Sony a200 to Canon 400D?

A

Angus1

Messages
45
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm looking for some advise as to whether to sell my a200 and Sigma 70-300mm lens, and buy a Canon 400D?

Do you think this would make that much of a difference? Bearing in mind im also thinking about the fact that i can get second hand lenses easier with a canon....

Any advise?

Many thanks,
Angus
 
I would advise you to go for the 450D, while you are changing. It is a more recent camera and at the moment, it is well more worth it to buy this second hand. I have used one of these cameras before (my dad owns one) and they really are fantastic. Good ISO performance, nice colours, good sensor, and I really mean it would be a great investment.
I have also used a Sony Alpha before, and I have to agree that they are very user friendly, but they are not really great performance wise.

Hope you make the right decision (GO FOR CANON! :D)

Bart
 
Interesting scenario, I did exactely the opposite.... went from the 400D to the A200 so my opinion is stay with the A200 unless you plan to upgrade to a much much better camera. For me both the 200 and the 400D are comparible and if you have one or the other its probably better to stay with what you have got. I moved acorss to the Sony because the AF motor is built in to the body so no expensive outlay on the AF/VR etc in the lens. Also the FPS was better on the Sony and with the addition of secondhand Minolta lenses the secondhand lens market opened up. Like I said, my opinion is biased but it really is how you feel about a photography system you want to buy into. Good luck.
 
Thank both :) But if i get the 450D then it will be really stretching my budget.... Maybe only be able to get the kit lens, whereas i like the flexibility of the 70-300 :) Dunno, if i get another body, then it would need to be round the £400 range..... Would something of that price be worth the upgrade? Or would it be better just to spend the cash on lenses and other kit?

I never really use AF, so that's not too much of an issue... And with the canon i can get more second hand parts, but then again those £10 extension tubes are probably useless!
 
IMHO there is absolutely no point whatsoever in considering a switch...

Both cameras are actually fairly similar in terms of performance but the 400d doesn't have spot metering I believe and that is pretty essential for me.

Without wishing to sound rude, your kit is almost certainly NOT what is limiting your photography right now so concentrate on improving your skils and enjoy the kit you have.

Also, with regards to 2nd hand lenses - there are LOADS of brilliant old Minolta fit lenses for your camera so I really wouldn't use that as a reason to swap.
 
Thanks: I doubt the quality of the body is limiting my photography, and i could certainly work on my skills a lot more than i do :) But the main reason for wanting a swap is the i though i would then be able to afford more lenses, as they would be cheaper, however looking at the prices on ebay etc, and new, there absolutly no difference :rolleyes:

So, looks like ill be sticking with the sony and getting myself a macro :) Ill have to see after xmas how much cash is left, if theres loads i might have to upgrade, either within the sony range or out of it, or i could spend it on more fishtanks and moe fish to photograph :D

Anyways, many thanks all, if i was buying a new cam now, without already having the Sony kit id go for a canon or nikon in a flash, but may as well stick with what I've got :)
 
And minolta kit is great, apart from a flash ive got that explodes if you shake it, think the capacitor must be shorting, need to get round to fixing that.....
 
Don't forget, the A200 uses the same sensor as the D60 (and therefore D80 I think) and also the A300. In reality, buying a more expensive camera doesn't really get you better image quality (unless you're buying newer generation kit with better ISO capability), just easier access to some of the creative controls. Learn to use your cam (especially spot metering, which the 400d doesn't have) and once you've found what you like to use you'll be in a better position to decide on your next body.

Better lenses, on the other hand will certainly give you better IQ. As an upgrade to your Sigma I would hunt out a Minolta Beercan (70-210 + constant F4) which you can pick up for less than £150 for a goodun (I got one for half that) and has stunning IQ, the constant F4 canon equivalent will sent you back over £500!
 
Thanks :) This really needs a separate thread, but what would your recommend for a reasonably priced macro? ATM I'm using the sigma, but really want to get closer! The noise is one of the reasons for upgrading, but i suppose the 400d wouldn't be any better?
 
if you're looking at getting a macro lens,firstly..decide what you intend to shoot.if you're looking at shooting bugs,then you need something like the sigma 105 macro,or the tamron 90 macro,as the working distance is reasonable enough not to spook your intended,but if still life(flowers etc)is what you want to shoot,then something around the 50-60mm focal length would be okay.

the 400D is a few years old now,and i would consider the A200 the better of the two.also consider that the alpha range has a built in image stabiliser,which you have to buy the lens with IS/VR in canon/nikon lens,which are quite expensive.
 
stan the man said:
if you're looking at getting a macro lens,firstly..decide what you intend to shoot.if you're looking at shooting bugs,then you need something like the sigma 105 macro,or the tamron 90 macro,as the working distance is reasonable enough not to spook your intended,but if still life(flowers etc)is what you want to shoot,then something around the 50-60mm focal length would be okay.

the 400D is a few years old now,and i would consider the A200 the better of the two.also consider that the alpha range has a built in image stabiliser,which you have to buy the lens with IS/VR in canon/nikon lens,which are quite expensive.
Click to expand...

If looking secondhand another macro option in the KM 100mm f2.8 which was my preference when compared to the sigma and tamron.
 
Thanks :)

Its mostly fish i shoot, in fish tanks, and being able to sit a meter away and still get 1:2 is useful, they show more natural behavior, but not vital, ill have a look at the ~100mm length macros i think :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top