Canon Eos 1000d/rebel Xs Or Sony Alpha A200

[bigdamo]

I am looking at getting a entry level SLR camera.

I am looking at the Canon Eos1000d (Australia) in the rest of the world Rebel XS or the Sony Alpha A200.

The Canon has a live view the Sony dosn't. Do you use this live view much?

The canon appears to take better quality pictures in the ISO comparasion.

The canon is $134.00 dollars more.

Anyone has experience with these cameras?

Anyone got suggestions on entry level SLR cameras?

Thanks

[copemech]

Not sure what these things cost, nor the size of the camera, but I have been happy with the Nikon D 40 as an entry level camera for dslr and now they have been out for awile can be had on the cheap if you do some shopping! Small and lively!

You will pay for features, be your own judge!

[bigdamo]

The canon is going to cost me $807 Aud and the sony is going to cost me $673 Aud.

The canon is lighter and smaller.I think the fit of your hand is probably the key there.

The canon can take 800 photos the sony 500 roughly.

[bikespace]

That sounds quite pricy for the Sony at least (not checked the Canon). Any way you can buy from Europe and get it cheaper? This is a handy site I used recently:

CameraPriceBuster

And this is a voucher from Sony which gives you cash back no matter where you buy the camera from. I've given you the direct link but you'll also find it on a few of the suppliers web sites (I know it's on the Jacobs web site)

Sony voucher

I looked for ages and decided that the Sony was slightly cheaper but apparently slightly lower quality photos somehow. May be lens because reviewers reckoned the internals were very similar. That may be wrong - I'm no expert. In the end I bought a couple of Canon Ixus off Ebay for around 50 quid. Once I'd tried them and seen the results I decided I wouldn't bother with the SLR at all, as the entry level there didn't seem to be a massive difference to what I was getting with my cheapo shove in the pocket job.

I'd still like one at some point, but I've decided I'll wait until the price settles - there's been massive drops over the past few years. I think there's graphs on one of these sites that shows the price drop. Dunno how far they can go though.

[telecat]

My Daughter has just bought the Sony Alpha 300 DSLR. Here in the UK it was

[bigdamo]

That sounds quite pricy for the Sony at least (not checked the Canon). Any way you can buy from Europe and get it cheaper? This is a handy site I used recently:

CameraPriceBuster

And this is a voucher from Sony which gives you cash back no matter where you buy the camera from. I've given you the direct link but you'll also find it on a few of the suppliers web sites (I know it's on the Jacobs web site)

Sony voucher

I looked for ages and decided that the Sony was slightly cheaper but apparently slightly lower quality photos somehow. May be lens because reviewers reckoned the internals were very similar. That may be wrong - I'm no expert. In the end I bought a couple of Canon Ixus off Ebay for around 50 quid. Once I'd tried them and seen the results I decided I wouldn't bother with the SLR at all, as the entry level there didn't seem to be a massive difference to what I was getting with my cheapo shove in the pocket job.

I'd still like one at some point, but I've decided I'll wait until the price settles - there's been massive drops over the past few years. I think there's graphs on one of these sites that shows the price drop. Dunno how far they can go though.

Unfortunately for me that voucher is for the Uk purchases and mailing address in the UK and ends 31 December 08.

Both those camera deals I am talking about are for twin lens package. 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens.

I am now wondering if I should just stick with my PNS Canon IXUS 900 if there is not much difference between a entry level DSLR?

[bikespace]

Both those camera deals I am talking about are for twin lens package. 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens.

Ah gotcha - seems reasonable then.

I am now wondering if I should just stick with my PNS Canon IXUS 900 if there is not much difference between a entry level DSLR?

Don't let me put you off, as I said, I'm no expert. My level of photography is probably more suited to point and shoot, and I'm normally riding, so it's handy to shove in my pocket. It's also usually for the web, so the quality is not as crucial.

If you do get one, be interesting to see what you think after a couple of months with it. It's still sort of on my shopping list, but moved much further down it at the moment.

[bigdamo]

My Daughter has just bought the Sony Alpha 300 DSLR. Here in the UK it was

[pinkbike]

If it is any use, my wife bought me the Canon 1000d for Christmas with the kit lens 18-55mm and an additional Tamron 70-300mm telephoto. I have to say that so far, so good! The camera is excellent quality easy to use and the menu system is very intuative. Even the software bundle that comes with the camera is pretty good allowing you to handle RAW files.

I knew absolutely nothing about photography (and still don't) but this camera has taught me quite a lot already. I would recommend it anyway?

[docheckle]

Compacts and DSLRs look very simular on paper , but in the real world they are totally different, if you take pictures of things that move you need a DSLR. I have both, the compact goes on holiday , the DSLR takes pics of my hobbies. I use a Nikon D50 and have been very happy with pictures published in various magazines. Look at what the Pros use they don't have swiveling screens etc beware of gimics, good quality pics are what count !

[slapshot 3]

Easy....... CANON ....... read through some of the other threads in this forum(if you can't find them drop me a pm I'll point you to them) and see what's been said before. For the money the EOS 1000D is a lot of camera ... trust me. Many moons ago I used Minolta cameras, the forerunners of the Sony range (even have some lenses left, Sony bought out Kyocera/Minolta) ....good results but Canon is just so much better. Try DPreview.com if you want more answers.

I use Canon EOS 30D get some superb results (camera more than my input though I like to think differently) I've just got a compact for christmas so I can chuck it in my pocket when I'm out on the bike, mountain bike whatever and that I won't mind wrecking.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Slapshot 3

[tt5th]

I had the same desicion to make about a month ago and I went for the Canon. Very pleased with it, it's a lovely thing and a good starting point.

I chose it due to the brand, with Canon having a long history in cameras, and the reviews that just seemed to think it was a bit better. Loads of lenses/accessories available also.

I don't use the live view, I thought i would but I find it a lot more satisfying using the viewfinder. It's useful to have on the odd occasion though.

[slalom_specialist]

To me the choice is simple.... CANON............. I have been using nothing but Canon equipment since I got my Canon Ftb as a graduation present back in the 70's. (which I still own and use) Over the last 35 years I have owned other brands as well, but I always go back to Canon. (I also have a1984 F1, an EOS-40D, an EOS-1D, and a compact A-95 (which I like because it fits in my pocket and uses the same Compact flash cards as the D-SLR's)).

The only suggestion I would make is that you take look at the Canon 40D, instead of the EOS 1000D(Rebel) ........ with the release of the Canon 50D, you can pick up a 40D at a very reasonable cost, and from what I have seen and read about the EOS-50D, even with the increase in pixels, the EOS-50D does not perform any better than the 40D, (except for the HD LCD screen) and in fact, it is not as good as the 40D in low light situations. (also the 40D has a magnesium alloy body as opposed to the rebels plastic body)

Another thing to consider is the Sony is the old Minolta Brand......... while I have nothing against Sony/Minolta, my dad completely wore out two Minolta's and an Olympus OM-2 since I got my Ftb, which is still working great despite the abuse I have given it over the years.

PS, While all of the Camera ad's want to push live view as the next great feature, it is something 99% of us will rarely use, I don't think it should be a big consideration in the purchase of a D-SLR of any brand. I can see some rare situations where live view would be handy, such as close up (macro) shots, but in everyday situations it is more of a hindrance than help. Not to mention that live view will drain the battery much faster. Personally, I have never used it.