I decided to ask for your advice. I have a relative that decided to upgrade from P&S to his first DSLR. At first he was looking to buy a Canon T3i with 18-135mm and 70-300mm lenses, but when he went to the store to check it out, a gentleman (store assistant) showed him the Sony A57 and Tamron 18-200mm (non IS). He said he used to use a Canon and Nikon, but then he got Sony DSLR and he said he would never go back. He told my relative about advantages of Sony A57, one of them being, image stabilization in the camera, not in the lens and about auto-focus for a video. So this really confused my relative to the point he is not sure, what to get. The Sony felt good in his hand and he was impressed with features, but he is new to all this, so he asked me. I own Canon XSi and don't even know anyone with Sony DSLR, so I'm asking you guys.
Tell me everything you know, why he should get one or the other and what are advantages of image stabilization in the camera (Sony) vs inside the lens (Canon).
He was told that IS in the camera is the newest and best technology out there and he would save money on the lenses, because they are cheaper if they don't have IS. Anyway, I will be grateful for your advice and opinion.
I've been using Sony since they released the A100 (first DSLR), I went the Sony route for the simple reason that I'd been a long time Minolta user and as Sony purchased Minolta my existing stable of Minolta lenses were compatible with Sony. I've moved from the A100 to the A550 and I've been very happy with Sony. I know a number of Canon users (with 5D MKII) who all complain about the AF system in the Canon. I've found the AF on the Sony to be good and low light performance to be excellent. As for image stabilization being in body on the Sony, I'm not sure I'd completely agree with the concept that the lenses would be cheaper. Compared to Nikon/Canon, Sony is a much smaller player in the market, and so I've found that there are fewer 2nd hand Sony lenses available compared to nikon/canon. That said, the availability of 2nd minolta lenses is pretty good.
A couple of downsides to being a Sony user (A)The hotshoe mount is proprietary and choice of flashguns is more limited and using studio flash triggers is not as straight forward as with Nikon/Canon (B) Borrowing/Sharing lenses with friends is unlikely to be an option as it's likely most of his/her friends will be either Nikon/Canon users.
All of that said, I'm very happy with my Sony, low light performance, live view manual focus check are great.
I would check why he's being offered a A57 with a 3rd party lens as opposed to a Sony kit lens. I'd also highly recommend the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens as a super prime lens, mine rarely comes of my camera.
I just did a quick search around DP Review and CNET. Seems that the Sony A57 would be a fine camera for someone who wants to shoot a lot on auto settings and let the camera make most the decisions. And if this person is one who is not likely to build a full camera bag with multiple lenses, etc. And if the person plans to shoot more easy-to-use video. If the video autofocus works well, it will be much easier to use.
I did not find much useful info on the in-camera IS vs. in-lens IS but if it works well it would obviously allow the purchase of less expensive lenses.
I would not choose a Sony over Canon/Nikon if I believed that I wold eventually desire a range of lenses for different purposes.However, I could see the Sony camera being a good step up from P&S. But so are Rebels and it looks like the Sony costs more. In the end, I really don't think your relative would go wrong with a Rebel. Shoot video with a Flip camera and keep it simple. :-)
I started out with a Sony DSLR because it was so much less expensive than the other brands, but has all the features I want. I have problems with shaky hands and I'm super happy with the in camera image stabilization. I've found it much better than the lenses I've tried with image stabilization.
The selection of lenses is more limited, but they're out there. I still haven't found a second hand lens that would work for what I want, but there are reasonably priced new lenses out there.
I've tried other cameras' autofocus & find Sony's to be quite good. I love the way it works in low light.
Here is an article which gives a good overview.
The advantage of the Sony is the video autofocus and every lens you purchase benefits from stabilization, unlike Canon/Nikon.
In the smaller frame DSLRs, I think it is largely a preference issue. (in full frame, Sony forfeit as they do not have one.)
As far as cost, a cursory glance of Sony v. Canon does not show a massive lens price difference. Sony have never been a low price company.
I also use Sony. The recent translucent mirror Alpha's are great. Sony is on the forefront of photo technology. IS in camera keeps the cost of the lens down and it allows seamless use of AF Minolta lenses. IS in camera also means a lighter lens.
When I went from powershot to dslr I got the sony a100. Now I have an a300 and I love them. I bought mine used and have bought my lenses used. I have a "beer can" which I like, but don't plan on taking pics of anything nearby with that. The lens that stays on my camera most is a sigma 28-80 1:3.5-5.6 II It has a little switch that puts it into macro mode. I got one on Craig's list for 40. it was stolen and I got this one from B&H Photo used for about 60.
Theoretically the lenses should be cheaper for Sony, but as @dave66 said, that might or might not work out due to volume and availability. I think a drawback is that with Nikon/Canon, when stabilisation is active, you can see the effect (lack of shake) through your viewfinder - since it's in the lens, you can see it in your viewfinder. With Sony, it's in/near the sensor, so you don't see it through your mirror (except maybe in live view mode?). You just have to trust it's there doing its job.
I thought I read with my Canon 2Ti that you are supposed to turn off the IS in the lens when using Al servo to shoot action? They say it slows you down (focus/shooting) if you leave it on. If it is is "in the camera" can you turn it off?
@dave66@hamptanner@herussell@lilbudhha@chapjohn@m9f9l@mikew@espyetta Thank you very much for all your advice. I already forwarded the link to this discussion to my relative and the final decision is on him now. Him and his family should come visit in two weeks, so I'm excited, that I will be able to play with his "new toy", no matter which one he will decide to get. Thanks again! :-)
I am also a Sony user, I have a A380, although I would love to upgrade to a A77. There are quite a range of lenses available for the Sony A mounts and you can also get Sigma or Tamron lenses that have the sony A mount. The IS is called steady shot with Sony and yes this can be turned off.
In reply to HampTanner's comment about shooting in auto setting. The camera works just fine in manual and I rarely have mine off the manual setting.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
A couple of downsides to being a Sony user (A)The hotshoe mount is proprietary and choice of flashguns is more limited and using studio flash triggers is not as straight forward as with Nikon/Canon (B) Borrowing/Sharing lenses with friends is unlikely to be an option as it's likely most of his/her friends will be either Nikon/Canon users.
All of that said, I'm very happy with my Sony, low light performance, live view manual focus check are great.
I would check why he's being offered a A57 with a 3rd party lens as opposed to a Sony kit lens. I'd also highly recommend the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens as a super prime lens, mine rarely comes of my camera.
I did not find much useful info on the in-camera IS vs. in-lens IS but if it works well it would obviously allow the purchase of less expensive lenses.
I would not choose a Sony over Canon/Nikon if I believed that I wold eventually desire a range of lenses for different purposes.However, I could see the Sony camera being a good step up from P&S. But so are Rebels and it looks like the Sony costs more. In the end, I really don't think your relative would go wrong with a Rebel. Shoot video with a Flip camera and keep it simple. :-)
I started out with a Sony DSLR because it was so much less expensive than the other brands, but has all the features I want. I have problems with shaky hands and I'm super happy with the in camera image stabilization. I've found it much better than the lenses I've tried with image stabilization.
The selection of lenses is more limited, but they're out there. I still haven't found a second hand lens that would work for what I want, but there are reasonably priced new lenses out there.
I've tried other cameras' autofocus & find Sony's to be quite good. I love the way it works in low light.
The advantage of the Sony is the video autofocus and every lens you purchase benefits from stabilization, unlike Canon/Nikon.
In the smaller frame DSLRs, I think it is largely a preference issue. (in full frame, Sony forfeit as they do not have one.)
As far as cost, a cursory glance of Sony v. Canon does not show a massive lens price difference. Sony have never been a low price company.
In reply to HampTanner's comment about shooting in auto setting. The camera works just fine in manual and I rarely have mine off the manual setting.