Reading mode: Light Dark

Would like some advice on choosing Sony or Canon regarding lens price

Go to last post
F

fclight

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Hello everyone! I am now trying to develop photography as a hobby and would like to buy a entry level DSLR. I am choosing between the A57 and T4i.

I have read lots of reviews and videos on these two cameras and have tried them out in local store. Personally I like the a57 operation better as I can look in the EVF and adjust setting at the same time. The live view in the EVF is also great. While it feel tedious when using the t4i as I need to adjust the setting first on the LCD screen then look into the viewfinder and shoot.

Only one thing is still keeping me from buying the sony. I am still a student and therefore have limited budget on buying extra lens. I have read comments about canon lens being generally cheaper than the sony because they have more users and more secondhand choices available. However I have tried to compare sony and canon lens (e.g. the 35mm f1.8 and 35mm f2) and found that it is not a must for canon price lower than sony. But again, I am still a newbie so I cant really compare every lens side-by-side because I dont know what their equivalent are.

So here's the question, from your experience, which system is more economical in terms of lens price and do you recommend me to choose the canon regardless of my first impression? Also please feel free to correct me if what I said about the operation of the camera is wrong. I dont get much help from the salesperson when trying out the canon one.

Thank you in advance and excuse me for my bad english!

PS. I like shooting landscape, street view and people (during friends and family occasion), but I am more than willing to try out other kind of photography too.
 
Solution
RobG67
It's really not about the prices so much as it's about what lenses each system has that suits the way you want to work. Sony has a plan to release more lenses, but Canon actually has lenses available to buy NOW, not at some point in the nebulous future. And the price difference for the 2 systems' lenses isn't all that great, really - both have cheap options, both systems' good glass is expensive.

As you grow, you'll find the way that the world looks best to you through a viewfinder, and you'll do what you have to do to get the lenses you want to use. Canon gives you options; Sony (at this point in time) doesn't.

Personally, I shoot Nikon, so I'm not worried which one you buy. :)
Well it's difficult to say who's prices may be more expensive because some Canon lenses do not have Sony equivelents. The main ones are still there like 70-200's and 24-70's and they are generally the same price. Keep in mind that Sony lenses do not require In lens Stabilization because they have it in the body. For some lenses this does not matter, for example the Tamron USD 70-300 costs the same for Sony as for the Canon and Nikon ones, even though the Sony does not have the VR tag which is the lens stabilization. So, in conclusion, i suggest you do some more research as to what lenses you will spicifically want to get and then do an apples to apples comparison.

.
 
It's really not about the prices so much as it's about what lenses each system has that suits the way you want to work. Sony has a plan to release more lenses, but Canon actually has lenses available to buy NOW, not at some point in the nebulous future. And the price difference for the 2 systems' lenses isn't all that great, really - both have cheap options, both systems' good glass is expensive.

As you grow, you'll find the way that the world looks best to you through a viewfinder, and you'll do what you have to do to get the lenses you want to use. Canon gives you options; Sony (at this point in time) doesn't.

Personally, I shoot Nikon, so I'm not worried which one you buy. :)
 
Solution
I've been shooting with a Sony A65 and there seems to be enough selection in lenses, both new and used, for what most amatuers would want to do. Sure, Canon and Nikon have more, but it's mostly pro level stuff you'll never buy anyway. And there are plenty of third party lenses out there as well that work for the Sony; I have a Tamron 70-300 which I really like, and it's much cheaper than the Sony version.

For used stuff, Sony cameras can use older Minolta lenses, so lots of options for second hand stuff.

If you liked the Sony better for usability, I'd go with that.
 
RobG67 said:
RobG67 wrote:

It's really not about the prices so much as it's about what lenses each system has that suits the way you want to work. Sony has a plan to release more lenses, but Canon actually has lenses available to buy NOW, not at some point in the nebulous future. And the price difference for the 2 systems' lenses isn't all that great, really - both have cheap options, both systems' good glass is expensive.

As you grow, you'll find the way that the world looks best to you through a viewfinder, and you'll do what you have to do to get the lenses you want to use. Canon gives you options; Sony (at this point in time) doesn't.

Personally, I shoot Nikon, so I'm not worried which one you buy. :)
Click to expand...
I also shoot Nikon but only for the past 3+ years. Before that I once upon a time upgraded from the Sony mount to the Canon mount. The reason I did was not the price of the lenses but the lower selection on the Sony. For the basic lenses they are close. Perhaps Sony is "slightly" more or maybe it only seemed like that from all the years I shot Minolta/Sony.

So while I agree with Rob's reply, I'd like to throw a few points to consider out there.

Have you considered what sorts of photography you wish to explore? Almost every camera system supports the basic stuff but some stuff is really only possible with Canon or Nikon. If your shooting goals include stuff not readily covered by Sony's lens line up, then you have to consider your other options. For example, you said the the t4i is not ergonomically what you prefer (this is the one of two reasons I jumped from Canon to Nikon, btw) then consider your "close to the same" price level options. The Canon 60d has considerably better ergonomics, the Nikon d7000 does too and is better in low light and high-dynamic range shooting (bright highlights, shadow details).

Between the two you are considering, the a57 is MUCH faster to AF in video. it needs an external microphone as the built in one is "not good".

Then there is the EVF vs the OVF. Few tolerate both equally. I do not care for EVF's. I prefer an optical viewfinder particularly a pentaprism like in the Canon 60d or Nikon d7000.

The point that Rob makes that economics is not going to be the best differentiator between these two is correct. The other factors should be considered first as the bodies and the systems are quite different.
 
I use Nikon so I'm not that familiar with Sony or Canon prices. Just go to B&H and/ Adorama's websites and compare prices. For used gear go to keh.com to compare prices and see what's available. Also I can adjust aperture, shutter speed, iso, exposure compensation, and P,A,S, or M while looking through the viewfinder of my Nikons. Are you sure that you can't with the Canon? Why not consider Nikon?



There are other consideration between Sony and Canon. First there's the EVF vs the OVF. Most complaints against EVF's is that they are not as clear as OVF's and especially that they "smear" when following action. Second is the lens based stabilization vs body based stabilization. Body based has the advantage of turning any lens into a stabilized lens. Lens based has the advantage of seeing the effect of the stabilization. This can be important with long lenses. For example, I find that without lens based stabilization, the image in the viewfinder with a 300mm lens bounces around so much it makes composing difficult. With lens based stabilization, the image in the viewfinder is steady.
 
Your English is fine don't worry about that. Have a look at the 60D too (price is dropping) and don't forget the Nikons that is good stuff too. Trust your senses you like what you like.
 
For starters the Sony A57 is not a DSLR. It looks similar to one, but it is most certainly not one. The Sony a580 is a DSLR if you want a Sony and want a DSLR. The A57 is a translucent mirror SLT camera. While I wouldn't mind owning a Sony A580, I really don't like SLT cameras. Until they do an aweful lot of improvements on the EVF, they can keep them as well.

You must not really have had much help when looking at the Canon T4i. BTW, it's not T4i most places other than the US and you said your English was an issue. Where are you such that they call it a T4i but don't speak English. Just curious.

Anyway, the Canon let's you see all the important information while looking in the viewfinder. Remember all DSLRs have real optical viewfinders and we don't need to look on the back to make setting changes. What setting changes are you even thinking about, for example. Tell me what you think you'll need to change in settings? I think you've been paying attention to some fanboy salesmen or are a fanboy already. I don't know. Much of what you said has so many flaws in it.

Finally, why not just get a good point and shoot. Then you get convenence and a good LiveView in the bargain. As you're a student, it will get you through school long enough to rethink this DSLR thing. I'd advise the excellent Canon S110 as a great camera with full manual controls to learn on. You get a nice big LCD to see and compose your scene and you get all the setting info back there as well to help you if you learn enough to need it. The little camera can also store RAW files. It's a great choice for beginners and you don't need to think about expensive lenses. You get just the one quality zoom that is built in. I have the older S95 and love it.

The stabilizaion of the S110 is so good, even if you have icy veins you will be able to hold it steady.

:-)
 
Last edited:
Go for the Sony you can get lots of great Minolta lens second hand without breaking the bank if you want. I just got the a57 and loving it!! :-D

DP

www.flickr.com

Craig Martin

Explore Craig Martin’s 978 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Craig gives a lot of good advise on this forum, and is certianly prolific about it, and if you look at most of what he says he has a great amount of knowledge and I've looked at his gallery; he takes some great pictures. But, this particular post is pretty terrible.
Guidenet said:
Guidenet wrote:

For starters the Sony A57 is not a DSLR. It looks similar to one, but it is most certainly not one. The Sony a580 is a DSLR if you want a Sony and want a DSLR. The A57 is a translucent mirror SLT camera. While I wouldn't mind owning a Sony A580, I really don't like SLT cameras. Until they do an aweful lot of improvements on the EVF, they can keep them as well.
Click to expand...
Technically true, it's not a DSLR because it doesn't have a reflex mirror. Who cares? Because it's of the same general format and competing with DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, it's probably easiest to refer to them as a DSLR even if not technically correct. He doesn't like the Sony and the EVF. Ok. But plenty of people do.
Guidenet said:
You must not really have had much help when looking at the Canon T4i. BTW, it's not T4i most places other than the US and you said your English was an issue. Where are you such that they call it a T4i but don't speak English. Just curious.
Click to expand...
Guidenet said:
Anyway, the Canon let's you see all the important information while looking in the viewfinder. Remember all DSLRs have real optical viewfinders and we don't need to look on the back to make setting changes. What setting changes are you even thinking about, for example. Tell me what you think you'll need to change in settings? I think you've been paying attention to some fanboy salesmen or are a fanboy already. I don't know. Much of what you said has so many flaws in it.
Click to expand...
Liking the EVF doesn't make somebody a "Fanboy". Likely what he is referring to is the ability to see a preview in the EVF of what your exposure setting will result in when you take the picture. This is the big advantage of the EVF; you change exposure comp, and you see the result in real time, you don't have to wait until after you've already taken the picture and look on the back to see.
Guidenet said:
Finally, why not just get a good point and shoot. Then you get convenence and a good LiveView in the bargain. As you're a student, it will get you through school long enough to rethink this DSLR thing. I'd advise the excellent Canon S110 as a great camera with full manual controls to learn on. You get a nice big LCD to see and compose your scene and you get all the setting info back there as well to help you if you learn enough to need it. The little camera can also store RAW files. It's a great choice for beginners and you don't need to think about expensive lenses. You get just the one quality zoom that is built in. I have the older S95 and love it.

The stabilizaion of the S110 is so good, even if you have icy veins you will be able to hold it steady.
Click to expand...
Just get a point and shoot? Strange advice to someone who already seems to know they want a DSLR, and I'd give them the benefit of the doubt about knowing why.

If you get your hands on the T4i, A57, and I'd also try the Nikon D5100 too (great deals on this right now), you can decide which you like the handling of best, and get the right camera for you.
Guidenet said:
:-)
Click to expand...
 
Check out the Sony A65 instead of the A57 . . . the incredible EVF alone on the A65 is worth the extra $200!

Same body as the A57, but a much better camera overall!

As for lenses, Sony has one or two lenses that cost more than their Canon or Nikon counterparts.

The rest of their lenses are the same or less expensive since they don't have to put image stabilization in them.

Examples:
  • Nikon 55-300VR - $400.00
  • Canon 55-250IS - $300.00
  • Sony 55-300 (brand new lens just out) - $300.00
  • Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VR - $2400.00
  • Canon 70-200 f/2.8L-IS - $2500.00
  • Sony 70-200 f/2.8G - $2000.00
Now, in this 70-200 f/2.8 lens example, Canon does make a non-satabilized 70-200 f/2.8L lens that sells for $1450, however, that is a 25 year old lens design that paid for itself years ago, so Canon can afford to make it less expensive.

And Nikon dosen't even make a current non-VR 70-200 f/2.8 lens, unless you want to count the old 80-200D-series lens, which won't even AF on over half of Nikon's DSLR offerings, not to mention that it will most likely be taken off of their current lens list soon!

In the end, just go to a store and try out the different models that you are interested in, then buy the one you like the most as they are all good!

Really!

None of them are any better than the other, but each brand just excels at some things that the other brands do not.

And buy from that store!

Take all of our free advice here just as that . . . it is worth every penny you spend for it! :-)

By the way . . . I sell camera equipment for a living and am very versed in all brands, models and prices that are and have been available for years!
 
Last edited:
My friend, you need to read the very last line of my post and between the lines to understand the reason I wrote it specifically that way. :)
 
YoHahnMD said:
YoHahnMD wrote:

Check out the Sony A65 instead of the A57 . . . the incredible EVF alone on the A65 is worth the extra $200!

Same body as the A57, but a much better camera overall!
Click to expand...
How is that EVF better than the other? I'm not disagreeing in the least because I don't know. I'm curious. Is the A65 more similar to the EVF in the A77 and what about the new A99. I've not looked at one yet. The A57's EVF drove me nuts when I tried to swing quickly from one thing to another.

Secondly, on the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D. I have to disagree here in a way. You didn't really say anything bad about it and you were correct about no motor and old, but this lens is crazy good. It's the last of the old pro-grade Nikons with that all metal crinkly black finish. The optics produce what many, including me, think are as good as any 70-200 f/2.8 out there can do and maybe better. I certainly prefer it. It has that crystal clear punch that some lenses can't create.

The lens will probably be dropped within a very short time if it hasn't already. I doubt Nikon will keep it no matter how good with the new 70-200 f/4 VRIII out and shipping even with the new lens being $400 more. They compete too closely. Personally, I wouldn't trade for the world. That old 80-200 is just too good.

I'm not sure how important it is for this lens to have a built in focusing motor for the two cheapest Nikons; the D3xx and D5xx series. I'm not sure how many entry level buyers consider lenses that cost over $1000 and that's where this 80-200 f/2.8 is at around $1100 street. I'm sure there's a few, but not enough to matter. They are more likely to get a 55-200, 55-300 or 70-300, all of which have VR and focusing motors as well as silent AFS drives. All three are anywere from a fifth the price to half the price of the 80-200 f/2.8. I'd be curiouis to note the percentage of people who have entry level models who buy Nikon's 70-200 f/4 VR3 at around $1400 street.
















--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
 
The A65 does indeed have the same EVF found in the A77 where the A57 has the old original EVF found in the A35/55.

And it is way better!

We just got the A99's last Monday, but I've been off for a few days for medical reasons and didn't get a chance to check it out before I left, so can't comment on the EVF in it.

I know that you personally don't like EVF's, but there are many camera buyers out there that do like them, so I'm not sure why you are always cutting people down for liking them.

EVF's are the way of the future, so you might as well get used to them now, or at the very least let those who like them use them without insults, as the OVF's days are numbered for the mainstream of DSLR's in the future (my own opinion from what I see in sales, of course).

I'll bet Nikon and Canon (and Pentax, too) are working feverishly on them (EVF's)!

As for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, there are lots of people out there shooting their kids sporting events that find that those entry-level kit zooms just don't cut the mustard and spring for a good lens that opens up to let more light in.

The old 80-200 just doesn't cut it for those people.

Not everyone wants to buy a pro body or a new body to shoot their kids sports, but they do want good pictures and will buy a lens that will do the job on their existing entry-level DSLR's.
 
Last edited:
You must be misreading my posts. I don't cut down people who like EVFs. I just say I don't care for them along the technology that now exists. I've tried them and it's the impression I get. That's not putting down those that like them. Read closer.

I also admit I've not tried the better EVF that might exist in the new A99. That's why I was asking. No need to get defensive.

Musicdoctor, you might think EVF is the future, but I'm not sure it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with optical viewfinders that need fixing. In fact, many prefer it. EVF has been around a long time and not something one needs to work feverishly on. I had it on my anchient camcorder which took VHS tape. I know it's not as good as today, but it was EVF technology and effective for what it was. We had it with vacuum tubes decades before that. That technology has progressed right along and I'm sure will progress some more in the future. Some prefer apples and some oranges. It's not a war.

Nobody said that entry level consumers don't want good lenses for sports. My point was that most don't buy f/2.8 glass that costs close to three times their camera costs. There's been a lot of data out in recent years as to what is marketed to who and what price levels different buyers buy. That doesn't mean that some don't step out of that mold. It just points to the various markets.

Entry level camera owners tend not to buy additional glass after the initial purchase. Of course, some do, but not on the average. It's very few percentage wise. Those that do at the time of purchase or shortly thereafter tend to buy a second kit type zoom in the 55-200, 55-250 and 55-300 range with some moving up to a 70-300 lens. Now that covers a very high percentage of novice photographers. After that, a few purchase inexpensive faster glass like the 35 f/1.8 type lenses and the cheap 50 f/1.8 type lenses. These tend to be under $200 products. There's also a few who invest in ultrawide zooms. Most of the APS-C buyers of these extra lenses are in the higher grade crop models like the Sony A65 or A77, not the A37. Again, there are always exceptions.

I know Wolf Camera doesn't generally stock the 80-200 f/2.8 AFD. It's more of a nitch telephoto anymore. I just happen to like it a lot and choose it over he much more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 models. If you dont need VR, it's a great way to go, but it is probably going to be discontinued shortly after a long and venerable career.
 
Guidenet said:
Guidenet wrote:

I know Wolf Camera doesn't generally stock the 80-200 f/2.8 AFD. It's more of a nitch telephoto anymore. I just happen to like it a lot and choose it over he much more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 models. If you dont need VR, it's a great way to go, but it is probably going to be discontinued shortly after a long and venerable career.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I apologize if I didn't get the joke; I noticed a reference to everyone's favorite Sony troll/fanboy, but couldn't see where you were going with it.

To answer your serious question to the other poster with a little more detail than "it's awesome", the EVF in the higher end SLT models like the A65 and A77 uses an OLED display with about twice the resolution as the standard LCD display used in the lower models like the A57, A37 and most other manufactures' EVFs. The OLED also has a progressive refresh of the pixels, unlike an LCD which refreshes one color at a time, so the OLED doesn't go blurry when panning or experience any strange rainbow effect. Contrast and color reproduction are also much improved.

So, it's a pretty big improvement, like compariing a nice HDTV to an old standard definition tv. But it still acts like an EVF, so if that's not your thing, it won't make that much difference.

Looking through the viewfinder of an A65, I think it looks miles better than the view through a D5100 or T3i (I did that compariosn when cross shopping them). But I don't have a full frame camera with an OVF to compare it to, which I understand is a big improvement versus the little viewfinder in the consumer cameras, so the EVF might not be as compelling to someone coming from that equipment. With the A99 out now, people will vote with their wallets, so we'll see.
 
Guidenet said:
Guidenet wrote:

For starters the Sony A57 is not a DSLR. It looks similar to one, but it is most certainly not one. The Sony a580 is a DSLR if you want a Sony and want a DSLR. The A57 is a translucent mirror SLT camera. While I wouldn't mind owning a Sony A580, I really don't like SLT cameras. Until they do an aweful lot of improvements on the EVF, they can keep them as well.
Click to expand...
I think as long as the SLT camera produces image with quality on par with the SLR it is not a major concern. And the EVF is fine for me.
Guidenet said:
You must not really have had much help when looking at the Canon T4i. BTW, it's not T4i most places other than the US and you said your English was an issue. Where are you such that they call it a T4i but don't speak English. Just curious.
Click to expand...
Here in Hong Kong it is actually called 650d. I use t4i because most users on this forum use t4i.
Guidenet said:
Anyway, the Canon let's you see all the important information while looking in the viewfinder. Remember all DSLRs have real optical viewfinders and we don't need to look on the back to make setting changes. What setting changes are you even thinking about, for example. Tell me what you think you'll need to change in settings? I think you've been paying attention to some fanboy salesmen or are a fanboy already. I don't know. Much of what you said has so many flaws in it.
Click to expand...
Settings like changing aperture, iso, shutter speed etc. I can only see the information when I half press the shutter button, but not when I am using the wheel to change the setting. But again the salesperson didnt really help me out so it may be just me not being able to find a way to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dshombert
  • For sale For sale
FS: Canon EOS M6 Mk II with 11-22 lens & accessories
Replies
0
Views
5K
dshombert
dshombert
IHMacy
My Sony/Canon dilemma
Replies
11
Views
6K
Nusratty
N
L
Canon R7 + Canon 100-400mm (+ 1.4x) vs Sony A6700 + Sigma 150-600mm
Replies
12
Views
4K
Planterz
Planterz
G
Need advice on 3 good full frame alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Sony
Replies
19
Views
3K
Ruedon
R
T
  • Question Question
Sony FE 16-35mm f4 Vario-Tessar T* ZA OSS Lens Vrs the Sony 16-35 GM F 2.8
2
Replies
29
Views
10K
tcbarb
T

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top