- Location
- Amarillo, TX
congratulations on the most Americanized and non-informed post I've ever seen in a thread dealing with photography.
Leicia, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, and all of the other DSLR companies are top rate companies, just because they aren't the "WOW Everyone in the US thinks they need this camera" brands doesn't make them worse. Panasonic is among the best for image stabilization, and many others are fantastic devices as well. If you want a GOOD place to go for hardware reviews on the cameras, go to http://www.dpreview.com and check their reviews out. You'll see a LOT of high end info and learn a lot.
jmnielsen
Need Bigger Tires
- Location
- Lincoln, NE
My Sony A55 is as good or better than the comparable priced Nikon and canon cameras, do some research. That was a terribly un-informed post..
jmnielsen
Need Bigger Tires
- Location
- Lincoln, NE
Edit: link for post. Many other sites come to the same conclusion as this
http://digital-cameras.findthebest.com/compare/2-232/Sony-a55-DSLR-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3i
- Location
- Amarillo, TX
exactly my point. my Olympus E-500 (when I bought it brand new) was a MUCH better setup than what Nikon or Canon would give you for less money. The olympus came with top notch lenses instead of cheap "budget" kit lenses that the nikon or canon would have had, and the E-500 is still regarded as being as close to film quality images as you can get in a digital camera. they still have the nice warm film feel. my best man has a sony DSLR that he swears by, and takes quite wonderful pictures, in a studio setting mine will outperform but his is vastly better in lower light, and I have two friends that are nikon and canon people, and they both have nothing bad to say about my olympus or the friend's sony other than they aren't their personal preferences. quality and capabilities aside, brand preference in cameras is no different than brand preference in any other electronics, or even in vehicles. **I** don't like nikon until you get into the mid to upper range bodies, and their lenses I'm unimpressed with until you get into the expensive lenses (into the same price range as ALL of the olympus lenses). Canon has been ok, but, again, until you get into their mid to upper range lenses they still don't stand out and shine. When you compare cameras to cameras, make sure you're comparing "out of the box" images and not "someone's personal setup" images. I promise that an individual will go in and do optimizing of settings to make it work best for them, and, will likely have grabbed a better performing lens for what they want to shoot. Make sure there was no color correction done, and compare images shot in RAW format so you're actually looking at what the camera really shot, not what it auto-post-processed during the file format conversion. Most importantly, NEVER, EVER trust "stock images" from the manufacturers, as they're going to pick out the shining examples of what you can possibly do with the camera, and not what the average picture will turn out like.
ChiXterra
Wheeling
- Location
- Northern Illinois
Leica, Olympus, and Panasonic are excellent. Sony cameras will never get my approval, as they are not a true workhorse camera (just ask a professional photographer). People may love their Sony's on here, but just because it works for them doesn't mean that it is a good camera. I shoot a Panasonic point and shoot with the Leica lenses. That camera is tiny, but it takes excellent pictures.
Among one of the clearest Nikon lenses is the 35, and 50mm Prime. It runs about $130 I believe nowadays, but it takes absolutely fabulous pictures. So your comment about being un-impressed by Canon and Nikon lenses that are cheaper is probably more un-educated than any the posts in this thread. There are plenty of other cheaper Nikon and Canon lenses that produce superb pictures.
There are differences camera body to camera body. Even though you may not believe so. It's just not cut and dry as looking at dpreviews. That offers a good starting point, but shooting with the camera will give an even better perspective. I prefer the setup of the Nikon DSLRs, and I am not a huge fan of their point and shoots. I'd choose Panasonic or Olympus for a point and shoot in a heartbeat. My original comment was only directed towards DSLRs.
jmnielsen
Need Bigger Tires
- Location
- Lincoln, NE
Funny, I know professionals that use the Sony a77 and love it. Have you ever used one or had any experience with them? I've met two separate professionals that were diehard canon guys, they each bought a Sony A77 and after putting it the test sold every last bit of their canon gear and will never go back.
- Location
- Amarillo, TX
especially since sony = konica = minolta and they've been a major player in cameras since way before canon and nikon got their boost in popularity into being "mainstream cameras" for average consumers to buy.
I think my buddy that's got the sony has the A55 and I'd say his pics are every ounce as good (or better) as what comes from the neighbor's T2i, and more often than not as good or better than what I turn out from my E-500, and the list can go on.
The "canon or nikon" mentality has been propogated by large chain stores and the fact that it's what they prefer to carry because it's a big name that they can sell a bunch and get a nice profit on them, and by marketing teams working for those companies.
ChiXterra
Wheeling
- Location
- Northern Illinois
Canon and Nikon got their reputations from quality glass and cameras, not merely because of mainstream marketing. My first camera was a Minolta 35mm, and the old Minolta stuff was awesome. I wouldn't own a Sony, no matter who they bought out. And I know several professional photographers that won't touch a Sony DSLR. I've never owned one, and never will. I have absolutely no reason to stray from my D7000. Photography is an art, so people can use all kinds of cameras, yet still compose a quality picture. I don't remember ever saying that you couldnt do so with other brands. To me there is a distinct difference in quality and craftsmanship when you compare Nikon Or Canon to other DSLR's. Not to mention a huge selection of lenses. Hell, my favorite lense I own is a Tokina 11-16mm wide angle. So, it doesn't have to be Nikon or Canon glass to take quality images.
Easy guys...
I shoot Nikon because it works.. I've had sony's and they are ok.. Nikon is one of the leaders in lens.. Not just for cameras.. Cannon and Nikon will be the top 2 pick at the Olympics That means something too me.
We All love what we have for a reason.. Just be nice and no fighting please
I shoot Nikon because it works.. I've had sony's and they are ok.. Nikon is one of the leaders in lens.. Not just for cameras.. Cannon and Nikon will be the top 2 pick at the Olympics That means something too me.
We All love what we have for a reason.. Just be nice and no fighting please
- Location
- Amarillo, TX
I'll agree with this part, but, it's because they're by far the best for shooting moving targets, I've yet to find a camera that can outperform a canon at sports shooting. Or any that outperform Nikon at macro...but, my point was, the others aren't sub par devices simply because they aren't a nikon or a canon....the very high end nikon or canon are elite grade devices, but, their lower end stuff turns to "blah" very quickly.
- Location
- Smyrna, TN
....sooo does anyone want a gently used D90 body only? Dave? 
jmnielsen
Need Bigger Tires
- Location
- Lincoln, NE
As this is a camera advice thread, I was simply saying that just because it's not canon or nikon means it can be shrugged off. There are many other brands that have comparably priced devices that perform similar or sometimes even better than Canon or Nikon. One must compare those to see which is better for them. I compared a D3100, T2i, and A55 side by side by side in many different things and the Sony came on top nearly every time. Hence why I chimed in for sony.