Sony or Canon SLR?

[Dafe]

yes the 20d is a very good camera but I dont see spending 3grand or so for the odd weekend use worth while when a $1500 camera will do ,and comes down to the $$$$ , I found 20d to big for my liking where the 350/400d yes lighter and smaller the 20d's the next level up again.

$3000????

I brought a 20D brand new less than a year ago for $2,100 from Harvey Normans.
I didn't get extra lenses though coz my standard SLR had the transferrable good quality ultrasonic lenses.

[Kendog]

Be wary of the Canon 350D.
The build quality is crap. That is why I purchased a Canon 20D instead.
Try holding the 350D body and then the 20D body afterward.
You'll notice the 20D is virtually twice as heavy. In SLR photography - Quality weighs more.
Realistically, the 20D has nearly double the expected lifetime as the 350D.

However, I've not held or compared a 400D yet.

The 350D still takes good photos and right now is a bargain (end of series prices)

Pretty big price difference up to the 20D, but certainly the 20D is a better camera.

The kit lenses for the 350D and 400D are a bit crappy, but if just getting into the DSLR world are good for learning. Using these for a while will give you a good idea what lens ranges you want to use if/when purchasing new lenses.
The good thinking about investing in quality lenses is they can be used on upgraded cameras when the time comes.

I have found the optional battery grip has made a world of difference to the camera. It fits is the hand perfectly now where previously my little finger was hanging off the bottom and feels better balanced.

I still have much to learn about DSLR photography but sure do enjoy taking pictures of bikes, my favorite road and track pictures are below.

Oh, and in case my biased discussion above has not given it away my vote is for the Cannon

[Darkman]

Sony TV vs Grundig TV. Same thing - Onions.

All the onions grow better on the western hills.

well thanks for your expert advice Dave. You said earlier that the 20D is about double the weight of the 350d so making it way better in quality and saying that the 350 was bad quality. You also said that the Nikon is better than the lot, but it only weighs about 45 grams more than the 350d..so now i'm confused.I guess i will go for the Nikon but will ask for the one with the lead body.
Whats the view like on your grundic tv mate? Must be real nice I bet.

[The_Dover]

anyone would think you guys were David fuckin Bailey or something.

isn't this like debating the difference between litre sports bikes when you ride like JSG?

[Darkman]

The 350D still takes good photos and right now is a bargain (end of series prices)

Pretty big price difference up to the 20D, but certainly the 20D is a better camera.

The kit lenses for the 350D and 400D are a bit crappy, but if just getting into the DSLR world are good for learning. Using these for a while will give you a good idea what lens ranges you want to use if/when purchasing new lenses.
The good thinking about investing in quality lenses is they can be used on upgraded cameras when the time comes.

I have found the optional battery grip has made a world of difference to the camera. It fits is the hand perfectly now where previously my little finger was hanging off the bottom and feels better balanced.

I still have much to learn about DSLR photography but sure do enjoy taking pictures of bikes, my favorite road and track pictures are below.

Oh, and in case my biased discussion above has not given it away my vote is for the Cannon

thanks Kendog..that is the sort of opinion that i am after.

[Dafe]

well thanks for your expert advice Dave. You said earlier that the 20D is about double the weight of the 350d so making it way better in quality and saying that the 350 was bad quality. You also said that the Nikon is better than the lot, but it only weighs about 45 grams more than the 350d..so now i'm confused.I guess i will go for the Nikon but will ask for the one with the lead body.
Whats the view like on your grundic tv mate? Must be real nice I bet.

Sorry bro, I ain't a expert. I don't have a Grundig TV and a "virtually" doesn't equal a "definate".

But as I pointed out from the start - Take the Canon.

I'd ask Jimbo600 too. He's bound to have a better idea than most here, he is an expert! Don't forget, Pex can obtain cameras cheaper than most shops. (Dodgy bugger) He should also have my price for the D80 by now. I'll PM it to you FYI. Coz I'm a cunt!

[skelstar]

If Skunk were here he'd post this:









go skunk!

[tide]

Personally I'd go for the Nikon D80, I have the D50 and it is an awesome camera...

Out of the two listed I'd go for the Cannon... I've had mates that have used the 300 and the 350 and been very impressed. Cannon are also very aggressive in the entry/mid level market.

The Sony (rebranned Minolta) has Image stabilization but I don't know how good it is, a mate at work has one but his camera has been in the shop twice as it stopped recognising the lens... rather frustrating when you out taking pictures in the middle of nowhere...

have a look at the following site... http://www.stevesdigicams.com
the reviews are very good and unbiased.

[Dafe]

Heres an in-depth review of the Sony A100 Vs Canon 400D Vs Nikon 80D.

The same one I referred to when deciding which camera to buy.

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/1...st/index.shtml

[Skunk]

If Skunk were here he'd post this:

go skunk!

Skunks here and he says take the 400D out of those two choices. The lens on the Canon ain't great, but the lens you replace them with will fit your next camera anyway.

I got the Canon 20D as I wanted the alloy body, not a plastic one. The 20D is also larger which suited me better. A friend has the Nikon D70 and it came with a better lens but it's not one he uses for his style of photography. Also a good camera.

[Darkman]

mm..cheers for all the advice. i think I might flag the idea of buying a kit and just buy a body and a good lens.so lets start again..what is a good lens for under a grand if there is such a thing?

[Beemer]

I've got a Nikon D200 - damned good camera and 10 megapixels. They are bringing out a new digital camera in the near future, think it is something between the D80 and the D200, so it may be wise to wait. The Canon 350D got great reviews and takes excellent shots, but the build quality of the camera isn't that great. The 5D had the build quality but it's even dearer than the D200. Depends on what you want to do really, if you don't need the greatest build quality, a D70 or similar would do you fine. As for dust, I've never had a problem, although if I got back into rallying photography, I'd probably avoid changing lens in dusty conditions.

[awesker]

Go canon mate! Love those cameras, software, lenses and build quality are just awesome for the price!

[Kendog]

mm..cheers for all the advice. i think I might flag the idea of buying a kit and just buy a body and a good lens.so lets start again..what is a good lens for under a grand if there is such a thing?

Have a look here for plenty of canon lenses reviewed.

[idleidolidyll]

I have just sold my old Sony digital camera and am on the hunt for a new SLR. There are two that I am interested in but just can’t decide on. Was wondering if anyone here has experience with either of the two and that would be able to give me some input. Basically I am looking for something that is easy to use and takes good quality pictures of motorcycles at speed..like on trackdays and racing. The reason I am looking at these two is that they come standard with two lenses..a 18-70mm and 75-300mm.Also looked at the Canon EOS30D but that looks more of a professional camera and is only 8Mpix where the other two are 10.How big of an issue is the dust getting on the ccd..some people act like you have to change lenses in a vacuum in order not to stuff it.
If there is something better than these two in the same sort of price range ‘I’ll be keen to know. Links;
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

Darkman, I am a photographer and I'd always choose between Canon and Nikon.
To start with the difference between 8MP and 10MP is tiny. Lets compare the new Canon 400 with the older 350. Printing at full resolution on both, the 10MP camera will only give an image that is 432x288 pixels bigger. That's about 3cmx2.4cm more.
As a pro photographer, I don't see any point trading up to get that slight an advantage.
Both the Canons use the same CMOS chip as their much more expensive big brothers and effectively the price difference between these and their 'pro' big brother (30D), is not down to quality of photos, it's down to extra features and speed. With the same lens, you'll not be able to tell the difference.
The new Sony DSLR looks good on paper and I'm sure it would do a fine job. However, I have to wonder about the extra equipment available and whether it's up to the support standards of the Canons and Nikons. I wouldn't take the risk as a pro. I'd wait for the 2nd or 3rd generation and listen to customer feedback first.
Frankly, If I was you, I'd look for a good used Nikon or Canon , something like a Canon 350D or Nikon D70. Spend the extra money on a better quality lens andyou'll get better quality photos.

For race shooting something like an 18-200 lens would give you pretty much all the focal length you need. On the D70 and EOS350 that would be equivalent to 28-300mm on a 35mm camera. Don't worry too much about getting an f2.8 lens, the f3.5-5.6 aperature will bu just fine at 400ASA and you'll save lots of money.

Spend a few extra bucks on a dedicated speedlight though. There's nothing like a good flash mated to the right body.

Hope this all helps

good luck