Should i buy the 400D or the Sony Alpha?

Minolta made some very nice lenses, the reintroduction of this glass by Sony likely will go very well.

I don't think you could go wrong with either system. But as for A100 vs. 400D, the A100 might tempt me more systems aside. Because of the slightly larger feature set and in body IS that Canon can not offer.

Both are plastic build bodies in the sub $1000 range. Go for the one with the most bang for the buck and that would be the Sony. Odds are Sony or the 3rd party will offer any lens you would need.

I have had horrible battery life problems with sony equipment.

for that reason i stay away from sony battery powered stuff, although i like sony for alot of home items.

Besides the advantages of the 400D and Canon system over Sony's, I think one has to question Sony's commitment to this market. Sony has miniscule market share, the mother company is doing terrible (poor financials, can't seem to make money etc...). Moving ahead is going to take a lot of expensive R&D to keep up with Canon and Nikon. Their lens lineup is going to need some work too - all that is going to take money to sustain long term profits.

Unless Sony improves their business situation fast, I don't see this happening. Sony is really at a cross roads right now - they either are going to get better or they are going to auger in. They don't have the luxury of waiting for long term profits, they need to post some good financial results ASAP. This camera thing is a long term play if they want it to be successful - that strategy is completely at odds with what they need to do to make the company survive and thrive.

J.

Both cameras take great pictures. It doesn't really matter which brand you choose, but once you start collecting lenses it is very expensive to change brands. Make sure you start out with the system you want to end up with.

With regards to image stabilization, Canon believes it is more effective to put it in the lens, Sony in the camera body. Certainly it seems more cost effective to have IS in the body so it only has to be bought once. I don't know the answer to questions that are more important in the long term. Which works better and which is more durable and trouble free?

IIRC, in some article i read somewhere, that the Sony IS in camera is worth about 1 to 1.5 stops - far less than the 3-4 Canon is not putting in their newest lenses.

J.

Canon is an established camera company while Sony seems to have their fingers in everything. As JohnJ80 said, you have to wonder about their commitment.

liza wrote in post #2298713
Canon is an established camera company while Sony seems to have their fingers in everything. As JohnJ80 said, you have to wonder about their commitment.

exactly... which is why I also ONLY buy NOKIA phones after terrible experiences with sony motorola samsung treo. Usually, you can't go wrong with the company that specializes. (though I'd say canon is more of an IMAGING company than a camera company, but they all relate)

If you are a hobbyist and are the type who will just use the camera on auto mode only and don't plan on getting serious... either camera will do you well. If you have any further interests in photography, I'd go with the canon personally.

MikeMcL wrote in post #2298674
I have had horrible battery life problems with sony equipment.

for that reason i stay away from sony battery powered stuff, although i like sony for alot of home items.

Ditto. I have always had trouble with Sony batteries.
They are great at first and last quite a while, then there's an enormous drop off in performance about 10 months later, just in time for the next Christmas season.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2298677
Besides the advantages of the 400D and Canon system over Sony's, I think one has to question Sony's commitment to this market. Sony has miniscule market share, the mother company is doing terrible (poor financials, can't seem to make money etc...). Moving ahead is going to take a lot of expensive R&D to keep up with Canon and Nikon. Their lens lineup is going to need some work too - all that is going to take money to sustain long term profits.

Unless Sony improves their business situation fast, I don't see this happening. Sony is really at a cross roads right now - they either are going to get better or they are going to auger in. They don't have the luxury of waiting for long term profits, they need to post some good financial results ASAP. This camera thing is a long term play if they want it to be successful - that strategy is completely at odds with what they need to do to make the company survive and thrive.

J.

True. Sony are no longer the juggernaut they once were. Many of the Korean "upstarts" have stolen massive market share from Sony, and I can't think of any field where they are the "leaders" anymore.
They make nice kit sometimes, but most of the time, it's just overpriced.

Canon all the way.More lenses better options,great cameras.

steve maec wrote in post #2299164
Canon all the way.More lenses better options,great cameras.

and a better forum

Don't forget, you're not just buying a camera and it's features, you're buying a whole support system incl. lenses, accessories, R&D, bigger market for 2nd hand gear and an information base such as POTN.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2298703
IIRC, in some article i read somewhere, that the Sony IS in camera is worth about 1 to 1.5 stops - far less than the 3-4 Canon is not putting in their newest lenses.

J.

Old info.
The Minolta's gave about 1.5 stops (more if i remember rightly) but the sony claims over 3 stops.
There are still some arguments about wether in-body stabilization can do as well as in-lens stabilization on longer lenses.So we should say that until proven otherwise in-lens has the upper hand in this regard

Canon and Nikon will always exists....Sony is a new kid on the block and frankly, are you willing to invest money into something that is spread very very thin?

i have seen and played with the sony, i found it difficult to use (but i find the same thing with nikon and pentax)

from what i saw in the shop, the kit lenses are sharper than the equivalent Canon kit lens but if you want any accesories, the will cost a fortune.

for example

Sony 70-200f2.8 - $4200
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - 3000
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for canon mount - $1500

Sony 300mm f2.8 - $11000
Canon 300 f2.8 - about half that

all prices in australian dollars

most of the lenses in the sony range are over 1000 dollars, whereas canon has a lot of lenses cheaper than that (including some excellent ones like the 50mm f1.8)

just my .02 and you may like the sony more

Echo63 wrote in post #2301472
i have seen and played with the sony, i found it difficult to use (but i find the same thing with nikon and pentax)

from what i saw in the shop, the kit lenses are sharper than the equivalent Canon kit lens but if you want any accesories, the will cost a fortune.

for example

Sony 70-200f2.8 - $4200
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - 3000
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for canon mount - $1500

Sony 300mm f2.8 - $11000
Canon 300 f2.8 - about half that

all prices in australian dollars

most of the lenses in the sony range are over 1000 dollars, whereas canon has a lot of lenses cheaper than that (including some excellent ones like the 50mm f1.8)

just my .02 and you may like the sony more

Those prices are a bit high, likely some inflated for now MSRP. All of the soon to be new Sony's could be found used as well. Especially the APO-G glass, which is darn good glass. Once availability grows the street price will return to normal.

The 70-200mm APO-G was a $1600 when new lens at best. This lens had a few of the higher end features that only the Canon long tele's had. Add IS to the body and you have a combo equally as good as any lens Canon now sells. APO-G was equal in every way to a Canon L.

Echo63 wrote in post #2301472
i have seen and played with the sony, i found it difficult to use (but i find the same thing with nikon and pentax)

from what i saw in the shop, the kit lenses are sharper than the equivalent Canon kit lens but if you want any accesories, the will cost a fortune.

for example

Sony 70-200f2.8 - $4200
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - 3000
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for canon mount - $1500

Sony 300mm f2.8 - $11000
Canon 300 f2.8 - about half that

all prices in australian dollars

most of the lenses in the sony range are over 1000 dollars, whereas canon has a lot of lenses cheaper than that (including some excellent ones like the 50mm f1.8)

just my .02 and you may like the sony more

In a related story, an Olympus salesguy was trying to convince me that he had a better system.. until we got to the prices. And I was going "No in-lens stabilizer, no ultrasonics, AND costs more? Wait, what am I missing?" and he really didn't have much to say