Which is better? Canon 550D or Sony A550??

[alux0417]

You might not know you might need video mode at times?

Yeah, video mode saved me a number of times. There were moments when I needed to take a video of something and I forgot to bring my HD videocam. I didn't want to shoot video using my iPhone 3gs, so fortunately I had my 550d with me.

Thanks to all seniors providing such valuable tips! I'll be heading down to Expo tonight to choose my camera..

Can't wait to own mine!!! :bsmilie:

Did you mean the Expo halls? There's a baby expo going on there today until Sunday. I kid you.

Seriously, do let us know what you will be buying

 

[tehzeh]

N and C. It's a common thing noticed by O, P and S users. If a camera is branded with N or C, even if the photographic tests show it to be less sharp, less detailed, less DR, etc etc, they will say it has excellent detail, "class leading DR" in the pros. If other manufacturers have good features, like built-in IS, etc, they will never list it as a con for N and C, but any tiny feature that O, P and S don't have is listed as a con for them. Also, they give heavy weighting to subjective factors like ergonomics (the comfort of a camera in your hands depends on the individual - I for example find C to have horrible ergonomics, it's darn uncomfortable, N is pretty ok, but the ergonomics of S felt perfect).

Oh I see...

 

[Cartman2000]

i am so bloody sick and tired of having people drum on about resale value.

you might as well say that when you start dating a girl you should ask her what are her views of gifts given to her, does she return it? then find the one that says "yes", because the "resale" view is better, you can recover your losses if she doesn't turn out to be the one.

i don't believe anyone SANE does that, so why would you do it for a camera?

same for handphones. all this hype about resale value is just moot, if i buy a camera that i hate using, i will lose money because i will sell it away. if i buy a camera that has crappy resale value, and i use it, i will lose no money.

so please, let's stop going on and on and on about resale value.

Resale value could be taken into consideration especially when someone is caught in a dilemma between two equally good cameras and is looking for some factor to sway him into purchasing either one. Though I agree that you can't buy a camera based on resale value alone.

 

[Cartman2000]

one last thing I wanna add. With Sony, u wont kana chop vegehead by 3rd party lens makers.

Citing the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens as an example.

The Tamron 17-50mm has 2 versions, one is Image stabilized and a non stabilised version.

The stabilized version cost $900.
Non stabilised version cost $600.

both lenses produces same quality picture sharpness (actually a number of reviews says the non stabilised version is sharper).

Now, if u are a Canon user, and u wan image stabilised tamron 17-50, u need to pay $900.

But if U are a Sony user, U only need to pay $600, and u get image stabilization on the lens for free. Not to mention the non stabilized version is sharper too...

Its pretty obvious Tamron is chopping Canon users by coming out with this VC and non VC versions, trying to milk more money out of them. This is but one example, there are alot of other similar lenses with VC and non VC versions, demanding extra cash to get image stabilization...

U get the idea.

It's not chopping. Tamron didn't have the technological expertise to incorporate VC into their lenses before, so they offered a great 17-50mm f2.8 initially. Considering that the VC version only costs $300 more, has much better build quality and is optically superior from my experience(take with a pinch of salt; copy variation is rampant especially with off-brand lens manufacturers), how is it a scam? People who need/want it will pay more it.

 

[elvinomarin]

If comparing to Sony, then better compare Minolta since Sony bought them and their techs. If you want to talk about professional imaging and professional video, Sony is the 800lbs gorilla.

Fact: both camera will produce excellent Image quality.
Never used the 550D before, but I dont doubt its quality at all. As for A550, the same sensor in A550 is being used in Nikon's Semi Pro DSLRs, it caused Pentax to ditched Samsung (its sensor maker) and use Sony Sensor, and LEICA also used the same sensor in their X1, it tells alot about the quality of it, dont you think?

Imo its all down to whether u need video or not. If u need, just get the 550D, no need to think. However if u dont need, then the A550 has much better functions than the 550D.

Pro of 550D over A550:
Video
Userbase: There are alot of Canon users, so if you have alot of friends who has Canon lenses and are willing to lend u their lens, this might be a consideration. But I hv to stress, the good lens usually dont get loan out even between friends. Unless u really are so their suck c*ck buddies ;p

Pros of A550 over 550D:
Build in Image Stabilizer. ALL ur lenses are stabilized. Image stabilised 30mm primes, 50mm primes, etc etc. U don get those with Canon.
Fastest Live View of any system (maybe except Olympus)
7 frame per second shooting speed (550D is only 3.7fps)
Auto High Dynamic Range (no tripod needed)
Tiltable LCD screen for odd angle picture composition
Build in Wireless flash support

there are alot of mention on Sony having "limited lenses". This statement is true, yet its totally wrong as well. Sony does hv limited lenses, but thats because alot of Sony Alpha lenses are branded under Minolta. Minolta is Sony. Minolta lenses = Sony Alpha lenses. And there are hundreds of Minolta lenses available to choose from, and they're usually very cheap as well. So lenses selection will never be an issue no matter whether u choose Canon or Sony.

I agree with this comment

 

[torak]

It's not chopping. Tamron didn't have the technological expertise to incorporate VC into their lenses before, so they offered a great 17-50mm f2.8 initially. Considering that the VC version only costs $300 more, has much better build quality and is optically superior from my experience(take with a pinch of salt; copy variation is rampant especially with off-brand lens manufacturers), how is it a scam? People who need/want it will pay more it.

to me, if someone wants to charge me 50% more for something that other people is getting for free, its chopping :bsmilie:

But of cos, everyone thinks differently. Im sure some people wont mind even if it cost $1000 more