help with camera decision. sony to ?

lexie · 21 Mar 2011

as much as i've enjoyed using my a390 i'm going to bite the bullet and buy into another system. i've become disillusioned withsony because of them opting to use electronic viewfinders from now on so the options for upgrading my body have been cut short. i'll be keeping my sony in the hope that my girlfriend might pick it up some day.

so now i'm looking towards the canon and nikon camps for a cheapish semi-pro build body to take a bit of abuse day-to-day.

i've been looking at a 20d on another forum but i'm concerned that it may be too old now and the screen a bit too small. the deal is 20d, 3rd party grip, 5 batteries and 18-55mm is lens for £200. the price is tempting me though and i've seen a lot of fantastic pictures taken with it in the flickr groups.

the 30d is another cheap consideration, the low resolution on both will reduce the option of cropping but with some decent glass i would hope that it would be easier to resolve all the pixels. the cmos sensor should hopefully be better in low light at higher iso levels? someone please tell me if i'm wrong.

the nikon alternative is the d200, although it is a tad more expensive it has a slightly higher resolution sensor (albeit a ccd sensor like my a390).

both cameras would be paired with a 50mm f1.8 and a fast standard zoom like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8(i was planning to get the tamron for my a390 but held off on it untill i decided whether to stick with sony or not). the main reason for my leaning towards canon at the availability of the 70-200mm f4 L. i have a minolta 70-210mm f4 and absolutely love it, in fact one of the reasons for keeping the sony about is because i can get to use it still.
nikon don't seem to offer the same spec lens in their range, what is the equivalent they offer?

architectfadi · 21 Mar 2011

I use both Sony and Nikon. I do like the Sony sensors in the Nikon cameras and I think that Nikon tweaks them well. From your list above I would go for the Nikon D200

vaizki · 21 Mar 2011

I don't know about Nikon so others will chime in.. but if you can stretch to a Canon 40D, it's a great camera to consider. One of the best bang for buck models Canon ever put out. That said, you are choosing a lens system and not a body. So you're right in thinking what lenses are available..

Ergonomics also play a part, people tend to show a preference to either of the big makes..

goldenlight · 21 Mar 2011

It's only putting off the inevitable. Within 5 years all but the very top cameras will have EVFs.

squishy · 21 Mar 2011

Why not an A700?

lexie · 21 Mar 2011

squishy said:
Why not an A700?

i had considered the a700 but where would i go after that? the a700(although still a capable performer) is getting on a bit now. when it needed upgrading/replaced where would i go? sony are still going to be using evf's in all their newer bodies.

ausemmao · 21 Mar 2011

lexie said:
as much as i've enjoyed using my a390 i'm going to bite the bullet and buy into another system. i've become disillusioned withsony because of them opting to use electronic viewfinders from now on so the options for upgrading my body have been cut short. i'll be keeping my sony in the hope that my girlfriend might pick it up some day.

so now i'm looking towards the canon and nikon camps for a cheapish semi-pro build body to take a bit of abuse day-to-day.

i've been looking at a 20d on another forum but i'm concerned that it may be too old now and the screen a bit too small. the deal is 20d, 3rd party grip, 5 batteries and 18-55mm is lens for £200. the price is tempting me though and i've seen a lot of fantastic pictures taken with it in the flickr groups.

the 30d is another cheap consideration, the low resolution on both will reduce the option of cropping but with some decent glass i would hope that it would be easier to resolve all the pixels. the cmos sensor should hopefully be better in low light at higher iso levels? someone please tell me if i'm wrong.

the nikon alternative is the d200, although it is a tad more expensive it has a slightly higher resolution sensor (albeit a ccd sensor like my a390).

both cameras would be paired with a 50mm f1.8 and a fast standard zoom like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8(i was planning to get the tamron for my a390 but held off on it untill i decided whether to stick with sony or not). the main reason for my leaning towards canon at the availability of the 70-200mm f4 L. i have a minolta 70-210mm f4 and absolutely love it, in fact one of the reasons for keeping the sony about is because i can get to use it still.
nikon don't seem to offer the same spec lens in their range, what is the equivalent they offer?

Sadly Nikon don't do a 70-200mm f4. The closest I guess would be the 70-300mm f4-5.6G if you wanted stabilisation and AF-S, or an 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D(S is used only, and hard to find) if you didn't care about stabilisation and were getting a non entry level body.

squishy · 21 Mar 2011

Perhaps wait and see what the A800/A77 or whatever they call it brings.
If they improve the technology, EVF's have numerous advantages. I expect all the brands will eventually turn to EVF's in some implementation, it's just that it's sony that's pioneering the technology at the moment.
If I shot sony, I would be sticking with them to see how the A700's successor brings.

lexie · 21 Mar 2011

squishy said:
Perhaps wait and see what the A800/A77 or whatever they call it brings.
If they improve the technology, EVF's have numerous advantages. I expect all the brands will eventually turn to EVF's in some implementation, it's just that it's sony that's pioneering the technology at the moment.
If I shot sony, I would be sticking with them to see how the A700's successor brings.

the a77 will need to be a considerable step up from the a33/55 in build quality, size, battery life and evf performance.

i will still have my minolta 50mm and 70-210mm if i ever returned to sony later in life