Sony A300 or Canon 1000D?
- Thread starter Simon37
- Start date
- Status
Please try reading the dozens of "this or that camera?" threads. You'll noitice that it's best to do your own research first, and most importantly, TRY THE CAMERAS. For example, this weekend there's a huge alpha gathering where you could get advice from Sony users, or you could rent/borrow each of these cameras first then decide.
MHO
I'd choose the A300 for the built in stabilization.
End of the day, all brands can make good pictures as can be seen from the many posts from clubsnappers. Its what you value and which system you'd like to buy into.
I'd choose the A300 for the built in stabilization.
End of the day, all brands can make good pictures as can be seen from the many posts from clubsnappers. Its what you value and which system you'd like to buy into.
Last edited:
How is is proprietary? Please elaborate.
Memory card: A300 uses Compact Flash. Where's the "proprietary" in that?
Flash Hotshoe: Sony uses the Minolta Hotshoe, which is actually an IEEE design that improves on the 60-year-old hot shoe used by other brands. Furthermore, though the hotshoe may be similar, have you tried using a Canon flash on a Nikon camera? You'll realize they're not as "compatible" as you would think.
Hmm... I stand corrected... (removed the comment).
Blame it on the Sony catalog they drop in the mail box
oo i was in the same situation a few days ago too... went to parkway to try both cams out. the sony shop there and the challenger/harvey norman.
in the end went with the a300 cos it feels better to me. features wise... inbuilt image stabiliser, live view that can autofocus and snap pics. 8gb cf included in the kit, extra original batt too. ;p
go down and try them~
in the end went with the a300 cos it feels better to me. features wise... inbuilt image stabiliser, live view that can autofocus and snap pics. 8gb cf included in the kit, extra original batt too. ;p
go down and try them~
go down and try them and you should probably have your answer.
i doubt dslr in the same price range have much difference in image quality these days but canon do have more lens to choose from
i doubt dslr in the same price range have much difference in image quality these days but canon do have more lens to choose from
It doesn't matter if your camera brand has 1,000,000 lenses to choose from if in the end you'll only use the 2-3 lenses that all manufacturers have.
And the Sony system has extensive lenses too:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp
i was using canon 4 a long time 300d,350d. i hv a KM 5d coz of built-in IS, but really lenses are expensive, if not limited.
Not really, or maybe it was back then... Compare a 70-200 G SSM lens to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens...
and at least you get IS with all lenses.
Plus, don't trust the Sony List price. You can *always* get it cheaper.
Not really, or maybe it was back then... Compare a 70-200 G SSM lens to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens...
and at least you get IS with all lenses.
Plus, don't trust the Sony List price. You can *always* get it cheaper.
Ok, you convinced me to take a 2nd look at Sony (or at least tell my bro who is considering a DSLR). How much cheaper is the lens going to be? I understand due to price sensitivities,you'd not be able to disclose actual pricing, but how about a percentage vs list price?
eg. It says on the Sony catalog ~$529 for a 50/1.4
Of course there are the 3rd party.
thx
Ok, you convinced me to take a 2nd look at Sony (or at least tell my bro who is considering a DSLR). How much cheaper is the lens going to be? I understand due to price sensitivities,you'd not be able to disclose actual pricing, but how about a percentage vs list price?
eg. It says on the Sony catalog ~$529 for a 50/1.4
Of course there are the 3rd party.
thx
10-15%.
Just wondering is it true that the effect of the Stabliser can't be seen in the viewfinder and LCD screen? From my understand how Sony,Pentax and Olympus achieve stabliser is by moving the sensor but the sensor is behind the mirror therefore the "effects" can't be seen? Doesn't it make it more difficult to compose a picture? Just my two cents worth.
It's correct that it can't be seen, but this rarely affects composition unless you're talking about 600mm lenses. Also, this means that any attached lens, including prime lenses, benefit from the sensor-based IS.
On the other hand, people who use lens-based stabilization also sometimes complain about motion sickness and that lenses with IS are less sharp than the non-IS counterpart.
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it
For the IS lens not sharper, I would want to rebuke you on that. The 70-200IS F/4 from canon is sharper compared to its non-IS counterpart. I have used both before and the IS version is sharper ;p Hmmm motion sickness? Since you have said that that the shift hardly affect composition why is there motion sickness? I have used many prime IS lens from 200-800mm (yes I have used the 200IS F2.0 and the 800IS F5.6) and so far I yet to experienced any. ;p
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it
Ok. I've heard the opposite, but that might be for a different lens too.
Motion sickness is very person-specific, which is why I mentioned "sometimes". My neighbor, a Canon shooter, has the same complaint. He has no issues if he switches off the IS though.
- Status
Similar threads
