff is fluff sometimes and often results in over processing of the shot. If nothing else those things give you the benefits of the AE1 and more. |
| I'm a big Nikon fan. Try your luck at finding a used camera body. A lot of people want the latest-and-greatest and will sell their 2 year old camera for a song. I bought my son a used Nikon D100 (great camera-but not the latest) for high school photography class for $400. I have a D2X, which was Nikon's flagship, once a $5000 camera body..........now replaced and probably worth $2000. |
|
Quoted:
I haven't tried it much but I don't know if image stabilization would really help you with sports. What you want is a good camera with fast button-to-shutter response good and fast AF with tracking, probably fast motor drive speed, vertical grip if you shoot verticals, and a good FAST (f2.8) long lens with responsive autofocus. Depending on what position you are trying to get pics of, baseball is usually some really long shots... I have used a teleconverter with my longest lenses for baseball. I find a monopod to be very helpful for baseball, and football. Your camera will need good high ISO image performance if you shoot night games or indoor events. The good lenses are key. Especially if you're shooting anything at night under the lights or indoors you will need every bit of light you can get and you just can't afford to give up the up to two stops of light to use a ~5.6 lens versus a 2.8. I shoot Nikon gear as I appreciate their efforts to make things forward and backwards compatible - I can use my older manual focus lenses on my newest camera, and I started buying AF lenses even before I had an AF camera. With that said Canon does make good stuff too. Non Nikon/Canon brand lenses will probably be substantially cheaper as would be buying used gear. Again IS is a junk gimmick. I rarely use mine and I have had shots absolutely ruined with it. The damn thing sits there and hunts until it gets its act together. I hate that it is like a bad auto transmission in a sports car. I want control over the camera not some smoke and mirrors bullshit. You can get amazing lenses without it. I only use it if I am using a monster telephoto or a monster zoom over 400mm and I can't set up a tripod, and it is a single shot but one that I can do 9 times so that one is pretty much guaranteed to work. |
|
Quoted:
I'm a big Nikon fan. Try your luck at finding a used camera body. A lot of people want the latest-and-greatest and will sell their 2 year old camera for a song. I bought my son a used Nikon D100 (great camera-but not the latest) for high school photography class for $400. I have a D2X, which was Nikon's flagship, once a $5000 camera body..........now replaced and probably worth $2000. D100 is still a great camera. You can't go wrong. Unless he is rough on Cameras I'd even suggest a D40 or D60. Unless you are getting paid for your shots I cannot think of anything you can't do successfully with my D2X that a D60 won't do for the consumer photographer. Oh and I think I saw mention that this came with a Kit lens. Kit lenses are typically shit... |
|
Quoted:
I'm a big Nikon fan. Try your luck at finding a used camera body. A lot of people want the latest-and-greatest and will sell their 2 year old camera for a song. I bought my son a used Nikon D100 (great camera-but not the latest) for high school photography class for $400. I have a D2X, which was Nikon's flagship, once a $5000 camera body..........now replaced and probably worth $2000. Correction: The camera I bought my son for $400 is a D200.........And my $5000 D2X is now only worth about $1000! |
|
Quoted:
I am in need of advice. Any opinions are greatly appreciated!... I am buying a digital SLR camera and a zoom lens. Im trying to decide between Canon and Sony. I discovered that Sony puts their image stabilization in the body of the camera and that Canon puts the image stabilization in the lens. For this reason, Canon lenses with built in stabilization are much more expensive than Sony lenses. ($650 vs $250) Someone told me that Canon's lens based image stabilization is better than Sony's image stabilization. How much better? Better enough to pay about $400 more for? Image stabilization in an optical system should be as close as possible to the center of mass of the system. Thus in the lens is optically better. (however, see below) Does anyone here know anything about the quality of the image stabilization in the 2 cameras? Is there a difference in picture quality? Is the difference big enough to pay several hundred dollars for?
Canon and Nikon are the tops of the heap in dSLRs. Somy is piecing together the remnants of Konica+Minolta and trying to make a go of it. I am buying the camera to take pictures of my son playing sports. Ultimately, Im trying to decide if I should spend the extra money (about $400 more for a lens with stabilization) to buy a Canon XS or if the Sony alpha SLR (which is cheaper - no stabilization needed in lens) will be enough camera to take pics at my sons baseball/football games. Is the Canon overkill?
As an avid dSLR-er, if there is reasonable light and you have reasonable hand-eye coordination, image stabilization is "not that great" it reduces the number of fuzzy images, but Image stabilization cannot make the players stop, it only makes the jiggles of the photographer stop. The only thing that makes the players stop is a fast shutter, this requires a bright lens (a lens with s low number after the "F/") and access to high ISO). I have hundreds of photos of girls volleyball (indoors) shot near F/4 and a few at F/2.8 at ISO 800 and these came out just great. Stick with Canon or Nikon––you are really buying into a system of lenses with replacible camera bodies:: not a series of camera bodies with replacible lenses. Canon and Nikon have the best lens lineups (short of Ziess and Hasslebad). I advise you to spend at least $1000 on the main zoom lens for this camera. It may take a while but you will thank me later. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a big Nikon fan. Try your luck at finding a used camera body. A lot of people want the latest-and-greatest and will sell their 2 year old camera for a song. I bought my son a used Nikon D100 (great camera-but not the latest) for high school photography class for $400. I have a D2X, which was Nikon's flagship, once a $5000 camera body..........now replaced and probably worth $2000. Correction: The camera I bought my son for $400 is a D200.........And my $5000 D2X is now only worth about $1000! I just got a used D200 with the accessory grip and it's a pretty nice camera. That plus 80-200/2.8 and 24-100/2.8 lenses are what I'm shooting sports with. |