350D, 30D or Alpha

What do you think?

Rebel XT w/ battery grip (I find it just a little too small/light for IS lenses w/o grip)
30D
Sony Alpha

I already 'own' the Alpha and Rebel under a 30 day return policy and I think the Rebel is a little too small (hence the reason for suggesting getting the battery grip). The 30D is BIG and the Alpha is just right... except for the noise issues...

Everything I read online says that the image quality of the Canon is virtually as good as the Sony and in high ISO situations it's clearly better.

Very confused as to what to do...

A lot of people say get the 30D over the XT if you're a "serious" photographer... but I thought all it took to be a "serious" photographer is knowing how to operate in manual mode... Ansel Adams seemed to do just fine without image processors Also, comparing fps rate seems a little useless unless you're doing sports photography unless the latest trend in photography is to just shoot a burst of frames and select the best one after the fact...

Any thoughts?

I find myself in the same situation. I have a couple of Minolta mount lenses and a flash, but I could easily sell those I would think. I love the 30D, although it is fairly big. The high iso performance on all canons is superior to the Alpha without question, however the in-camera anti-shake can take care of that to a certain extent. I'm confused as to what would be the best system to buy into for the long haul, and my head keeps saying canon, but the Alpha looks so apealing. I know I didn't help, but I find myself in the same situation. I was also looking into used 20D's as well. How mush more are the IS lenses when it really comes down to it. Is there a general rule of thumb like say if you want a stabilized lense count on an additional $xxx. Alos something to think about is the rumored new Rebel announcement coming at Photokina in Sept. AHHGGGHH!!!

once again, it's very easy to find the right answer FOR YOU.

you know your budget. If money is not an issue than get one of the bigger ones, and some good (expensive ) optics.
If money is an issue get the 350d and some good lenses.

If to choose one of the bigger ones, you should know how important is high ISO performance FOR YOU.

If you're not really using high iso, than go for Alpha, and with the money to spare get some good optics.

In the end you have to find the answers for two main questions:
-Am I rich?
-Am I shooting in low light?

regards
tom

After six years in the retail photo business, I will provide this advice. Sony has always been a company that looks good on paper, but finding accessories for the system aspect of the camera is always a pain in the rear. There is often a joke in the photo industry, that Sony stands for Soon Only Not Yet.My honest opinion is that if you want to buy a camera, buy the Sony. If you want to buy a system buy the Canon. Now Sony has already said that other DSLRS are in the work. Look at the jump made from the 300D to the 350D. Signifigant improvements across the board. No one should ever buy the first of any DSLR, not to mention the first DSLR made by a partnership. If the time is now, Canon is the way, grip, batteries, lens support, flashes, etc. If you can wait, see what the "Beta" is going to offer. Perhaps more acessories, better ISOs, faster FPS.

Six Years of Experience,

Scott

In the end having image stabilization in the camera body is a real money saver. Plus it gives you stabilization with lenses that have no IS-equivalent for Canon. Phil's review is out, and if you see what ACR's noise reduction does it is clear that the sensor is not the problem there.

If you are planning on becoming really serious in the future then Canon is a good way to go. There are some excellent lenses (with IS) but they do come at a hefty price.

I got the DRebel (300D) because that was essentially the only affordable choice at the time, but afterwards getting the 17-85IS and 70-300IS has increased the total cost to above the level it would cost now to start with a camera body with stabilization built in.

Chelsel said:

What do you think?

Rebel XT w/ battery grip (I find it just a little too small/light
for IS lenses w/o grip)
30D
Sony Alpha

I already 'own' the Alpha and Rebel under a 30 day return policy
and I think the Rebel is a little too small (hence the reason for
suggesting getting the battery grip). The 30D is BIG and the Alpha
is just right... except for the noise issues...

Everything I read online says that the image quality of the Canon
is virtually as good as the Sony and in high ISO situations it's
clearly better.

Very confused as to what to do...

A lot of people say get the 30D over the XT if you're a "serious"
photographer... but I thought all it took to be a "serious"
photographer is knowing how to operate in manual mode... Ansel
Adams seemed to do just fine without image processors Also,
comparing fps rate seems a little useless unless you're doing
sports photography unless the latest trend in photography is to
just shoot a burst of frames and select the best one after the
fact...

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 24.000 shots) and now also the Fuji F11.

Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ . Use code to get your own zenfolio site and get $5 off.

Chelsel said:

Ansel Adams seemed to do just fine without image processors

Click to expand...

But Ansel spent a lot of time in the dark room fine tuning each "print" to be "correct".
It was not a batch process by any measure

That was the best available "image processor" of his time - now its the digic (or equiv) processor and software tools.

i don't like the control layout of the sony. i think the shot settings on the rear LCD is a bad idea. i don't even like my XT's shot setting LCD on the rear of the camera (unlike the 10/20/30Ds' being on the top).

i also think the "eye focus" feature is gimmicky and not very useful.

from a firmware point of view, i really like canon's menu and control layout. of course i've had my camera for about 6 months and i can change any setting without looking at the camera by now, but i also moved up from a G2 so i was familiar with the canon control layout.

BUT, i'll say this. i'll NEVER buy a camera from sony, for the same reason i'd NEVER buy a DVD player from canon...

if you want a camera, buy one from a company who has a history in making cameras, and a history of being one of the tops of the industry. even if they aren't the best, or the most popular, a company who makes cameras. canon, nikon, olympus, kodak, konic.....errr....pentax..!

of course, the sony is mostly a re-branded konica minolta camera, i'm sure it performs very well, that is just my opinion on buying products from a company dedicated to that area, and not spread out all over the place

I have the Sony T30 and can tell you it works wonders.

That said I have a Rebel XT and will probably stick with it.

If you're pretty certain that the lenses you are going to buy are IS lenses, then the Sony might work out cheaper than the 30d.

In other words, choose your lenses based on budget and take whatever body works with your lens choices.

Was the jump to the xt from a G2 easy and fullfilling? I've been with my G2 for years now and am thinking of moving up. Were you able to get as good, or better shots than the G2 right away? thanks

I had the Alpha, and I returned it in favor of the XT.

I agree with the idea that if you want to buy into a system, choose Canon.

However, I don't agree that Sony doesn't know what they are doing in the dSLR market... they've been making cameras for a long time, and the Alpha is based upon the very successful KM 7D and 5D.... furthermore, Sony got Konica-Minolta to build the Alpha for them, it wasn't a Sony project per se... so it might as well be considered the 8D...

What I like about the XT is accessories and choices...

If you want the great high-ISO noise performance AND anti-shake, get an IS lens for the XT and you're done. You can't really do that with the Alpha. If you go for a high ISO with noise, you lose those details forever. Even a noise reduction filter can't really clean it up that well. And scaling down doesn't fix it either, I've tried.

Sony makes great stuff, and I own a few Sony products... I'm very happy with them... however, they tend to be more expensive and proprietary to get into... kinda like Apple.

Canon has more third-party accessories and cheap second-hand stuff on eBay / CraigsList.

My 2c...

30D is the most "professional" of the tree.
If you want the best image quality, buy 30D.

but that is not what you want me to say.

truth is: with any of them, YOU will be the limiting factor on how good your images are, not the camera and lens system. I have had the 300D and now XT for two years now, and am just plateauing now where my skills are such that I can extract close to maximum performance from my camera.. and I have taken over 20K shots in that time.

as far as image quality goes, the 30D and XT are indistinguishable... big differences are: price, size, weight, frame rate and buffer size, and somewhat more accurate focus system on the 30D.. if these are make/break for you, the XT drops out of the running.. otherwise...

food for thought: a significant portion of pros use an XT for a backup camera rather than the 20/30D BECAUSE of its small size and the fact that its IQ is indistinguishable from its bigger relatives'..

Cheers,
S.
--

• How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *

Free the Images
My XT IS Full Frame -- APS-C/FF of course!

I'm pretty much an amateur, but for what it's worth, I own the Rebel XT with the standard kit lens (18-55) and a low end Sigma (70-300). At a friend's wedding celebration and at another friend's daughter's birthday, I was either too far away for the 18-55 to be effective or too close for the 70-300. I was also depending heavily on a monopod to give me the stability I needed for the telephoto and while it made a difference, sometimes, it was just cumbersome.

So, that meant I needed another lens. I wish Canon made a 18-200 image stabilized lens like Nikon does because that would cover about the entire range I would realistically need. Tamron and Sigma make one, but without any stabilization. I ended up getting a Canon 28-135 mm stabilized lens, but it costed $650 Cdn.

But before I bought the 28-135 IS USM lens, I realized lens costs were adding up, and any image stablized lens would be 2X the cost of its counterpart non-stabilized. The Sony Alpha ooked attractive because the stabilization is built into the camera and theoretically, the lens will then be comparatively cheaper. Sony also has a kit out with both a 17-70 and 70-300 lenses for a decent price; supposedly, you would have the whole range covered. I was wondering if I shouldn't just trade in the whole camera system.

Well, in the end, I stuck with the Rebel. I tried the Alpha out in several stores. It's impressive, but for some reason, I like the feel and grip of the Rebel XT more, even without the battery grip for extra comfort. I've also been told that the stabilization on the Canon lens itself is better, but I can't confirm this.

However, I would think that the next generation Alpha might be a whole lot better...

The Alpha will likely produce punchier images out of camera. And the fact that IS is built in means a beginning photographer can get better pictures without fiddling with tripods, ISO settings and shutter speeds.

Now when a photographer becomes good, that's when the Canon system will outshine the Sony IMO.

So in a sense, I guess I'm saying the opposite of what you're recommending