350D/400D or a new Sony?

Kryptix

Kryptix

Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm trying to convince my friend who wants a SLR that he should get a Canon, but his argument is that he can get a Sony for £250. He doesn't like the idea of buying second hand stuff, so a second hand 400D puts him off.

What would you do? A second hand 350D/400D or a new £250 Sony?
 
If he was my mate I'd paraphrase the issue as "What's a Sony?". You can leave him to look through the mags on the newsagent's shelf to get a flavour of where the availability of extras - lenses etc is strongest but maybe he needs to sort his own learning curve, after all how many of us started with the camera we've got currently?
What about a quick ebay search on used Sony gear to see what the new-to-used depreciation is like?
 
I would buy the sony.
 
He should buy a Sony.........



or he'll be trying to borrow your kit all the time :)
 
I would certainly agree with Stan the Man that he should try a number of cameras 'in hand', look at how they operate, etc.
However IF you are expecting to helping him learn how to use the new camera, then consider how much you are willing to share lenses, etc, and how confident you are on explaining technique on unfamiliar kit.
The A200 is a great camera for the money - the smaller range of lenses on the Sony mount is not an issue if you dont have the cash to buy the more exotic glass, there is a decent range of good Minolta glass second hand.
 
I think Sony offers the best value for money set up for low to intermediate budgets.

Any of the bodies + Minolta 17-35 (or Sigma 10-20) + Sigma 24-70 2.8 + Minolta Beercan 70-200 F4

That is a wide, a standard and a great telephoto lens, ALL effectively IS, for a few hundred quid. You can't do that with Canon or Nikon.
 
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?
 
Kryptix said:
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?
Click to expand...

Having done just that, I'd rephrase it as "realise a few months down the line you WANT a Canon or Nikon". I changed systems but most of my shots are within a hair's breadth of each other.

And where there is a difference, it isn't always in Canon's advantage. Canon's AF is better than Sony's for action and that helps me a lot. But the Minolta 200/2.8 and 85/1.4 lenses for portraits beat anything I can afford for Canon.
 
I'd buy the Sony too, but then I would. The A200 has just been replaced, and so represents real value.
 
Kryptix said:
I'm trying to convince my friend who wants a SLR that he should get a Canon, but his argument is that he can get a Sony for £250. He doesn't like the idea of buying second hand stuff, so a second hand 400D puts him off.

What would you do? A second hand 350D/400D or a new £250 Sony?
Click to expand...
are you going to let him borrow your lenses etc.? If so then that that's obviously a great reason for him to go Canon.
But do you want him borrowing your gear all the time? Perhaps he should go Sony .... :p

Kryptix said:
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon?
Click to expand...
why do you need a Canon or Nikon? What do they do that a Sony (or Olympus or Pentax) don't do?
There is remarkably little that your 50D will do (& even less that I would want) that my 2 year old A700 won't.
 
heidfirst said:
are you going to let him borrow your lenses etc.? If so then that that's obviously a great reason for him to go Canon.
But do you want him borrowing your gear all the time? Perhaps he should go Sony .... :p


why do you need a Canon or Nikon? What do they do that a Sony (or Olympus or Pentax) don't do?
There is remarkably little that your 50D will do (& even less that I would want) that my 2 year old A700 won't.
Click to expand...

hear hear..i was with a few mates a short while ago at the wetlands centre in llanelli,when one of them with a 40D was shooting on continuous mode(claimed 6.5fps).i was also shooting on the same mode,and my A700 was shooting quicker even though sony claim 5fps for the A700.both cameras were shooting in RAW etc..

i don't mean to start a war amongst manufacturers,but i don't understand why folk slag off other manufactrurers just because they're quite new to photography(although sony bought KM's camera division etc..).

it would seem foolish for canon/nikon to rest on their laurels...

as i said earlier...he should go out and try them all,to see what suits "HIM" best....
 
heidfirst said:
why do you need a Canon or Nikon? What do they do that a Sony (or Olympus or Pentax) don't do?
There is remarkably little that your 50D will do (& even less that I would want) that my 2 year old A700 won't.
Click to expand...

I think it's the snob value of having Canon or Nikon written on one's camera ;)

Old habits die hard........
 
It depends where he sees his photography going, £250 worth of Sony is a decent wee camera with a lot of good "newbie" features and when all is said and done, if he decides later on he should have bought a Canon or Nikon, no great loss, sell it and buy one...
 
Kryptix said:
I'm trying to convince my friend who wants a SLR that he should get a Canon, but his argument is that he can get a Sony for £250. He doesn't like the idea of buying second hand stuff, so a second hand 400D puts him off.

What would you do? A second hand 350D/400D or a new £250 Sony?
Click to expand...

Well he has answered the question for you, it does not matter what we would do, so this thread is rather pointless IMHO. He has said that he does not want to buy second hand so that takes the cannons out of the equation so it is the Sony. The trouble is, like others have said, people believe that owning cannon nikon will make them photographers and I believe that if you looked at the same scene taken with the main brands 99% of people would not be able to tell the difference.
 
MarkydeSad said:
I think it's the snob value of having Canon or Nikon written on one's camera ;)

Old habits die hard........
Click to expand...

I think it's not just that. I think most Nikon or Canon owners don't really know that much about other 'less well know brands' systems, but generally know a little about the other brand.

It's the age old saying in IT, 'no one will ever get the sack for buying IBM'.

Not wanting to get into a pointless brand war, but some people obviously still think that cameras made by anyone other than Canon and Nikon are only useful for newbies. :thinking:
 
Kryptix said:
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?
Click to expand...

Brand snobbery at it's best, I doubt very few togs need nikon or need cannon but it is their choice. The only exception there was and I don't think this is do much the cases now was sports togging.
 
I have the Sony A200 and it's a fantastic camera. And like your friend, I was considering a second hand canon initially but I decided to buy a new sony (Got the A200 for 270 quid brand new with a case and a 4gb CF) and couldn't be happier. Also, there's nothing like new stuff :D

And brand snobbery somewhat annoys me. I chose my camera based on the fact that I liked the way it felt etc, rather than the name on the front.
 
Kryptix said:
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?
Click to expand...


What a crock.

I have had my Pentax K10D for over a year now and have no need for a Canon or Nikon. I could sell all my kit today and have enough to buy a D300/50D and 3 or 4 really good lenses ... but do I need to ... no.
 
Kryptix said:
So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?
Click to expand...
This is so much carp.

If you're seriously into sports or wildlife, and you need something bigger than a 300mm f/2.8, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into architecture or product photography and you need a tilt-shift lens, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into extreme macro, you need a Canon and the insane MP-E 65mm.

But if you're amongst the 99.9% of us who don't fit any of those categories, you don't need a Canon or Nikon.
 
Davec223 said:
Brand snobbery at it's best, I doubt very few togs need nikon or need cannon but it is their choice. The only exception there was and I don't think this is do much the cases now was sports togging.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He's already admitted to brand snobbery when it comes to Canon vs Sigma lenses so not surprising that he's looking down his nose at Sony equipment tbh.
 
StewartR said:
This is so much carp.

If you're seriously into sports or wildlife, and you need something bigger than a 300mm f/2.8, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into architecture or product photography and you need a tilt-shift lens, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into extreme macro, you need a Canon and the insane MP-E 65mm.

But if you're amongst the 99.9% of us who don't fit any of those categories, you don't need a Canon or Nikon.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I only started on Canon because I got a great deal on a 350D [while back now] but in all honesty the Sony is a bargain.
 
Alright, wrong word was used. Want instead of need.

Either way, ask anyone into photography what gear they'd like and they'll say Canon or Nikon 99% of the time. I just don't want my mate to buy a Sony and then want a Canon or whatever instead.
 
Kryptix said:
Alright, wrong word was used. Want instead of need.

Either way, ask anyone into photography what gear they'd like and they'll say Canon or Nikon 99% of the time. I just don't want my mate to buy a Sony and then want a Canon or whatever instead.
Click to expand...

This seems to be about what you want and not what your friend wants or would like. It is his money and he can make his own decisions, give him some infomation and advice ( unbiased, if this is possible for you to do ;)) and let him get what be wants, if you push him into cannon when he really wants Sony he may buy the cannon a few lenses etc then a few months down the line sell it all and buy the Sony in which case your pushy advice has cost him in the long run due.
 
Kryptix said:
Either way, ask anyone into photography what gear they'd like and they'll say Canon or Nikon 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

Mainly because 99% of people getting into photography have mates like you with Canon or Nikon cameras that know no better.

The trouble is that when people start out they look on tv or around the pro circuit and all they see are the main 2 brands so as far as they are concerned these are the cameras that are going to make them as good as the pros, not realising they are never going to spend the sort of money needed on a high end body or lenses to get to that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top