which one should i buy, the Sony Alpha a350 or Canon EOS 450D ?

i am confused about the two DSLR cameras, i like the Sony because it has more pixels but others advise me to buy the Canon?

any suggestion guys.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Lou G
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Let's first analize all the bullsh.. that has been reported :

    "Canon knows how to build a camera. They have been doing that for a much, much longer time than Sony"

    Wrong. Sony has bought the complete Minolta Production line and Minolta (Cosina) builds cameras since cameras exist. The fact that they are today labeled Sony is only a question of ownership. Sony dslr's have noyhing to do with there P&S production.

    "Mega pixels is basically a myth. More is not necessarily better".

    Wrong statement since the number is not the pixel amount statement but the pixel density what means how many there are on a square cm.

    The more is not a question of sharpness but of detail also called per pixel sharpness. Higher densities draw smoother and better in detail but are subject to noise at low light levels. Simple to expalin, a large window in a wall gives more light in to the room then a small one.

    "I really can't recommend the Sony 300's, they are going to perform no better and the cost of ownership is going to be higher."

    Obviously this has been written by someone who never had one. A Sony Body is in a correct pricerange, much more solid then Canon's plastic shells and uses Minolta lenses. you can get tons of used lenses in new state for peanuts on E-Bay. No need to make the reputation of a Minolta lens anyway, they perform as well and even some do better then Nikon or Canon.

    "stick with Canon. But look...There isn't a better brand."

    "Sony = best image quality (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)

    Nikon = best ISO handling

    Canon = best of both"

    "At 3200 ISO, the Sony is a blob"

    Can only shake my head for all this crapp. If you hear a Sony user, replace the name Canon by Sony and repeat the story and then, who to believe. Now, no more comments on the rest or, you search for best picture quality, don't you, This men said it all, get a Sony.

    Then why 3200 iso. Even Nikon's D3/700 with low density sensors make noise at that rate, so a a 12 to 14 mpix half sized sensor will do for sure. Noise at high iso rates are a game of software cheats only. Flattening is an art that needs feeling. Note that Nikon is world champ in noise cheating, but what ever you do, once you magnify, you see the disaster. So, a 14 mpix Apsc has 400 iso as a noise free limit, a 10 mpix at 600. Nikon's D700/3 series have same density as a D40 or any 6 mpix Apsc, there noise level starts at 1250 iso and no need to say why at 6400 iso noise flattening is possible without too much damage.

    "more pixels does not guaranty you a nice picture"

    All depends at what size. At a 10 x 20 inch print you need not more then 3 mpix anyway. The more pixels you have, the biiger your basic picture from the camera and for posters and larger prints, they give you a serious advantage. On a computer screen, a 6 or a 10 do not make any difference.

    "the sony, too many compatibility issues".

    If one states such a crapp, he should at least list examples. What compatibility issues. For sure you can not use Nikon lens without adapter, same count for other brands. There is nothing a Sony camera has different from others. They have SD or CF slots, some have double and add a memory stick what is Sony's expensive crappy format for Point & Shoot cameras and Playstations. For the rest I have not found anything that could let me remind any compatibility issues. The Sony Raw opens with Photoshop, Sony's utility, Captureone pro, Bibble and others, so, for this compatibility issue I would like to know a bit more. There seems to be thing I ignore.

    Now; my opinion. A Sony Camera does no better, no worse picture the a Canon. The body is better in quality then a Canon plastic shell, the lenses are non motorized thus cheeper. the glass is perfect, as well from Minolta as from Zeiss, the pictures are neat and excellent, the live view is the best ever made and here Canon and Nikon can't compete. What more to say. Go to the shop, put it in your hands, both and make your choice.

    Note tha when it becomes to ergonomy and fit in hand, Canon is the worst of both and the only button on a Canon which is in the right place is the one to shutt it off. So, make up you mind yourself, you don't need any advises, Both Brands are excellent material and none of the both does a bad picture.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Kite
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Firstly, brand vs brand...

    Nikon's pulled ahead slightly. But the battle has been going on for about four + decades. In each time, each has pulled forwards and backwards in matters of years - and recently, even months. I'd bet that the new release of Canon cameras, in about 2010, will provide immense awesome room for upgrading. Not that the current is bad. They just need to improve AF a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny... bit.

    Oh well.

    I stick with Canon.

    But look...There isn't a better brand.

    I use Canon for specific reasons.

    The great debate stretches on and on and on.

    There isn't a better brand. Sure, Ken Rockwell likes Nikon... Sure, other pros might use Canon... (Note: Yes, I think Ken Rockwell is wrong at times and just plain biased in others, but he does have a disclaimer and he does explain why he prefers Nikon...)

    You'll notice that almost all sports and action photogs use Canon because when the AF systems were new back in the 90's, Canon's was a lot better than Nikon. And of course, it's not cheap to change...

    Now, both are tied. In the beginning it was Nikon and pros. Then Canon caught up. The digital era brought Canon to the throne, and now... yes, there are subtle differences in their different lenses, but you can't compare it directly unless you have the same camera body. Oh, put the camera body to the test as well, but no, it doesn't work that way - they both are excellent brands.

    Sure, sometimes Canon's a bit soft; etc. etc... but here's the *general* run down.

    Sony = best image quality (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)

    Nikon = best ISO handling

    Canon = best of both

    Some may not agree, but that's it. Some don't really mind a tiny, tiny, unnoticeable difference in Image Quality and therefore choose Nikon, as its ISO handling is superb. Especially photojournalists, you'll notice.

    Personally, I like Canon. But think about the differences, what the lenses are and if you are thinking about getting one, what you're going to do.

    Canon makes great macros... etc. etc.

    They all have their 'top' lenses:

    Canon ~ L

    Nikon ~ ED

    Sony ~ Carl Zeiss (the most expensive)

    So you see, you cannot really compare them.

    ---

    Then, to these cameras.

    The EOS 450D is the better camera, in my opinion.

    It can handle high ISO levels much better than the Sony, as it has a CMOS sensor, instead of CCD - well, it handles it better anyway. At 3200 ISO, the Sony is a blob. Unfortunate, but true. Good for taking dark shots.

    Apart from that, the fps (450D 3.5fps vs a350 2.5fps) and much larger file size for a350... the 450D wins.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The a350 has been superseded by the A330 and A380 models. The A380 has some features that the Canon EOS450D cannot match. Those features have to do with it's live view though. If you are going to be using your DSLR properly then I really can't recommend the Sony 300's, they are going to perform no better and the cost of ownership is going to be higher.

    Canon 450D would be my choice too, and as I own a Sony A700 which I wouldn't swap for a Canon or Nikon... Nuff said?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • keerok
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Pixels aren't everything, follow the others, get the Canon.

    The logic here is simple. Canon knows how to build a camera. They have been doing that for a much, much longer time than Sony.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    more pixels does not guaranty you a nice picture, if you wanted to have nice pics and stay in the game for a long time , Take Canon brands, later when you grown , you 'll be invest your money on the optical, and it will last you a long long time , by that time !throw away the body and buy an up to date body while you can use the old lens

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Mega pixels is basically a myth. More is not necessarily better.I would suggest Canon EOS 450D

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00131W8IW?ie=U...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Recommendations for YOU at the VERY bottom with 2 asterisks, but first a whole lot of general info that will help you out before that.

    Before I start let me remind you to buy from reputable online dealers such as beachcamera.com, bhphoto, buydig, adorama, ritz camera, J&R, amazon, etc. NOT ebay. There are reputable dealers on ebay, however they also have a lot of “gray market” versions of cameras, that are basically non-US versions. Look around those sites I mentioned to get the best price. Just remember to check resellerratings.com and BBB.org to see the reputation of the vendor. There are a lot of scam artists online these days. I would stick to buying from a site that has positive resellerratings and/or a good standing with BBB.

    Another thing to never forget, MEGAPIXELS DON'T MATTER, it's a marketing tool. Any photographer will tell you megapixels have nothing to do with image quality. Unfortunately a lot of people think the more megapixels the better a camera. Megapixels above 5 or 6 are more than enough for most purposes, more than those are helpful when making LARGE prints. Fortunately most cameras these days come with at least 6 so no need to worry about mp. When looking at zoom remember to ONLY LOOK AT THE OPTICAL zoom. Digital zoom means NOTHING. If you want to take another picture immediately after you take one, the prosumer point and shoots and dslrs are better at this than compact cameras (compact point and shoot vs prosumer point and shoot vs dslr explained later). So if you shoot a lot of moving things or sports, you may require a prosumer point and shoot or a dslr. However most compact point and shoots these days can do fairly well on that too, but nowhere near as well as a dslr would. Sure you lose the compactness, but a prosumer point and shoot is a slightly more serious camera, and then of course a dslrs are for strictly serious photographers or enthusiasts.

    Here are my general suggestions in each range of cameras, organized by 3 groups, compact point and shoots, prosumer point and shoots (basically higher end and bulkier point and shoots), and dSLRS. These are the 3 different classes of cameras out in the market these days. In general also remember, IT’S THE PHOTOGRAPHER who makes the pictures look good and the PROFESSIONAL who makes the pictures look “professional”. An amateur will get better results with a point and shoot then they will with a dslr. You have to devote time to photography to learn, take classes and understand composition to take better pictures with your cameras. That being said, here are my suggestions for each of the 3 different kinds of cameras in the market.

    1) Compact Point and shoots: These are your small credit card sized cameras that most people think of these days when they think of cameras, available at any electronic store pretty much. Very portable and stylish. I would say these are the way to go if you are a casual photographer and just take pictures when you are out with friends, or go for trips, etc. In the compact point and shoot range I would suggest Canon SD 880 IS (comes in gold and sliver). This is one of the best point and shoot cameras out so far and costs around $250 I believe. The other good one, which is like an upgrade of the SD 880 is the canon SD 970 IS. That one costs slightly more. The reason I suggest these two is because canon compact point and shoots are the best there are in that class, and these two stand out from there other models because of their 3 inch lcds and fairly good optical zoom. Since most people who use point and shoot cameras don't use the view finder, these models got rid of that and put a huge and vibrant 3” LCD instead, a smart move. Also they have tons of features that are more than any casual photographer needs. Check them out on the canon website, then buy from reputable dealers.

    2) Prosumer point and shoot: These cameras offer a lot more manual control than point and shoots and have higher zooms. They are a bit more advanced than the typical compact point and shoot cameras. They'll also be bulker and more expensive, around $400-600. If you are considering compact and want REALLY good zoom look at some of these prosumer point and shoot cameras, they come with 20x zoom while compact point and shoots usually have 3-5X. If you are considering compact point and shoot and you are slightly more serious about your photography and would like more manual control, I would suggest to consider these as well. In this class of cameras, I suggest Sony HX1 or Canon G10 or Canon SX1 IS. All three of these are excellent, you can compare them yourselves to see which one you like.

    3) dslr: These are your really serious cameras, with interchangeable lenses. These will cost a lot! They have interchangeable lenses and offer a lot of flexibility and creative control. When you buy these you buy a system and will build on it with life by purchasing more lenses as you go, flashes, tripods, etc etc. Just one of the lenses alone will cost more than your point and shoot will, so they aren't cheap. Photography is NOT cheap. Don’t only look at the price of the camera body when buying an slr. Dslrs are expensive because you buy a system. Lenses are more important than the body and good glass will run you a lottt more than bodies will. Bodies don't matter, you can always upgrade them but lenses are with you forever. Here are my recommendations for dslrs.

    -Entry level: If you’re a beginner, I suggest these and then after you learn everything you can upgrade if you feel it is necessary. I also suggest taking a photography class at a local community college. My suggestions for this range are Nikon D40, Canon Rebel XS (around $500 total or less with kit lens)

    -Mid level dslr: Canon XSi or the New T1i ($700 for xsi, $900 for T1i with kit lens). I prefer these to the Nikon ones, however Nikon also has their D60 and their D5000 that you may want to look at.

    -More professional models: Nikon D90 or nikon D300 or Canon EOS 40D, Canon EOS 50D ($1000 +). I would suggest these if you have experience in photography or with a film slr or previous dslr. Between canon and Nikon, it’s a personal preference. One is not better than the other.

    -Full frame: these are the most expensive cameras in the world and will run around as much as your first car would for the whole system, so I won't recommend these because if you were in the market for these I'm sure you wouldn't have asked any questions here on yahoo answers, you'd be a professional taking photos for a living.

    *NOTE: canon and nikon are the two biggest and best companies when it comes to cameras. Canon by far leads the way when it comes to point and shoots. In SLR, it's debatable but I prefer Nikon SLRs and I know many who prefer canon SLRs. Just remember when you buy dslr you get a system that you stick with. Lenses are a lot more important than the body, because body can be upgraded always but lenses stay with you forever. I do highly suggest sticking with Canon or Nikon.

    ** NOT the sony, too many compatibility issues. Read my guide above regarding megapixels. Buy the canon.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.