Photographers! Digital Rebel XTi VS Sony A100

[ThePresence]

XTi review
A100 review

I was deciding between these two cameras and had pretty much decided to buy the XTi. I may be wrong, but I feel that lenses are more easily available for Canon than for Sony/Konica-Minolta. but after reading so many different reviews and forums about the XTi's underexposure problem, I'm now rethinking my decision. Also, the Sony's in-camera IS is a big plus.

Does anyone here have experience with the A100?

All input either way is appreciated.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I have an A100.

Honestly, pretty much any DSLR today, from Samsung (rebadged Pentax) to Olympus, is going to be fine. There's not a single one on the market that is a dud.

For me, the clincher for the A100 was holding it in my hands. I did not like the feel of the XTi at all, it was too small and seemed flimsy (the XTi has had no reliability problems stemming from build quality, so my perception of it being flimsy is subjective). I would strongly recommend holding each camera first befor you buy one.

As far as lenses, yes, there are more lenses out there for Canon/Nikon, but I haven't had a problem finding what I need for my A100. The common "consumer" lenses are easy to find, though some places may have to order them even stores like Ritz camera will be able to get them for you. Some of the more expensive lenses can be harder to track down as Sony is still in the process of ramping up lens production, but I've always been able to source a lens without much trouble. Places like KEH have plenty of used lenses available (used lenses in good condition are great bargains) and B&H has been keeping the new lenses in stock for a while now.

Of the two, I lean towards the A100, but that's all personal preference. You can't go wrong with either camera.

ZV

 

[ThePresence]

Thanks ZV.

Let me ask you this: Do you find the in-camera IS to be a big plus, or is it more of a marketing gimmick?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Thanks ZV.

Let me ask you this: Do you find the in-camera IS to be a big plus, or is it more of a marketing gimmick?

In actual practice it works as well as in-lens IS. With concentration I've gotten shots at 1/13 second with a 300mm lens (450mm effective field of view for a 35mm camera). Normal rule of thumb would have been to use a 1/500 second shutter speed, so 1/13 second represents approximately a 5-stop improvement. Granted, I was well-braced and have steady hands, but a 2-3 stop improvement is easily within the system's capabilities.

Remember though that IS only helps avoid camera-shake and using a slower shutter speed will require your subjects to stay pretty still.

ZV

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I just replaced my old Digital Rebel with a Digital Rebel XTi.

There are certainly some good points about the Sony, the main ones, IMHO, being the SteadyShot system and the Carl Zeiss lenses.
However, Sony build quality leaves a lot to be desired, and I, personally, avoid their products, especially after seeing my father lose $600 EUR with a Sony digital camera which just died on him three months after the warranty expired, and having another Sony product (a videocamera) go "black-and-white only".

In the end, it boils down to this: Canon and Nikon are trustworthy names in cameras. Sony - who knows? they might have bought Minolta, but they are Sony after all.

 

[Aharami]

im not in the market for a DSLR. But I was playing with these two at CC. I'll agree that the Sony felt better in my hand than the XTi. Isnt there a significant price difference between the two?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Aharami
im not in the market for a DSLR. But I was playing with these two at CC. I'll agree that the Sony felt better in my hand than the XTi. Isnt there a significant price difference between the two?

Not much of a difference in price.

XTi body - $681.95
A100 body - $699.95

 

[Gooberlx2]

If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

There are many options.
I would go for the XTi over all the other ones for a few reasons, but I'm really scared of the underexposure issue.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Thanks ZV.

Let me ask you this: Do you find the in-camera IS to be a big plus, or is it more of a marketing gimmick?

In actual practice it works as well as in-lens IS. With concentration I've gotten shots at 1/13 second with a 300mm lens (450mm effective field of view for a 35mm camera). Normal rule of thumb would have been to use a 1/500 second shutter speed, so 1/13 second represents approximately a 5-stop improvement. Granted, I was well-braced and have steady hands, but a 2-3 stop improvement is easily within the system's capabilities.

Remember though that IS only helps avoid camera-shake and using a slower shutter speed will require your subjects to stay pretty still.

ZV

i don't think crop factor factors into the 1/focal length rule of thumb

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

There are many options.
I would go for the XTi over all the other ones for a few reasons, but I'm really scared of the underexposure issue.

start here and read through a few pages


The K10D review shows pretty much all the applicable comparison shots between the Nikon D80, Sony A100, Pentax K10D and Canon 30D (which can be translated to the XTi).

IMO, the Canon definitely comes out on top in terms of IQ, especialy at high ISOs. I'm not really in the market for a camera right now, so I haven't heard about underexposure issues since I haven't been really researching.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Thanks ZV.

Let me ask you this: Do you find the in-camera IS to be a big plus, or is it more of a marketing gimmick?

In actual practice it works as well as in-lens IS. With concentration I've gotten shots at 1/13 second with a 300mm lens (450mm effective field of view for a 35mm camera). Normal rule of thumb would have been to use a 1/500 second shutter speed, so 1/13 second represents approximately a 5-stop improvement. Granted, I was well-braced and have steady hands, but a 2-3 stop improvement is easily within the system's capabilities.

Remember though that IS only helps avoid camera-shake and using a slower shutter speed will require your subjects to stay pretty still.

ZV

i don't think crop factor factors into the 1/focal length rule of thumb

It definitely does. Take it to an extreme example. A 100mm lens with a crop factor of 100x. You're DEFINITELY not going to be getting a steady picture handholding that 10,000mm equivalent lens at 1/100s.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Canon!

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

There are many options.
I would go for the XTi over all the other ones for a few reasons, but I'm really scared of the underexposure issue.

start here and read through a few pages


The K10D review shows pretty much all the applicable comparison shots between the Nikon D80, Sony A100, Pentax K10D and Canon 30D (which can be translated to the XTi).

IMO, the Canon definitely comes out on top in terms of IQ, especialy at high ISOs. I'm not really in the market for a camera right now, so I haven't heard about underexposure issues since I haven't been really researching.

30D cannot be translated to the XTi because it doesn't have underexposure issue. It seems that many XTi models have this issue, it's pretty much hit or miss if the one I buy will have it or not. Like I said, without this issue, I'd already own one. I don't need to be convinced of the XTi's attributes.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

There are many options.
I would go for the XTi over all the other ones for a few reasons, but I'm really scared of the underexposure issue.

start here and read through a few pages


The K10D review shows pretty much all the applicable comparison shots between the Nikon D80, Sony A100, Pentax K10D and Canon 30D (which can be translated to the XTi).

IMO, the Canon definitely comes out on top in terms of IQ, especialy at high ISOs. I'm not really in the market for a camera right now, so I haven't heard about underexposure issues since I haven't been really researching.

30D cannot be translated to the XTi because it doesn't have underexposure issue. It seems that many XTi models have this issue, it's pretty much hit or miss if the one I buy will have it or not. Like I said, without this issue, I'd already own one. I don't need to be convinced of the XTi's attributes.

Oh I know, I just linking for the OP's sake and quoting you out of convenience because I didn't know about the underexposure issue (I didn't realize it was XTi only).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It definitely does. Take it to an extreme example. A 100mm lens with a crop factor of 100x. You're DEFINITELY not going to be getting a steady picture handholding that 10,000mm equivalent lens at 1/100s.

i guess it's all relative. you're getting the exact same image as you would if you blew up the picture (assuming you had a high enough sensor resolution). but because you're cropping you're amplifying the imperfections. what would be acceptable in a tiny bit of a larger picture would be unacceptable as the only part of a larger picture.

but if you're capturing the same view...?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If you're interested in the A100, other options could be the Pentax K110D, K10D or the Olympus e-volt series.

I have my old Canon DR (300D) still suiting me well, and I'm invested in the lens system. Overall, to my eyes, I still find Canon to be the leader in terms of IQ. My next step will probably be the XTi or its successor.

I have the K100D pentax and it is great, if buying a new camera now I would either go Nikon or Pentax, imho Canon point and shoot are nice as well as their pro gear, but I view their consumer DSLR options as being a bit weak whe compared to others, especially from a feature and focus standpoint.

 

[Czar]

I have a 350d
My brother has a A100

like mine alot more, the sony feels cheaper

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
The K10D review shows pretty much all the applicable comparison shots between the Nikon D80, Sony A100, Pentax K10D and Canon 30D (which can be translated to the XTi).

IMO, the Canon definitely comes out on top in terms of IQ, especialy at high ISOs. I'm not really in the market for a camera right now, so I haven't heard about underexposure issues since I haven't been really researching.

This is only if you want and prefer in camera processing and JPG sharpness...many gripe that Canons appear too processed for their taste.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
In the end, it boils down to this: Canon and Nikon are trustworthy names in cameras. Sony - who knows? they might have bought Minolta, but they are Sony after all.

Yeah, Who knows what Sony can do. They only build the sensors and electronics for the Nikon cameras. And the Pentax cameras. And nearly all of Canon's point and shoots. In fact, nearly every point and shoot on the market today. And Sony has only been _the_ leading name in professional video recording equipment for the past few decades.

You're right, I shouldn't have dealt with such a shady company. :roll:

Your father's camera is a single sample, with no data for how it was cared for, and the video camera is also an isolated incident, again with no data on how it was cared for, and to top it off the technology for the video camera is only vaguely related to the technology used in a still camera.

As I've said, the build on my A100 is far better than any XT or XTi that I've handled. The 30D is better, but for the price it ought to be. The A100 is not in the same class as the 30D and it doesn't pretend to be.

ZV

 

[randay]

xti

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
In the end, it boils down to this: Canon and Nikon are trustworthy names in cameras. Sony - who knows? they might have bought Minolta, but they are Sony after all.

Yeah, Who knows what Sony can do. They only build the sensors and electronics for the Nikon cameras. And the Pentax cameras. And nearly all of Canon's point and shoots. In fact, nearly every point and shoot on the market today. And Sony has only been _the_ leading name in professional video recording equipment for the past few decades.

You're right, I shouldn't have dealt with such a shady company. :roll:

Your father's camera is a single sample, with no data for how it was cared for, and the video camera is also an isolated incident, again with no data on how it was cared for, and to top it off the technology for the video camera is only vaguely related to the technology used in a still camera.

As I've said, the build on my A100 is far better than any XT or XTi that I've handled. The 30D is better, but for the price it ought to be. The A100 is not in the same class as the 30D and it doesn't pretend to be.

ZV

LOL, take it easier, mate!
My point is this: long-term customer satisfaction really on depends whether Sony treats its SLR digital cameras as consumer products OR as professional products. I find there's a huge gap in build quality and overall market approach. If they manufacture these DSLRs as seriously as they do with their professional video studio products, you have a winner. If not, all bets are off. Are they still using Minolta engineers, or has everything been taken over by their own people? Sure it looks good today, but will it work at the same level in 6 months? I don't know. That's why I have Agfa, Pentax and Canon cameras in my collection, from the 40's, 50's and 60's, which are completely reliable even today, but the oldest Sony device I can think of as having in my possession and being still 100% functional is a 1995 ES-class CD player.

There's that big difference between the Sony R&D and its manufacturing, and that's what I'm commenting on... not to mention the company's proprietary formats and their marketing tactics, or the fact that most of their entry-to-mid-level electronics (HT receivers being the first that come to mind) are usually horribly overpriced and less trustworthy than similarly established competition.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
LOL, take it easier, mate!
My point is this: long-term customer satisfaction really on depends whether Sony treats its SLR digital cameras as consumer products OR as professional products. I find there's a huge gap in build quality and overall market approach. If they manufacture these DSLRs as seriously as they do with their professional video studio products, you have a winner. If not, all bets are off. Are they still using Minolta engineers, or has everything been taken over by their own people? Sure it looks good today, but will it work at the same level in 6 months? I don't know. That's why I have Agfa, Pentax and Canon cameras in my collection, from the 40's, 50's and 60's, which are completely reliable even today, but the oldest Sony device I can think of as having in my possession and being still 100% functional is a 1995 ES-class CD player.

There's that big difference between the Sony R&D and its manufacturing, and that's what I'm commenting on... not to mention the company's proprietary formats and their marketing tactics, or the fact that most of their entry-to-mid-level electronics (HT receivers being the first that come to mind) are usually horribly overpriced and less trustworthy than similarly established competition.

I'm just a little tired of hearing the same damn "Sony is an evil corporation and all its consumer products fall apart 5 days after buying them" bull every time someone mentions the company's name.

You bring up cameras from the 1940's through the 1950's as comparisons to modern equipment when it's frankly foolish to do so. How many circuit boards are in that camera from the 1960's? How much plastic? Do those cameras have automatic film advance, autofocus, shutter-priority, TTL flash metering, auto-DX sensing? Hell, do they even have any metering ability at all? My 1970's lawnmower has been more reliable than my cars, but I'm not about to claim it's built better, it's just simpler. Fewer moving parts means less to go wrong. The reason those old cameras still work is, to put it bluntly, because they are very crude machines by today's standards and they have loose tolerances and fewer moving parts.

I've had nothing but good luck with Sony, though I'm far from a fanboy (my HT setup is Onkyo, DVD player is JVC, TV is Apex, and I'm addicted to the Wii that my roommate recently bought).

In any case, I see a lot of people who are very prejudiced against anything with the Sony brand on it and very few who are actually bothering to judge the camera for what it is.

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It definitely does. Take it to an extreme example. A 100mm lens with a crop factor of 100x. You're DEFINITELY not going to be getting a steady picture handholding that 10,000mm equivalent lens at 1/100s.

i guess it's all relative. you're getting the exact same image as you would if you blew up the picture (assuming you had a high enough sensor resolution). but because you're cropping you're amplifying the imperfections. what would be acceptable in a tiny bit of a larger picture would be unacceptable as the only part of a larger picture.

but if you're capturing the same view...?

Yup.

Say that you're taking a picture with a wide angle 20mm at 1/30s. You plan to view the picture at 8x10 in size. On a full frame, due to hand shake your image moves 1mm up and down, or has a displacement of only 1mm. Now you use a 10x crop sensor, or the equivalent of a 10x crop in photoshop then blowing up that crop to 8x10. You've just magnified your displacement by 10x, to a full 1cm of apparent displacement. In order to keep the same 1mm displacement on this 10x crop body, you would have had to take the picture 10x quicker than 1/30s, or 1/300s.

You are not capturing the same view.

Say you take a picture at 20mm with a full frame camera. Then, in order to get the "same view" on a crop body, you have to step back a bit to compensate for the crop factor. This act of stepping back and taking another picture will change the perspective of the picture, so in essence it's not the same picture as the one on full frame.

But if you don't factor in perspective, you are still going to need a faster shutter speed on the crop body. If you take a picture of a scene at 50mm and 1/50s, and then take a picture of the "same" scene, either with a 100mm on FF or a 50mm on 2X crop body, by walking backwards to frame the shot like the 50mm, you will now need to use a 1/100s shutter speed to get sharpness equivalent to the 50mm. Sharpness is independent of the external scene that you're trying to photograph.

The only way you would get away with using the same shutter speed is if you used a different lens altogether. You would use the same 1/20s shutter speed taking a scene at 20mm on a FF as you would taking a shot at 10mm on a 2x crop body.

 

[daveymark]

I vote for the XTi, but only because I was able to get it new from staples for $700.