These days, one has a hard time staking the claim that Sony isn't an up and coming player in the DSLR market... With the larger prosumer bodies and newer releases of Minolta-proven glass, Sony isn't the same Sony it was just two years ago.
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
Stephen Fry writes about DSLRs in today's Guardian - a light article but, like everything he writes, a joy to read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/20/photography.gadgets
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/20/photography.gadgets
Nice read hank-b 
Well, honestly, im planning to get my own DSLR, hopefully a 2 months work will be able to get me this
Okay, so like every newcomer, I narrowed my choice to these 3 brands, Canon, Nikon and Sony. Olympus is out even-thought I owned a Oly SLR and P&S FE-320 (which is a great little portable camera except its performance inconsistency), is because of the lens choices.
Basically, like some user posted, when you buy a camera from the 3 big brands, you will end up like signing an invisible contract with it when you start buying lenses.
So, I read a lot of reviews and it seems those 3 brands entry level DSLRs (Rebel XS, XT, D40, D40x, D60, A200, A350) all have their pro and cons.
So now I will look into forums to see user experience
Well, honestly, im planning to get my own DSLR, hopefully a 2 months work will be able to get me this
Okay, so like every newcomer, I narrowed my choice to these 3 brands, Canon, Nikon and Sony. Olympus is out even-thought I owned a Oly SLR and P&S FE-320 (which is a great little portable camera except its performance inconsistency), is because of the lens choices.
Basically, like some user posted, when you buy a camera from the 3 big brands, you will end up like signing an invisible contract with it when you start buying lenses.
So, I read a lot of reviews and it seems those 3 brands entry level DSLRs (Rebel XS, XT, D40, D40x, D60, A200, A350) all have their pro and cons.
So now I will look into forums to see user experience
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. If you're going to consider Sony, who have some of the most expensive lenses on the market, and yet do not have many choices (unless you buy only used Minolta stuff), you may as well consider Olympus, as they probably have the best overall lens line-up on the market. I'm a Nikon shooter, so this isn't a biased opinion, mind you. Olympus' lenses are all very new designs, and it shows in their performance.
That's not to say that Sony is bad. I think the Sony A700 is VERY good. However, if you have an idea of what lenses you want to buy, and they're available for the camera you want to purchase, then there's no problem. You'll only run into problems when you start looking for 300 mm f/2.8 lenses and more specialized lenses, particularly long telephotos and telephoto zoom lenses.
I played with a Sony A350, A700, Olympus E-3, Nikon D700, Canon 50D, Olympus E-420 + 25 mm pancake lens (first time with that combo), and even an Epson Digital Rangefinder 3 days ago at Bic Camera (in Japan). All good cameras, and I don't think you can pick a bad camera today.
And with regards to lenses, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and Pentax have lots of lenses, and they're all rather easy to get if you live in the US.
But taking photos of stationary objects indoors (in low-ish light) isn't, and I think that's what his/her point was.
Really? How many people do you know who regularly take pictures of stationary objects indoors in low ambient light? I've seen literally thousands of images from my friends' DSLRs, and I can think of one or two shots over a period of several years. I can't even remember the last time I had a subject that was an object indoors in low light- maybe a Christmas Tree HDR- certainly not something I'd shoot with regularity. Looking through the photo of the day threads, I similarly don't see a lot of that type of photography- most people shoot people and animals in low ambient light in my experience.
Plus, if you'd actually read the thread, you'd see the poster I was responding to is the one who originally brought it up as a niche need, so no, that's not what their point was (ref post #50 in this thread.) I was just going from they thought it was a niche need to I thought it was definitely a niche need.)
Your dissent to the contrary, I'm still convinced that it is indeed a niche need.