OK, so I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to D-SLRs.. although I did tinker with true SLR photography back in my youth, so I have some idea of the basics.

Anyway, I've used bog standard digital compacts (at the higher end of the scale) out of convenience for a some years now, and have achieved some nice results over time. But now I think it's time to move onto the next level and move to D-SLR photography.

Now whilst it would be nice to go out and buy a D40, D300 or A700 or something of at least that (semi-pro) level, at the moment they're probably a bit OTT for both my needs and knowledge level and ergo more than i want to spend at this point.

So for the time being at least its consumer level equipment... and with a bit of research I've pretty much decided on the obvious and maybe not so obvious as potential contenders...

The favourite at the moment is the Sony A-350 shortly followed by the Canon 450D. Problem is... I can't really make my mind up between them both.

My reasoning... on paper at least, there's more 'bang-per-buck' with the A-350 and it seems to have garnered some very good reviews all around. The A-350 is meant to be a camera that is pretty easy to master, and deemed to be an excellent choice for people making the move on up from digital compact photography. I have to admit, the near instant auto focus 'live-view' with the tilting LCD screen appears to be a nice feature to have.. I know true SLR purists will probably hate it.. but it could prove handy. The camera feels more substantial in the hands.. being slight bigger and heavier than the 450D.

The Canon on the other hand comes from a pretty rock solid pedigree, and is again touted as being pretty sweet for a novice D-SLR photographer. Aside from that I have to say as a camera itself there isn't much over and above the Sony. However, the key to the 450's success in my eyes, is that pedigree and its (and it's stablemate's) market penetration. This means there is probably a much more mature support and retail 'network', and it's longevity is assured.. there are places that do lens rentals for instance, giving me affordable options for lens usage that I probably wouldn't get with the Sony. Couple that with friends who have 400D's etc.

So Sony are pretty much the new kid on the block, but I think they have some serious intentions with regards the D-SLR market, as evidenced by their aquisition of the Konica-Minolta photography business. The recent release of the A-200, A-300, A-350 and A-700 being the first real fruits of that merger and the first combined assult on the market by Sony. However.. only time will tell if they are really in it for the long run, and it might prove a bit of a risk in terms of investment to go this route,

Image quality wise (the important bit).. there doesn't appear to be a great deal in it going on from the reviews, with the Sony probably having the slight edge.

So that's my dilema.. any advice greatfully received..
What would your choices be? and why?

Oh and for reference:
Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350A.HTM)
Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Review: 1. Introduction: (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/)
Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 1. Introduction: (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/)

If anyone has any other good review site suggestions?

Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Review: 1. Introduction: (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/)

Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 1. Introduction: (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/)

My fave review site.

Nikon? Some cracking deals on Nikon stuff too.........

Alcazar

I dunno... perhaps I'm wrong but Nikon seem a little bit behind Canon & Sony at the moment in this (consumer) market segment!? Their (Semi-Pro) D300 looks great but a bit pricey for me... I'd expect Nikon to be releasing a refreshed model in the consumer segment soon?

Swampster, have NO doubts that Sony are in it for the long run, their aim is to challenge Canon for the top spot. I can't go into details, but Sony are definitely in it for the long term. If you have any doubts, wait for Photokina in September.

The Live view system on the Sony is better in that the normal AF system is used whereas the Canon has to turn off live view to focus properly. Also using the main sensor for the live view as the Canon does causes it to heat up and that can cause noise. Also the Sony gives you an extra couple of megapixels :)

I also believe the Sony quick-navi system gives better ergonomics.

Yes I'm biased, yes I use Sony cameras A700 & A100 at the moment. But I truly believe the Sony is the better camera.

Cheers

Mark

Thanks Mark...

Feature wise.. I'm definitely leaning towards the Sony, I've been out and handled a few today too, and I definitely felt more comfortable with the Sony.. there is just now one niggle that's pretty much stopping me buying right now...

and that's reports of pretty bad noise levels and detail smearing at greater than ISO400.

Who are the reports from?

Buy a cheap CF card and go into a store and use both at 800 iso and compare the results.

The noise levels in the A100 were not good above ISO 400 but Sony have improved the situation a lot since then. Also how often are you going to use high iso? I very rarely do and I can tell you that the A700 is excellent at high iso.

The detail smearing wasn't actually the Sony, but how some versions of Adobe lightroom (I think it was lightroom) interpreted the detail in high Iso shots as noise and smeared them, later versions have resolved the issue.

You could try asking on Dyxum.com - home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer (http://www.dyxum.com) and Dynax Digital Forums - Index - Sony Alpha a100, a200, a300, a350, a700 and Konica Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5D and 7D DSLR Information, Tips and Advice (http://www.dynaxdigital.com) They are both Sony/Minolta user websites. I know there are threads on them about high iso and Adobe.

Cheers

Mark

There is some lens rental available for Sony and I think Calumet may be about to start, although I am not certain about that.

Thanks again...much appreciated :)

Not having used one in anger, I've had to resort to reading reviews etc and soliciting opinion from guys like yourself :)

I'll have a good look around those forums..

Couple of reviews I've looked at regarding noise...
Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Review: 17. Photographic tests (Noise): (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/page17.asp)
Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Digital Camera Imaging - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350IMAGING.HTM)

Although I have to note.. in the photo samples at dpreview.. they don't push the 450D to high ISO's in darker environments like they do with the A350

I'm always a little suspicious of DPReview, they don't seem to like Sony. You might check out the A300 as it has the 10.2 MP sensor so maybe less noise, also more forgiving of lenses.

Swapster If you want to see what the A700 can do, look on Kruger thread.

Very nice photos... and I have to say that the A700 has impressed me from the start.. but it's a little more than I want to splash out on at the moment, and it's probably a bit overkill for my level of 'skill'.

Still if the A350 has an IQ anywhere near that I guess It'll be more than adequate for my needs.

Maybe, the 700 (or it's successor) will be an upgrade path in the not too distant future :thumb:

Just to tip the balance away from the gush-fest of superlatives about Sony.

3rd party accessories are much more widely available for both Canon and Nikon. Don't discount them at all.

Megapixels aren't the be-all and end all. Gives you greater cropping, but unless you're regularly printing above A3 in size then you don't need lots. You also need a powerful PC for editing.

The already present 'support and retail' network for the Canon's is the single biggest factor as to why it's still in consideration.

I think my PC will cope with editing...

Just to tip the balance away from the gush-fest of superlatives about Sony.

3rd party accessories are much more widely available for both Canon and Nikon. Don't discount them at all.

Megapixels aren't the be-all and end all. Gives you greater cropping, but unless you're regularly printing above A3 in size then you don't need lots. You also need a powerful PC for editing.

What accessories did you have in mind? Most things are available for Sony these days. Sigma have committed to bringing out HSM lenses for SOny mount. Sony is building Market share with the current range of cameras, Jessops has just given the Sony gear it's own full cabinet in every store same as Canon and Nikon, Sony has start4ed dropping Les prices as well.

I don't see an issue, and I'm out there buying Sony gear. :)

Cheers

Mark

Flashguns for one, a quick look suggests not many for Sony.

Canon & Nikon make the best lenses, and that is the most important bit you will buy. Bodies come and go, one manufacturer leap frogs over the other for bodies.

I'm sure the Sony is a fine beast, but can you get all the other stuff you need?

If you are just going to get a consumer body & kit lens, you can't go far wrong with either 450D or any of the Nikons. For JPEGs, the Nikons probably have the edge at the moment, but whether you would be able to tell in print is another matter

Flash is very dependable on the Nikons, not so on the Canons.

Noise is better on the low end Canons, but again, whether you would notice any difference in real world shooting and in print is another matter.

The best thing you can do is go and handle them in a shop, look at the controls. Sometimes how a camera feels and handles is more important than it's feature set, as they are all so close now as to not make any difference.

As for in-body IS/VR/Anti-Shake, whatever, the needs of a wide angle are different from the needs of a tele-photo, so though more expensive, in lens is the way to go. You can also see the IS working in lens, not in body, so even though you think it may be stabilising, it's not easy to see if it's stabilising enough.

All IMHO of course!

Geezer

Geezer, I'd going to have to disagree with you to the extent that Canon and Nikon aren't the only one who good lenses, Minolta had a fine tradition of good lenses that Sony have continued and now have Zeiss AF lenses and they don't get any better than Zeiss. For instance, the Sony (read Minolta) 70-200 f2.8 G is as good or better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon. How about the 135 Smooth Transition Focus, It is specifically designed for good Bokeh and nobody else makes an equivalent. The 16-80 Zeiss is excellent and the new 24-70 is even better. How about the world's ONLY 500mm Autofocus mirror lens. Canon and Nikon couldn't make one, Minolta did and Sony have it. I know Canon and Nikon have some excellent lenses, but so do Sony with about another 5 I think coming out in September (assuming they release them all at Photokina). I would also say that generally the mid-range Sony lenses tend to be a bit better in terms of their image quality than the equivalent Canikon lenses. As an example, the shot below was taken with a 75-300 kit lens and even if I do say so myself, it's pretty damn sharp.

Regarding flashes, you are correct Pumpkin in that not many people have third party flashes, given that Minolta and now Sony have their own flash mount. However, do Canon and Nikon give you Wireless Flash built in with the ability to control multiple flash guns? The reason that others don't make flashes is I think the cost of including the features. Also the Sony/Minolta ADI flash system is in a class of it's own as far as I am aware.

Cheers

Mark

Sample shot:

http://home2.btconnect.com/mtiller/DSC00087CropBCE.jpg

Sorry if I got a bit carried away, but I get irritated by people who insist than nobody but Canon and Nikon make good kit.

Canon and Nikon are the obvious choices as their cameras are second to none and both have a massive choice of extra lenses and accessories from Canon and Nikon to all sorts third-party manufacturares. But maybe you don't need these so... Sony are in it for the long time and will be, in a few years, major players for sure. Likewise Pentax. Give them a while ;)

Meanwhile, Canon or Nikon the very safe choices. Live-view? That's why you have an optical viewfinder with any D-SLR. It's as live as you can get. Live view via an optical viewfinder is fundamantal to the SLR concept - digital live-view is a gimmick that I have on my Canon 40D - never used it. Waste of time, literally.

I would love to see Nikon's and Canon's massive market share take bit of a shake - not because their cameras are absolutely years ahead but competition is good for the consumer. But right now I spend my money on Canon :)

Richard.

Sorry if I got a bit carried away, but I get irritated by people who insist than nobody but Canon and Nikon make good kit.

I'm certainly not saying that! There is certainly loads of excellent stuff out there. But the RANGE of kit available for Nikon and Canon is unsurpassed.

As for mirror lenses, their only claim to fame is being compact. Have you ever used one? They are horrible, and were briefly popular before new high diffractive index glass became available (like 20 years ago) because mirrors do not cause chromatic aberration. They are a clever design, but have no other virtue :(

Richard.

I'm certainly not saying that! There is certainly loads of excellent stuff out there. But the RANGE of kit available for Nikon and Canon is unsurpassed.

As for mirror lenses, their only claim to fame is being compact. Have you ever used one? They are horrible, and were briefly popular before new high diffractive index glass became available (like 20 years ago) because mirrors do not cause chromatic aberration. They are a clever design, but have no other virtue :(

Richard.

I agree that the range of kit for Canikon is probably greater than Sony at the moment, but that is changing very very fast.

I have used the 500 AF mirror a lot, sharp as a tack too and I certainly don't find it virtueless. They make a great wildlife walkabout lens as they are so small and light and certainly much cheaper than other alternatives, I'm not saying they don't have their faults, but would you like to go out for a stroll carrying the Canon 500mm?

Anyway, here is a sample shot from the Sony 500 Mirror.

http://home2.btconnect.com/mtiller/DSC08089CropAdjBCE.jpg

I have to admit, I thought the 500mm reflex was pretty nifty when I first saw it.. and had it pegged as a potential future purchase if I went the Sony route.

I figured, yeah.. probably better results from direct optics (having used reflex telescopes in the past) but in the same vein, thought... probably more than adequate and in a handy sized package..

Anyway... went all a bit impulsive today and *almost* bought a camera & 2 lens set... bit of haggling, and had a saving of £65 bagged... until the guy discovered they didn't have the 70-300mm lens in stock. :(

So went to another branch of Currys and got some arrogant oik arsehole "supervisor" who wouldn't budge a penny.. and insinuated we were lying about the offer we were given at the other store... felt like punching his lights out by the time I walked out the store. So came away camera less... :/

Meanwhile, Canon or Nikon the very safe choices. Live-view? That's why you have an optical viewfinder with any D-SLR. It's as live as you can get. Live view via an optical viewfinder is fundamantal to the SLR concept - digital live-view is a gimmick that I have on my Canon 40D - never used it. Waste of time, literally.

I would love to see Nikon's and Canon's massive market share take bit of a shake - not because their cameras are absolutely years ahead but competition is good for the consumer. But right now I spend my money on Canon :)

Richard.
I totally agree with Richard on his statements. I would never use live view on a DSLR whatever situation is given. Competition is of course always good but Canon and Nikon will be best choices for a long time to come. Mainly for their experience and large choice of quality lenses.

Canon and Nikon will be best choices for a long time to come. Mainly for their experience and large choice of quality lenses.

LOL :) The Sony Camera division is the Minolta team, they have LOTS of experience as they have been doing this for 80 years :) That makes them a couple of years older than Canon and a few years younger than Nikon. :) Who do you think made the first integrated autofocus 35 mm SLR camera system? Minolta's camera have always had the reputation of being built by photographers for photographers. The Dynax 7 (and I think 7D) won awards for ergonomics and ease-of-use. Minolta invented and patented TTL OTF Through The Lens Off The Film exposure metering. The XD-11 the worlds first camera with both Shutter and Aperture priority. Minolta introduced features that became standard in all brands a few years later. Among standardized features that were first introduced on Minolta models are: multisensor light-metering coupled to multiple AF-sensors; automatic flash balance system; wireless TTL flash control; TTL controlled full-time flash sync; speedy front and rear wheels for shutter and aperture control. Special features introduced by Minolta are: interactive LCD viewfinder display; setup memory; eye-activated startup; infrared frame counter.

And you say they don't have experience? :)

Ditto Lenses, there's 16 million Minolta lenses including lots of good quality stuff. The new range has lots of Zeiss and that is as good as it gets :)

Cheers

Mark

Well... I bought the Sony, rightly or wrongly... I guess now time will tell.

It just felt... 'more right' when I had it in my hands than the Canon (if that makes sense), I suppose I kinda went with gut feeling too... it usually serves me well!

Anyway folks, thanks for all the advice... :)

Swampster,

Cool, I think you've made the better choice, although I'm sure the canon would have worked well too. Feel free to ask me questions.

I can also highly recommend Dyxum.com - home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer (http://www.dyxum.com) and Dynax Digital Forums - Index - Sony Alpha a100, a200, a300, a350, a700 and Konica Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5D and 7D DSLR Information, Tips and Advice (http://www.dynaxdigital.com) forums

One has to ask, but WHY did Minolta go "tits up" if their stuff has such a fine pedigree?

I had a Minolta 9000 AF, and it's AF was crap. Huntedf all over the place in owt but braod daylight, and couldn't focus except on horizontal and vertical lines, so a moving item was usually lost or out of focus:rolleyes: So much so that I PX'ed it and it's lenses and flash after about a year for a used Canon T90........now THERE was a camera.!

I also had a Minolta Dimage 7i, and it too was poor. If you didn't recharge the batteries, (and I had THREE quality sets), EVERY time you went out, you had no power. And it was VERY power hungry. It now resides in a cupboard here, almost brand new.....

Maybe the above are examples of why Minolta couldn't get their own market share, and why I, for one, wouldn't buy their, (or Sony's offering of their), stuff again;)

Alcazar

One has to ask, but WHY did Minolta go "tits up" if their stuff has such a fine pedigree?

I had a Minolta 9000 AF, and it's AF was crap. Huntedf all over the place in owt but braod daylight, and couldn't focus except on horizontal and vertical lines, so a moving item was usually lost or out of focus:rolleyes: So much so that I PX'ed it and it's lenses and flash after about a year for a used Canon T90........now THERE was a camera.!

I also had a Minolta Dimage 7i, and it too was poor. If you didn't recharge the batteries, (and I had THREE quality sets), EVERY time you went out, you had no power. And it was VERY power hungry. It now resides in a cupboard here, almost brand new.....

Maybe the above are examples of why Minolta couldn't get their own market share, and why I, for one, wouldn't buy their, (or Sony's offering of their), stuff again;)

Alcazar

Alcazar, sorry to hear that. I said they had good innovative engineers, I didn't say they were commercially asute:( And I know they didn't market themselves as well as they should have. And they did make some lemons, but so have Nikon and Canon. I had a 9000 too at one point and I found it great, but that's just me. I had a Z3 compact which was fantastic until I dropped it, insurance replaced it with a Z6 which is just as good. I'd still use it if I just want a small camera for a few snaps.

It ended up that Minolta couldn't afford the R&D to develop new sensors. they were also very slow to get into digital, which I think hurt them considerably.

Cheers

Mark

It ended up that Minolta couldn't afford the R&D to develop new sensors. they were also very slow to get into digital, which I think hurt them considerably.

I guess that Minolta experience, coupled with the SONY product development & marketing machine, will be a force to be reckoned with in the future:eek:

Mark, thanks for your excellent post's above, I've learn't a bit and will now treat the Sony products with a bit more respect ;) I've used their broadcast quality video stuff for years and it's fantastic!

Cracking couple of shots by the way, especially the 'tigger'! :thumb:

Mark, thanks for your excellent post's above, I've learn't a bit and will now treat the Sony products with a bit more respect ;)
Same here, I wasn't aware about this history and am glad that Mark gave me some insight. I guess sometimes I just jump to fast to conclusions. ;) Thanks for your post and let's see what the future might bring. As mentioned before, competition can only help us all.