I don't want to stick up for SONY but your post is a bit short sighted. In a year SONY will have more gear and options for their SLR system in one way or another. Its not like they're not moving forward.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My First DSLR: Sony or Canon?
- Thread starter H4L
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't want to stick up for SONY but your post is a bit short sighted. In a year SONY will have more gear and options for their SLR system in one way or another. Its not like they're not moving forward.
Well .. Sony is taking it seriously lately they're about to release their first FF DSLR with 24MP sensor and more semi-pro next year plus they have a range of Minolta Lenses compatibility , Yes of course going with Canon Nikon or Oly would be more reasonable as for their history & full range of lenses etc .. but i guess you are just a beginner and what matters now is your first one , i've been in the same boat , looking for the best choice beside i wanted a handy(not heavy) one anyway after all i went for Oly E-420 & its Gr8 for a beginner or someone need a handy DSLR to go with anytime anywhere , it has a gr8 kit lens whether its the 14-42 or the pancake , its not heavy , Gr8 for beginner's makes you learn some stuff fast , so basically u'll luv whatever u got as much as your taking pictures , GoodLuck .
get a Canon. those Alpha cameras sony has are kind of not good.
i have a Canon SLR Rebel XTi and i plan to get a DSLR soon
but instead of getting a canon DLSR i plan to get a Nikon instead
but if your between sony and canon get a canon for sure, dont EVER get a sony.
but if your looking for other opinions i say go for a Nikon. but canon is good too
the only thing you ahve to worry about is price. Sonys dslr seem cheap and they are but their products tend to not do so well. canons on the other hand are expensive but they take great pictures and are quality cameras and you can use of your old lens if you have owned a SLR before on some of the cameras.
another thing to look at is preferance. go to the store and feel the camera and see if you like its contorls and design. thats another way to decide for a DLSR
i have a Canon SLR Rebel XTi and i plan to get a DSLR soon
but instead of getting a canon DLSR i plan to get a Nikon instead
but if your between sony and canon get a canon for sure, dont EVER get a sony.
but if your looking for other opinions i say go for a Nikon. but canon is good too
the only thing you ahve to worry about is price. Sonys dslr seem cheap and they are but their products tend to not do so well. canons on the other hand are expensive but they take great pictures and are quality cameras and you can use of your old lens if you have owned a SLR before on some of the cameras.
another thing to look at is preferance. go to the store and feel the camera and see if you like its contorls and design. thats another way to decide for a DLSR
Good to hear from fellow E-420 users here! (I hope you have been taking your nippy DSLR to places other DSLRs wouldn’t dare to go!) 
Why do some get so offended when the name ‘Sony’ is mentioned in photography forums? They do occupy the third place in DSLR market share so they must be doing something good that consumers are buying. And (correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t Sony supply the sensors for Nikons and Canons?
I completely disagree with recommending Canon or Nikon simply because they are the obvious and easiest choice. If you kept to that reasoning, would you even be a mac user? Shouldn’t you then be with Vista? Granted, if you can’t be bothered to explore and research, then most would choose Canon (or Nikon), but for those who actually dig deeper and communicate with actual users of different brands, you will realise the choice is not so obvious anymore. Like choosing jeans, would you simply order Levis from the internet or would it be wiser to try them in-store first and compare to suit the shape of your legs and butt? Okay, bad example, but you get the drift.
Well, I suppose the OP is now completely confused (as is always they case when someone asks for advice on which brand to choose).
Why do some get so offended when the name ‘Sony’ is mentioned in photography forums? They do occupy the third place in DSLR market share so they must be doing something good that consumers are buying. And (correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t Sony supply the sensors for Nikons and Canons?
I completely disagree with recommending Canon or Nikon simply because they are the obvious and easiest choice. If you kept to that reasoning, would you even be a mac user? Shouldn’t you then be with Vista? Granted, if you can’t be bothered to explore and research, then most would choose Canon (or Nikon), but for those who actually dig deeper and communicate with actual users of different brands, you will realise the choice is not so obvious anymore. Like choosing jeans, would you simply order Levis from the internet or would it be wiser to try them in-store first and compare to suit the shape of your legs and butt? Okay, bad example, but you get the drift.
Well, I suppose the OP is now completely confused (as is always they case when someone asks for advice on which brand to choose).
I remember seeing a thread a while back about beginners getting advice from forums just like these. It was making a comment about how photographers dispense advice.
It went something like this:
Question: Hi I'm a newbie to photography and I am looking into buying an SLR.
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: Hi I want to shoot raw, but the camera needs to be small.
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: What is a good point and shoot to buy?
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: I'm interested in this Pentax camera, should I get it?
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
They are usually for the same reasons as well, loads of lenses (where nobody buys enough of them to take advantage of this) and both companies have been around for years. Somewhere somehow, everybody forgets that the likes of Pentax, SONY, Olympus have also been around for years as well.
I wanted to say something like this but couldn't articulate it into a simple sentence. But you are right, it is amazing the mindset some of us Mac users have considering we are in the minority of computer users.
It went something like this:
Question: Hi I'm a newbie to photography and I am looking into buying an SLR.
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: Hi I want to shoot raw, but the camera needs to be small.
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: What is a good point and shoot to buy?
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
Question: I'm interested in this Pentax camera, should I get it?
Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.
They are usually for the same reasons as well, loads of lenses (where nobody buys enough of them to take advantage of this) and both companies have been around for years. Somewhere somehow, everybody forgets that the likes of Pentax, SONY, Olympus have also been around for years as well.
I wanted to say something like this but couldn't articulate it into a simple sentence. But you are right, it is amazing the mindset some of us Mac users have considering we are in the minority of computer users.
I agree, sort of. I used to shoot with Pentax cameras and was a big fan of their beautifully-designed small SLR cameras and the quality of their lenses. I now use Nikon cameras (well, a D70 and a F3HP) because at the point where I really wanted to upgrade, Pentax weren't offering what I wanted. The Pentax range is a lot better now so I'd say to the OP go and look at the cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax and see what you like - they'll all be good and all give you a reasonable upgrade path. Canon and Nikon offer a richer and more varied upgrade path but this is really only of interest to professionals. I'd be wary of Sony becuase they don't have the history of building cameras - the Sony cameras I've seen have shown Sony's expertise in consumer electronics but haven't really felt like very natural tools for taking pictures.
HB
I think there are rights and wrongs, that is the point some of us are trying to make though admittedly they do offer roughly the same thing. Its in the details which get glossed over if the mind set is for everyone to recommend Canon or Nikon.
You've highlighted the problem I mentioned in my last post, in YOUR own post 'I have Canon and love it. I recommend Canon.' Where is your objectivity, your ability to do research on other products? What do you know about other camera manufacturers?
My friends (all canon users) think I'm silly to read reviews for Nikon products knowing I've no interest in buying one. I don't even like Nikon but I'll read about what they get up to so I can stay objective.
I don't know much about Canon or Sony camera's. Pentax user myself.
In the photography courses I've taken. I've met up with one Sony shooter and he had a problem with shooting in the studio. He had to buy a gizmoo (from ebay) to attach to his camera so he can use the studio lighting. Everyone else (Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon shooters) didn't had to buy it.
One little tid bit to think about.
In the photography courses I've taken. I've met up with one Sony shooter and he had a problem with shooting in the studio. He had to buy a gizmoo (from ebay) to attach to his camera so he can use the studio lighting. Everyone else (Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon shooters) didn't had to buy it.
One little tid bit to think about.
It's gotten far too up tight and serious in this photography forum, guys. It's like a bad case of DPReview's "pro" forums.
I'm not saying everyone want's to have 50 lenses in their bag (I don't), but I sure like having a range of choices. I was just looking for a new wide angle for my 5D and enjoyed having a choice of Tamron, Tokina, Canon and Sigma. Not so for the Sony ... yet.
And I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I like the glass choices and performance better in Canon, but I like the Nikon's features better...
I'm not saying everyone want's to have 50 lenses in their bag (I don't), but I sure like having a range of choices. I was just looking for a new wide angle for my 5D and enjoyed having a choice of Tamron, Tokina, Canon and Sigma. Not so for the Sony ... yet.
And I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I like the glass choices and performance better in Canon, but I like the Nikon's features better...
I haven't read everyones posts... but the short answer for the OP is this:
Cannon has and always will have superior glass and IS performance over any Sony lens.
That coming from a Nikon shooter.
I know you've heard this before, but it's all about the components 'behind' the camera... then the glass!
Cannon has and always will have superior glass and IS performance over any Sony lens.
That coming from a Nikon shooter.
I know you've heard this before, but it's all about the components 'behind' the camera... then the glass!
Hi iGary, Nice to see you again
Back when I started looking at DSLR's I listened to some here and actually did what iGary suggested to do first. I went around to stores and held each model I was looking to purchase (this might be key for some), listed a real growth list for some lenses (which I now have those lenses) then went back to see what options were left in the group and what group would offer long term benifits (others helped with lenses as well, thank you). From there I ended up with a D50 Nikon simply because of what it offered now and what it could offer in the near/semi long future for me.
In the end I've been more than happy without fueling a feud because no matter what camera I would have ended up with if I had zero talent, nothing about taking photos held my interest, a Nikon, Canon or any other camera would not have mattered ever
Good luck, have fun and learn from there…
@leandroc76 You should read other peoples posts, its ignorance, it's akin to walking into a conversation and blurting out what you think is best which might not help anybody. It's not clever and you don't have that luxury in a real conversation, so don't waste the opportunity given to you in an internet forum.
I think the conversation has moved on a bit from Canon vs Sony which isn't now the case. The conversation is about how the majority of individuals will go for Canon or Nikon because other posters are recommending only those 2 brands, people need to do more research like tony-in-japan and iGary suggest. We're mac users, we're supposed to be thinking differently!
iGary, my comment to you is instead of saying we can offer x amount of glass for a photographer, instead stress the other advantages like you just did in your last post by talking about the 3rd parties, but too much choice can be a bad thing as well btw.
I think the conversation has moved on a bit from Canon vs Sony which isn't now the case. The conversation is about how the majority of individuals will go for Canon or Nikon because other posters are recommending only those 2 brands, people need to do more research like tony-in-japan and iGary suggest. We're mac users, we're supposed to be thinking differently!
iGary, my comment to you is instead of saying we can offer x amount of glass for a photographer, instead stress the other advantages like you just did in your last post by talking about the 3rd parties, but too much choice can be a bad thing as well btw.
I'm not exactly sure if your bashing me or agreeing with me, however the former seems more likely.
Since when did the Opinion Police start showing up?
I personally don't care what you use... in the end it all comes down to your budget and ability to make good photographs.
Someone asks a question that has been answered 500 million times before, and all the budget photogs come out of the woodwork.
I'm not bashing you, I'm simply saying blundering into a thread without taking 5 minutes to read the thread is just bad form.
Also, the budget photographers are out because the original poster wanted a camera on the cheap, oh wait, you didn't read their post either?
I'm glad the budget photogs came out of the woodwork for this question. Because the OP specifically mentioned he was on a tight budget, and looking for advice. So -- hooray for the budget photogs! Surely you weren't suggesting that the opinions of those budget photographers aren't as valuable as the big spenders' opinions...
I do think, though, that this is a common question and a tiny bit of research on this or other boards would yield more information than the OP could possibly need. And of course it's also true that the equipment matters less than our skills.
iGary is right... let's all lighten up around here. We're on a photo discussion board, not negotiating world peace.
That's fine - but I am only talking from my experience. When I was shopping, I liked the look of the Canon, the feel, the UI, the CF card and just the whole package. I even prefer the name. That's just me. I can't recommend something to someone if I haven't used it. I could advise, but I chose to recommend.
I recommend he tries out a few models and buys what he ends up liking. They're all so similar anyway.
I got a Canon 400D almost a year ago for £300 on ebay - direct from Canon as a refurb unit. I love it. Want a 40D but doubt I would make use of the features.... so far.
Actually, if the analogy is followed, then MS would be Canon and Apple would be Nikon- you'd actually be advocating running something like AIX.
Like it or not, third-party support is always going to be based upon market share. Therefore, the availability and choice for non-manufacturer options are always going to be better for Canon or Nikon than any of the also-rans.
Likewise, the availability of good-condition cheaply-priced used gear is going to be similarly distributed (take a look at the KEH catalog for a good example.)
Just like choosing a computer or an operating system, intended use is a large part of things. If you were looking to run an ERP package, a Mac is about the dumbest choice you can make. Brand loyalty for the sake of brand loyalty is a sub-optimal way to choose any product.
You likely won't notice the difference in images between the cameras- and both are as capable as the other. In terms of being able to find good quality used lenses, a wide range of third party lenses and other accessories, I'd recommend going with the Canon over the Sony. Also, should you really get into photography, you'll be able to use more of the lenses and accessories on a wider range of bodies in the future.
Your interpretation is wrong.
If it was MS vs Apple being akin to Canon vs Nikon then MS would need to start making their own computers as well as writing the software to run them to make your interpretation work.
Tony-in-japan is correct in his point. Canon and Nikon are dominant in their field as is MS. Apple is a minority player just like Olympus, Apple is doing something different in their respective market, just like Olympus.
Both will hopefully do fine but to ignore Mac's or Olympus cameras without doing research is silly. Apple want to create the whole product, Olympus want to create small SLR's. Both are criticized for not allowing OS X to be sold with other computers and Olympus are criticized for their small sensor. Both do what they do deliberately.
But Tony-in-japan's point is the mindset in the computer world is that MS must be better because they are popular, to some this way of thinking is carried over to Canon and Nikon. 'You should go with Canon or Nikon' because 'they are the biggest players' or 'they have the biggest lens line up' or 'they will always be around'.
With that line of thinking you wonder why Canon and Nikon get bigger and bigger every year, everybody is just going with the market leaders, never exploring the other options. Remember when Mac users were trying to convince windows users that Macs are great and could offer windows users everything they want but were always on the side? Its the same with Pentax, Sony, Sigma or Olympus users. We're trying to suggest that not going with the big players is okay and you should look at the alternatives otherwise more market share for the top 2. Research and objectivity is important.
Now we as Mac users should know better, being dominant is never always better, having 3rd party options is never always better. But it does help. Remember this argument is used for Windows? Yeah we can choose from 20 word processor packages while on the Mac our 3rd party market for word processors was smaller, but it was much better quality.
No it wouldn't. The analogy works fine the way it is.
Not really, Apple has enough of the laptop market share to be Nikon just fine.
Once again, I submit that if you're going to run an ERP package, Apple is not the best choice. Not even close. A larger lens line up, a larger selection of used lenses and things like that are advantages, no matter what you may wish.
That's only a disadvantage if (a) you didn't choose one of the market leaders, or (b) the market leaders are putting out bad products.
But you're not being objective- you're focusing on one or two issues and beating the gong repeatedly. The OP had narrowed down to two brands (neither of which I happen to shoot regularly) and rather than respecting that, you non-objectively inject your personal brand choice into the mix. That's not objective, that's overly subjective.
Seemingly unlike you, I chose my Mac for very specific capability and software reasons, not just because. But then prior to going with a Mac, I quite happily ran Linux as my primary OS at home since kernel .98p11 and at work since about 1.03.
Just because it's used doesn't make it a valid argument. As for "much better quality," there's hardly a feature set in a word processor package that needs "quality." Perhaps you could quantify that quality against every word processor written for Windows? Because if you're going to make the argument that you should look at every available option in the margins, you'll spend at least several months to come up with a word processor if you look at everything that's available to type text into in Windows.
I hate cut and paste jobs (plus we're discussing an interpretation of an analogy) so I'm only going to respond to the comments which make a comment on my character.
The OP stated price was his main concern, so logic dictates I make the OP aware of the cheapest brand that is available to him. It just happens to be what I bought for myself. At work I use Canon and Nikon cameras. If you missed the part where I change my mind and recommend Canon to the OP then you should pay attention.
The reason for changing my mind was because I couldn't find the Olympus camera in his country cheaper than the Canon and for it to be worth his time chasing. The Canon camera is also a very good deal, so he's better off going for it.
Second, I went with OS X because windows was a frustrating product to use, I had already tried Linux myself and in the end I went for an Apple Mac because of its quality and reliability, there were also small other things that appealed to me. Add to the fact that if anything does go wrong with it I can contact the one company that produced it.
I didn't buy it just because I could stick it to Microsoft.
First, I am a Canon guy. I own over 10k$ in Canon gear and I think I take good pictures.
I think this entitle me to say that a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about. Sony Alpha bodies are getting very good reviews and have some incredible features, such as the in body IS or eye scan to start the camera - focus point.
Also, a lot of attention is on Nikon these days but Sony is the company that is moving forward the fastest these days. Because they are in a green field they can be very creative and that is what they are doing. If I was to start from scratch with 10k$, I would give a serious look at Sony.
Finaly, the look of their lenses is straight from the future! ;-)
I cant provide you with a straight answer because there are none. Both system are good, actually every camera manufacturer has great entry level bodies these days. You just have to pick the system that you like the most.
My only real suggestion is to get a 50mm1.8 lens. What ever the system you get, you will need one ;-)
I think this entitle me to say that a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about. Sony Alpha bodies are getting very good reviews and have some incredible features, such as the in body IS or eye scan to start the camera - focus point.
Also, a lot of attention is on Nikon these days but Sony is the company that is moving forward the fastest these days. Because they are in a green field they can be very creative and that is what they are doing. If I was to start from scratch with 10k$, I would give a serious look at Sony.
Finaly, the look of their lenses is straight from the future! ;-)
I cant provide you with a straight answer because there are none. Both system are good, actually every camera manufacturer has great entry level bodies these days. You just have to pick the system that you like the most.
My only real suggestion is to get a 50mm1.8 lens. What ever the system you get, you will need one ;-)
There are some good reasons to go with systems other than Canon or Nikon.
A big one would be a need for in-body stabilization. This is a niche need, I think, since in-body stabilization most benefits people who want to shoot handheld with shorter length prime lenses (no Canon or Nikon primes are going to have stabilization unless they're telephoto).
Another would be a desire to shoot with a stock of vintage lenses, of course. (Or a desire to acquire these lenses, which are generally of high-quality and are relatively inexpensive.)
Of course there are also body-specific incentives with each brand, but those offer weaker reasons for brand adoption, since camera bodies are a relatively short-term investment.
A big one would be a need for in-body stabilization. This is a niche need, I think, since in-body stabilization most benefits people who want to shoot handheld with shorter length prime lenses (no Canon or Nikon primes are going to have stabilization unless they're telephoto).
Another would be a desire to shoot with a stock of vintage lenses, of course. (Or a desire to acquire these lenses, which are generally of high-quality and are relatively inexpensive.)
Of course there are also body-specific incentives with each brand, but those offer weaker reasons for brand adoption, since camera bodies are a relatively short-term investment.