Just about to buy my first DSLR, the Sony A100...

[autopilot]

...from Curry's @379.99 with the 18-70mm lens kit.

It's my first foray into the world of SLR. I'm a very technically minded person and don't mind learning a lot quickly, but am i making a good choice with the Sony A100 camera?

Seems to get good enough reviews for an entry level DSLR and 379.89 seems like a great price to me. But is there anything i should need to from the pro's around here? Anything new about to supersede it?

I would love your input

[BUFF]

It's fine (there are no genuinely bad DSLRs) & it's a more refined version of the Konica Minolta Dynax 5D (Sony bought out KM's camera division) so all lenses designed to fit the Minolta AF mount should fit. After Canon & Nikon they are no. 3 in DSLRs.
It's very highly specified for the money but as always I recommend that you handle it as what suits 1 person may not suit another.

Sony have announced a further 2 DSLRs (& several lenses) but they are both to be pitched above the A100.
However, given the pace of change in this market it wouldn't surprise me if they were also planning a facelift for the A100.

[Dark Horse]

Before you buy it is definitely worth having a look at all of its competitors in a shop to try out each camera. The A100, D40, 400D, 100D etc are all different sizes and have different feels to them. When you have a go with each it is surprising how some feel right and some feel wrong.

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by autopilot

am i making a good choice with the Sony A100 camera?

In a word, yes.

I have one, and am very happy with it. The built-in image stablisation (shifting the sensor to match your movement) is a godsend, and will save so many photos. Once you've had it, you'll never want to be without it. Only Sony and Pentax have this, and the Pentax K10D is considerably more expensive, what with it not being an "entry level" class dslr. The A100 also resolves incredible amounts of detail if you attach good enough glass to the front of it (far better than any of it's competitors), and the battery lasts forever.

The downsides are that the in-camera jpegs are noisy at high ISO (not a problem if shooting RAW), and Sony lenses and accessories are stupid, stupid amounts of money. But Sony have hinted that prices will fall in future - presumably as market share is gained and manufacturing capacity is ramped up. Flash metering can be dodgy, which is my biggest complaint with the camera so far. Auto focus performance isn't up there with Canon and Nikon, so if you're planning on shooting sports (especially things like motorsports) then I'd think twice about the Sony. But the rest of the time, AF is adequate on the A100 and naturally depends on the lens you're using.

[autopilot]

Typical. Just about to go and flash the cash, but suddenly i get cold feet and wonder if the Canon 350D is a better purchase for myself.

Should i stop fretting and just go and get the Sony? If you have the money i have (£400 max, inc starter lens) what would you be buying?

[Butcher]

I bought a 350D, I've not regretted it. The kit lens is adequate (if you're used to cheap compacts you'll have no issues with it), if a little short at 18-55mm. Currently listed at £350 from Currys too (here: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod4.html). Very good range of lenses available, from as little as £65. also I've noticed third party lens manufacturers like Sigma tend to do their biggest range for Canon (with Nikon just behind).

[joshwa]

Go for the Sony.
You get a slightly longer zoom range, and image stabilisation

[autopilot]

Ok, i went out to get my Sony A100 today...





...and came back with a Canon 400D!!!

Cost me £420 with lens kit. I hope i have done the right thing, but from what everyone said in the stores and my dad who is into his photography, it's well worth the extra £50 (they say i should save that in lenses anyway, true?).

The thing is, it just felt right. The Sony A100 did not feel bad, but the 400D just seemed to feel 'right' in my hand.

I'm quite surprised how competitive the high street is in some dSLR's. Could not find a better deal on-line.

The thing is, this is a major purchase for me. I will be needing a new car in a yesr (new it now really) and i have baby on the way. So it's a now or never thing, and i had some cash from my 30th birthday. I could not stand the thought of getting the A100 and having that niggling in my mind that i should have pushed the boat out and gone for the 400D.

Thanks for all the input, i owe you all a pint.

Anyway, i'm soooooooo excited. Can't wait to get out in the hills with it!

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by autopilot

Ok, i went out to get my Sony A100 today...





...and came back with a Canon 400D!!!

The main thing is that you're happy with the camera and it feels right to use, but now you don't have image stabilisation regardless of what lens you slap on the front. People who have never had it underestimate what huge benefit it has on hand-held shots. Nor can you pick up a wonderful selection of second hand Minolta lenses, or have stabilised prime lenses. Tbh I've never met anyone who thought the 400D was worth extra money over the A100 (when both cameras were fairly new last year, the 400D was noticeably cheaper than the A100). I considered the 400D when I was deciding on DSLRs last year, but it was too small for my hand and the A100 has more useful features imo. But of course, by far the most important factor is what's behind the camera: the photographer. Enjoy your new purchase.

[autopilot]

Well everyone i have spoken to said either was great and i have set my mind on the Sony. But the Canon just felt right and most people pointed me towards that, with people saying things like the canon will be much better in low at and hi ISO's. As soon a i got it, everyone's is like oh no, no IS!!!!

I have to admit, i cant spend the money on IS lenses. But i thought (im probably wrong) IS was only useful on some loom 300mm + shots. Wrong?

I can still the the Canon back and get the Sony. Is IS really worth having?

Maybe i have made a balls up? My god, buying a dSLR is a freaking mine field!

[Hans Voralberg]

IS is not that important, somewhat exaggerated IMO, with some practice you can handheld @ ~1/10s with lens at focal length from 1x -> 8x mm and still get sharp pics, I can with my 2kg 30D and 16-35 or 17-85mm. In low light condition just ramp up the ISO, that's what Canon is for, push it all the way to 3200, still good enough for most prints you'll ever do.

I've been shooting for nearly 2 years now and the only time I wish i have IS is in places like gigs and when using 200+ mm lens, my 70-200 weights 1.4kg and I can only handheld it for 15 minutes maximum, but then I got a monopod so not much a problem anymore. There's always places where you can stablise your camera on, tables, chairs, fences... use everything around, it works.

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by autopilot

Well everyone i have spoken to said either was great and i have set my mind on the Sony. But the Canon just felt right and most people pointed me towards that, with people saying things like the canon will be much better in low at and hi ISO's. As soon a i got it, everyone's is like oh no, no IS!!!!

I have to admit, i cant spend the money on IS lenses. But i thought (im probably wrong) IS was only useful on some loom 300mm + shots. Wrong?

I can still the the Canon back and get the Sony. Is IS really worth having?

Maybe i have made a balls up? My god, buying a dSLR is a freaking mine field!

Well, they're right about the Canon's high ISO. In terms of image quality, it's the Sony's achilles heel. If you plan on doing a lot of high iso shooting (i.e. 1600 or above), stick with your Canon - bearing in mind that a typical artificially lit indoor room without daylight is usually requires medium shutter speed at ISO400. The Sony is quite noisy but definitely useable at 800, and unless you nail the exposure just right, horrific at 1600 with lots of luminance noise. There's lots of examples of good 1600 shots from the Sony, but it's very fussy about exposure and afaik the 400D is a lot more forgiving in this regard and can be used all the way up to 1600 without much concern. Personally I only need 100-400 routinely with occasional need for ISO800.

Regarding IS, it's a common belief that it's only useful on long telezooms. Whether this has come about because it's mainly long telezooms from Canon & Nikon that have IS, I don't know. The key advantage for Sony and Pentax by having it in-body is that every lens is stabilised. You put a large aperture prime lens on, and that's stabilised too. C/N don't even make stabilised primes, let alone wideangles or midrange zooms. The image stabilisation lets you drop shutter speeds enough in everyday situations that you don't actually need the higher ISO levels anyway. There's also an argument that IS lenses have slightly poorer image quality because they're moving the lens elements inside away from their optimum position, although tbh I suspect any deterioration of image quality is so slight that it's invisible to all but the most anal of pixel peepers in specific conditions.

In addition, I came to the Sony A100 from a fairly advanced Konica Minolta compact camera (Minolta sold their camera division to Sony), so the A100 felt very natural to use in the way that the ergonomics were designed, the menu controls were actually exactly the same design as my KM, and I love the rotary dials on the top for super-quick access to all the different settings. The point is that all the wonderful features in the world are useless if you don't find it easy to get to them or don't like using the camera, so as you said you felt the Canon was a better design for you then that's a key factor.

Originally Posted by Hans Voralberg

IS is not that important, somewhat exaggerated IMO, with some practice you can handheld @ ~1/10s with lens at focal length from 1x -> 8x mm and still get sharp pics, I can with my 2kg 30D and 16-35 or 17-85mm. In low light condition just ramp up the ISO, that's what Canon is for, push it all the way to 3200, still good enough for most prints you'll ever do.

I've been shooting for nearly 2 years now and the only time I wish i have IS is in places like gigs and when using 200+ mm lens, my 70-200 weights 1.4kg and I can only handheld it for 15 minutes maximum, but then I got a monopod so not much a problem anymore. There's always places where you can stablise your camera on, tables, chairs, fences... use everything around, it works.

Have you had a camera with in-body stabilisation? I find that although yes, you can handhold at pretty slow speeds, you have a much lower percentage of keepers without the stabilisation. It's simply not always possible to get the perfect relaxed stance, or to brace the camera against a chair or table or wall. In these situations, the stabilisation saves the photos that would otherwise be deleted when you examine them on the computer. There's also the fact that the larger & heavier your camera, the more steady it will be. If much of your photography is prepared (i.e. you go out with the specific intention of shooting a certain event or person and you know where you're going to be and how you're going to set up) then image stabilisation is less of an issue - for example a studio photographer would have absolutely no use for it at all because he works on a tripod all day. But for everyday or spontaneous photography, it's a blindingly good invention. Image stabilisation is here to stay, and I suspect that future generations of DSLRs will be making a bigger issue of image stabilisation by making it better, more reliable, and able to compensate even more than it currently does.

[BUFF]

The A100 noise issue at high ISO is overblown imo (& plenty of noise reduction programmes anyway) .
Yes, it's noiser than some but that was a design decision - it's a balancing act between noise & detail & Sony chose to go for a different balance which preserves more detail at lower ISO at the cost of more noise at higher.

As for image stabilisation it has 2 main areas where it's useful in countering camera shake & allowing those extra 2 stops or so - 1) it let's you get sharp handheld shots with long telephotos that you may not have managed without & 2) it's useful in low light.
The second is where the Sony (& Pentax) score because all their lenses become stabilised including f1.2/1.4s etc. which aren't offered afaik by either Canon or Nikon.

Anyway, both the Canon & Sony are very good cameras with their own minor pros & cons & it's important that the camera feels right so if that's the one that suited the op best that's the one for him.

[Butcher]

Canon do offer some non-telephoto IS lenses - I've got a 17-85mm with IS on my 350D atm.

[BUFF]

Yes, but it's f/4-5.6 so it doesn't really play to the 2 strengths of stabilisation which are for long/heavy lenses & low light.
Do they offer anything below f2.8 with IS?
On Minolta/Sony (& no doubt Pentax) for low light you can start out with e.g. an f1.4 & have it stabilised for an extra couple of stops.

At the end of the day they all approach much the same problems with different solutions & end up with much the same results ...
Still true that an average camera with a good photographer makes for better shots than a great camera with a poor photographer .

[Muzzy]

The a100 isw a nice camera - The lenses seem to get pretty rough reviews though and they are very pricey.

Atleast the Sony ones are