My First DSLR: Sony or Canon?

[H4L]

Hi there,

I am new into this, I hope to get some advice from you experts helping me to decide which one is better bargain :o

My budget is limited and after a few rounds of look-around and reading/research I have the finalist...

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM IS and 75-300MM lenses


A BRAND NEW BLACK 1000D BODY WITH EFS 18-55MM IS STANDARD LENS AND A EF 75-300MM TELEPHOTO ZOOM

COMES WITH ALL PARTS
SHOULDER STRAP SOFTWARE CORDS
BATTERY AND CHARGER,MANUAL
12 MONTHS WARRANTY FROM CANON NZ LTD WITH FULL AFTER CARE A CANON BAG LENSCLOTHS PHOTO PAPER
AND DSLR MANUAL ON PHOTOGRAPHY


or

Sony A350 KIT 14.2MP SLR + 2GB CF + Gifts [NEW]

Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Body
- Sony DT-18-70mm Zoom Lens
- Battery
- AC Battery Charger with cord
- Body Cap
- Accessory Shoe Cap
- Video Cable
- USB Cable
- Program CD
- NZ Adapter
- Manual
- 2GB CF Card
- FREE Gifts (Camera case, Mini tripod, LCD Protector, Lens Cloth)

The Sony is 100$ dearer than the Canon and with only one lens.

I have read these 2 are good for beginners but I just want to know which one is a better deal? I am liking Sony at this stage I just want some more input from you experts to help me to make the decisions. (pros, cons etc)

Thanks.
D

[seenew]

those listings look like they came from eBay.

DO NOT BUY CAMERAS FROM EBAY.

ESPECIALLY "Kits" or "bundles"

Stick to retailers with good reputations like Amazon.com, BHPhotovideo.com, Adorama.com, etc.

If you have another site that you're curious about, look it up on http://resellerratings.com

They have reviews from customers. If a site has NO reviews at all, I would avoid it. If I don't shop on the sites I just listed, and I go through someone else, if they have fewer than 50 reviews on resellerratings.com, I avoid them.

[H4L]

Hi there these are not listing on ebay it's on "Trademe" of New Zealand. they are having "real shops" and also online store and they list on "Trademe", with 99.8% positive reputation, and I can even pick the item up, with guarantee...

so any thoughts on these 2 items :)

[CrackedButter]

Since price is your main concern have you not looked at Olympus? Their SLR's are cheaper, I don't get how they didn't make it into your final.

What is it that attracts you to either a Canon or a Sony anyway apart from the price? What were their prices, the Sony is $100 more than what?

[H4L]

Since price is your main concern have you not looked at Olympus? Their SLR's are cheaper, I don't get how they didn't make it into your final.

What is it that attracts you to either a Canon or a Sony anyway apart from the price? What were their prices, the Sony is $100 more than what?

The Canon is around 1000 NZD (675 USD), and Sony's (1130NZD = 760USD) is about 100$ more than the Canon 1000D.

I have a budget around 700-800 USD, and I thought these two might be 'two' of the best among the similar price range? Any recommendation at Olympus? or how do you think of this Canon vs Sony?

[tersono]

Frankly, the Sony is over-priced - the extra $100 (plus more for the second lens) is not going to result in better photographs.

I'd stick with the serious photo equipment manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon, Olympus & Pentax anyhow as that tends to leave you with a more viable upgrade path (not to mention that they're easier to sell second-hand).

Normally I'm a Nikon kinda guy, but right now I think that the Canon is the one to go for in that price bracket. Well-made, capable of excellent results and darned good value with the extra lens in that kit.

[CrackedButter]

Again as price is your main concern, I'd look at the Olympus E420, it is the cheapest body but its really fully featured for what you get, I have one.

I don't mind if it is Canon vs Sony or Canon vs Nikon. Any camera you are going to buy is going to be able to offer you good quality anyway you can't lose. It does boil down to glass really which I think is the most important.

Before all the Canon and Nikon fanboys jump into this thread. How long into the future are you looking into this purchase? What are you going to use it for?

My friend hates her Sony A200 which is similar but I think its pretty neat, she doesn't like the constant auto-focusing but I'm sure you can turn it off. I haven't used the Canon 1000D but I regularly use at work the Canon 400D which is pretty good for what it does.

[H4L]

Frankly, the Sony is over-priced - the extra $100 (plus more for the second lens) is not going to result in better photographs.

I'd stick with the serious photo equipment manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon, Olympus & Pentax anyhow as that tends to leave you with a more viable upgrade path (not to mention that they're easier to sell second-hand).

Normally I'm a Nikon kinda guy, but right now I think that the Canon is the one to go for in that price bracket. Well-made, capable of excellent results and darned good value with the extra lens in that kit.

thanks for the reply. Yeah that's what I've been reading at the reviews saying Sony is kinda overrated and better stick with Canon and Nikon but I haven't heard about easier to sell second-hand. :D

argh it's really hard to make a decision right? haha I just don't want to buy the "wrong" camera :o

If coming at the same price, which one would you suggest?

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM IS and 75-300MM lenses

vs

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM and 90-300MM lenses

[H4L]

Again as price is your main concern, I'd look at the Olympus E420, it is the cheapest body but its really fully featured for what you get, I have one.

I don't mind if it is Canon vs Sony or Canon vs Nikon. Any camera you are going to buy is going to be able to offer you good quality anyway you can't lose. It does boil down to glass really which I think is the most important.

Before all the Canon and Nikon fanboys jump into this thread. How long into the future are you looking into this purchase? What are you going to use it for?

My friend hates her Sony A200 which is similar but I think its pretty neat, she doesn't like the constant auto-focusing but I'm sure you can turn it off. I haven't used the Canon 1000D but I regularly use at work the Canon 400D which is pretty good for what it does.

thanks for the reply.

I just checked the price here selling Olympus E420, it's just 50$ cheaper than the Canon 1000D, but with only one lens, so I guess Canon might be a better choice since the price is close + extra lens?

I'm new into this hobby I would like to start with shooting scenery and people and ladies :D I don't know how long I'll use it, but I still can keep the body and upgrade with the kits when I feel more comfortable and learn more about the skills, can't I?

[CrackedButter]

Where are you looking at for these prices. But yes to your second question.

[H4L]

Where are you looking at for these prices. But yes to your second question.

on trademe.co.nz

and a couple of brochures I 'collected' from my mailbox :cool:

[CrackedButter]

Go with the Canon if you fancy it. You said you can go and pick it up, so see if you can get some hands on experience with it to see if you like it. Good luck.

[H4L]

Go with the Canon if you fancy it. You said you can go and pick it up, so see if you can get some hands on experience with it to see if you like it. Good luck.

thanks for that.

btw, if at the same price:

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM IS and 75-300MM lenses

vs

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM and 90-300MM lenses

which one is a better deal?

[iGary]

You'll have a much wider selection of lenses to use if you go with Canon (or Nikon, for that matter).

And we all know Canon glass is superior.

*runs*

[CrackedButter]

Canon 1000D with 18-55MM IS and 75-300MM lenses

The IS could be helpful and the gap in between the 2 lenses is lessened.

[tony-in-japan]

I give another vote to CrackedButter’s recommendation. If you want value, I don’t think you can go wrong with Olympus -- they give you alot of bang for your bucks. In fact, I think their double-lens kits cannot be beat for value and quality as Olympus kit-lenses are regarded as probably the best of all brands.

I was a Canon user (Rebel XT) and upgraded to the E-420. My experience is that the Canon sensors are great, but kit-lenses are awful. Unless you are going to buy more expensive lenses for the Canon, I think you will get superior IQ from an Olympus with kit-lenses, plus the colour from Olympus is stunning. If you don’t believe me, have a look at my photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26154011@N07/)

You'll have a much wider selection of lenses to use if you go with Canon (or Nikon, for that matter).

And we all know Canon glass is superior.

*runs*

With regards to this comment, you are basically stating that quantity is better than quality? For a beginner to have to sift through all the duds is not exactly an advantage.

Care to elaborate as to why Canon glass is superior -- especially for a beginner? I currently own a Zuiko 12-60mm which is considered by many as the best general zoom on the current market, but it is unfortunately NOT ‘Made by Canon’. ;)

[CrackedButter]

I give another vote to CrackedButter’s recommendation. If you want value, I don’t think you can go wrong with Olympus -- they give you alot of bang for your bucks. In fact, I think their double-lens kits cannot be beat for value and quality as Olympus kit-lenses are regarded as probably the best of all brands.

I was a Canon user (Rebel XT) and upgraded to the E-420. My experience is that the Canon sensors are great, but kit-lenses are awful. Unless you are going to buy more expensive lenses for the Canon, I think you will get superior IQ from an Olympus with kit-lenses, plus the colour from Olympus is stunning. If you don’t believe me, have a look at my photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26154011@N07/)



With regards to this comment, you are basically stating that quantity is better than quality? For a beginner to have to sift through all the duds is not exactly an advantage.

Care to elaborate as to why Canon glass is superior -- especially for a beginner? I currently own a Zuiko 12-60mm which is considered by many as the best general zoom on the current market, but it is unfortunately NOT ‘Made by Canon’. ;)

I gave up on recommending Olympus because I don't know much about buying a camera in New Zealand. If this was somebody from the US then maybe I could find a better price. You are right about the kit lenses and the quality though, I've read elsewhere about their kit lenses being better than the average. But I'm careful to remember that the main concern is price for H4L. Again for the moment just starting out, anything you buy on a budget is going to be fine for you and you shouldn't get hung up on quality at this stage, only your ability.

You beat me to iGary's comment. He IS stating quantity over quality and I find that odd because who takes advantage of Canon's or Nikon's huge range of glass? Everybody wants L series glass anyway and in any case how is that an advantage, I'd rather own a few lenses. The bonus part is that Olympus are also trying to create a system whereby their lenses are half the size and weigh less than everybody else's. Perfect for the travelers or bird watchers.

[Abstract]

I don't know where my post went. I swear I posted in here before.

Anyway, get the A300 instead of the A350. Same camera, but with a sensor with fewer megapixels (and better image quality).

] You are right about the kit lenses and the quality though, I've read elsewhere about their kit lenses being better than the average.

Not only their kit lenses, most of their other lenses. I think it has to do with the fact that they had to redesign all their lenses when going to 4/3rds, so all their lenses are very modern designs that are less than a decade old.

[tony-in-japan]

You beat me to iGary's comment. He IS stating quantity over quality and I find that odd because who takes advantage of Canon's or Nikon's huge range of glass? Everybody wants L series glass anyway and in any case how is that an advantage, I'd rather own a few lenses. The bonus part is that Olympus are also trying to create a system whereby their lenses are half the size and weigh less than everybody else's. Perfect for the travelers or bird watchers.

Other than the differences in prices in different countries to find the best value (of which I am not going to investigate), the other key factor for beginners is to define clearly what and how you are going to shoot. Do you need to be discrete? Do you want portability? Do you want the best IQ? Do you need to shoot subjects from a far distance? Or very close-up? Or fast-moving subjects? What? Different systems would be superior to others in different scenarios.

Oh, he did mention shooting ladies... I wonder if this can be equated to ‘bird watching’? :D Definitely an Olympus then!!! :)

[ChrisA]

Hi there,

I am new into this, I hope to get some advice from you experts helping me to decide which one is better bargain

When you buy an SLR you are buying into s system. You will likely buy some lenses and then in a few yers yo will want to replace the body and it will all need to be the same brand. Buy a Sony and you will be buyubing Sony stuff for the next 20 years.

So,... which brand do you want to be locked into for a few decades? The safe choise is Canon because they have so many options and have been in the SLR business for almost 50 years. Sony is a newcommer with a far thinner lineup

You said "budget"? Then why not Nikon? Canon and Nikon are very close.
Why did you decide not to go with Nikon?

[ChrisA]

I was a Canon user (Rebel XT) and upgraded to the E-420. My experience is that the Canon sensors are great, but kit-lenses are awful. Unless you are going to buy more expensive lenses for the Canon, I think you will get superior IQ from an Olympus with kit-lenses, plus the colour from Olympus is stunning


That is one thing about Canon. Canon makes a wide range of qualities. Their cheap 18-55 kit lenses are not as good as their professional grade lenses. Nikon and Olympus tend not to do this and the Nikon and Oply kit zooms are quite good. I don't think there are any poor lenses in Nikon's current lineup.

[CATinHAWAII]

That is one thing about Canon. Canon makes a wide range of qualities. Their cheap 18-55 kit lenses are not as good as their professional grade lenses. Nikon and Olympus tend not to do this and the Nikon and Oply kit zooms are quite good. I don't think there are any poor lenses in Nikon's current lineup.

also worth considering is what do your friends have? when they get
new lenses, you can see how they work for them, a great review right
next to you... and as far as support, what shops are in your local area?

support is important, and friends can really help, settings and such.

[jpfisher]

It's difficult to describe in words how poor the viewfinder is on the A350.

Don't buy either until you handle them, look through the viewfinder, work with the controls. Also consider the Nikon D40 and Pentax K200D (or K100D Super if you can find one) as entry-level bodies, in addition to the Olympus cameras that others have mentioned.

[Westside guy]

That is one thing about Canon. Canon makes a wide range of qualities. Their cheap 18-55 kit lenses are not as good as their professional grade lenses. Nikon and Olympus tend not to do this and the Nikon and Oply kit zooms are quite good. I don't think there are any poor lenses in Nikon's current lineup.

I've heard the newer 18-55 IS kit lens is much improved over the original.

I don't think people give kit lenses a fair shake. They're usually decent (although not spectacular), and give the purchaser a chance to discover what focal range they like to shoot in, and how serious they're going to be about photography. And it not like they add a significant cost to the camera, in most cases.

To the OP: Between your two choices - I'd go with the Canon, personally. Partly because "you can't go wrong with Canon (or Nikon)"; but I also have to admit I've had an anti-Sony bias ever since that whole "we're going to install spyware on your PC and you're going to smile and take it" episode from a couple years back. They're also not known for customer service - I had one of their Clie PDAs a while back, and can attest to this firsthand. Sony makes quality devices, but God help you if you ever need support.

[anubis]

The Canon will have a MUCH larger selection of accessories from Canon and third parties (flashes, lenses, chargers, batteries, grips, etc.) than the Sony. If you opt for the Sony and then later on you decide you want to get more serious into photography, you're really going to be kicking yourself for not getting the Canon. With the Canon, you have the choice of upgrading to dozens and dozens of lenses from various manufacturers. With the sony, you have the choice of upgrading to a few.

So yeah, at this exact moment, as a beginner, it probably won't matter for you if you get the Sony or Canon. But if you think you'll ever want upgradability and expandability with your camera, Canon is the way to go.

Imagine it's the difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro. Both have plenty of power out of the box and will do you fine. But in a year you'll be able to upgrade the Mac Pro's internal hard drive, graphics card, and optic drive. On the iMac the only thing you can upgrade is the RAM.

[CrackedButter]

The Canon will have a MUCH larger selection of accessories from Canon and third parties (flashes, lenses, chargers, batteries, grips, etc.) than the Sony. If you opt for the Sony and then later on you decide you want to get more serious into photography, you're really going to be kicking yourself for not getting the Canon. With the Canon, you have the choice of upgrading to dozens and dozens of lenses from various manufacturers. With the sony, you have the choice of upgrading to a few.

So yeah, at this exact moment, as a beginner, it probably won't matter for you if you get the Sony or Canon. But if you think you'll ever want upgradability and expandability with your camera, Canon is the way to go.

Imagine it's the difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro. Both have plenty of power out of the box and will do you fine. But in a year you'll be able to upgrade the Mac Pro's internal hard drive, graphics card, and optic drive. On the iMac the only thing you can upgrade is the RAM.

I don't want to stick up for SONY but your post is a bit short sighted. In a year SONY will have more gear and options for their SLR system in one way or another. Its not like they're not moving forward.

[MoeOz]

Well .. Sony is taking it seriously lately they're about to release their first FF DSLR with 24MP sensor and more semi-pro next year plus they have a range of Minolta Lenses compatibility , Yes of course going with Canon Nikon or Oly would be more reasonable as for their history & full range of lenses etc .. but i guess you are just a beginner and what matters now is your first one , i've been in the same boat , looking for the best choice beside i wanted a handy(not heavy) one anyway after all i went for Oly E-420 & its Gr8 for a beginner or someone need a handy DSLR to go with anytime anywhere , it has a gr8 kit lens whether its the 14-42 or the pancake , its not heavy , Gr8 for beginner's makes you learn some stuff fast , so basically u'll luv whatever u got as much as your taking pictures , GoodLuck .

[thomahawk]

get a Canon. those Alpha cameras sony has are kind of not good.
i have a Canon SLR Rebel XTi and i plan to get a DSLR soon
but instead of getting a canon DLSR i plan to get a Nikon instead
but if your between sony and canon get a canon for sure, dont EVER get a sony.
but if your looking for other opinions i say go for a Nikon. but canon is good too

the only thing you ahve to worry about is price. Sonys dslr seem cheap and they are but their products tend to not do so well. canons on the other hand are expensive but they take great pictures and are quality cameras and you can use of your old lens if you have owned a SLR before on some of the cameras.

another thing to look at is preferance. go to the store and feel the camera and see if you like its contorls and design. thats another way to decide for a DLSR

[CrackedButter]

get a Canon. those Alpha cameras sony has are kind of not good.
i have a Canon SLR Rebel XTi and i plan to get a DSLR soon
but instead of getting a canon DLSR i plan to get a Nikon instead
but if your between sony and canon get a canon for sure, dont EVER get a sony.
but if your looking for other opinions i say go for a Nikon. but canon is good too

the only thing you ahve to worry about is price. Sonys dslr seem cheap and they are but their products tend to not do so well. canons on the other hand are expensive but they take great pictures and are quality cameras and you can use of your old lens if you have owned a SLR before on some of the cameras.

another thing to look at is preferance. go to the store and feel the camera and see if you like its contorls and design. thats another way to decide for a DLSR

Why should he go Nikon?

[tony-in-japan]

Good to hear from fellow E-420 users here! (I hope you have been taking your nippy DSLR to places other DSLRs wouldn’t dare to go!) :cool:

Why do some get so offended when the name ‘Sony’ is mentioned in photography forums? They do occupy the third place in DSLR market share so they must be doing something good that consumers are buying. And (correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t Sony supply the sensors for Nikons and Canons?

I completely disagree with recommending Canon or Nikon simply because they are the obvious and easiest choice. If you kept to that reasoning, would you even be a mac user? Shouldn’t you then be with Vista? Granted, if you can’t be bothered to explore and research, then most would choose Canon (or Nikon), but for those who actually dig deeper and communicate with actual users of different brands, you will realise the choice is not so obvious anymore. Like choosing jeans, would you simply order Levis from the internet or would it be wiser to try them in-store first and compare to suit the shape of your legs and butt? Okay, bad example, but you get the drift.

Well, I suppose the OP is now completely confused (as is always they case when someone asks for advice on which brand to choose).

[CrackedButter]

I remember seeing a thread a while back about beginners getting advice from forums just like these. It was making a comment about how photographers dispense advice.

It went something like this:

Question: Hi I'm a newbie to photography and I am looking into buying an SLR.

Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.

Question: Hi I want to shoot raw, but the camera needs to be small.

Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.

Question: What is a good point and shoot to buy?

Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.

Question: I'm interested in this Pentax camera, should I get it?

Response: You need a Canon or Nikon SLR.

They are usually for the same reasons as well, loads of lenses (where nobody buys enough of them to take advantage of this) and both companies have been around for years. Somewhere somehow, everybody forgets that the likes of Pentax, SONY, Olympus have also been around for years as well.

I completely disagree with recommending Canon or Nikon simply because they are the obvious and easiest choice. If you kept to that reasoning, would you even be a mac user? Shouldn’t you then be with Vista?

I wanted to say something like this but couldn't articulate it into a simple sentence. But you are right, it is amazing the mindset some of us Mac users have considering we are in the minority of computer users.

[hank-b]

I wanted to say something like this but couldn't articulate it into a simple sentence. But you are right, it is amazing the mindset some of us Mac users have considering we are in the minority of computer users.


I agree, sort of. I used to shoot with Pentax cameras and was a big fan of their beautifully-designed small SLR cameras and the quality of their lenses. I now use Nikon cameras (well, a D70 and a F3HP) because at the point where I really wanted to upgrade, Pentax weren't offering what I wanted. The Pentax range is a lot better now so I'd say to the OP go and look at the cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax and see what you like - they'll all be good and all give you a reasonable upgrade path. Canon and Nikon offer a richer and more varied upgrade path but this is really only of interest to professionals. I'd be wary of Sony becuase they don't have the history of building cameras - the Sony cameras I've seen have shown Sony's expertise in consumer electronics but haven't really felt like very natural tools for taking pictures.

HB

[koobcamuk]

I have a canon and love it. I recommend Canon.

Basically, that's all it comes down to. People will give their opinions - there is no right or wrong!

Canon and Nikon are very popular and have great entry level offers.

[CrackedButter]

I have a canon and love it. I recommend Canon.

Basically, that's all it comes down to. People will give their opinions - there is no right or wrong!

Canon and Nikon are very popular and have great entry level offers.

I think there are rights and wrongs, that is the point some of us are trying to make though admittedly they do offer roughly the same thing. Its in the details which get glossed over if the mind set is for everyone to recommend Canon or Nikon.

You've highlighted the problem I mentioned in my last post, in YOUR own post 'I have Canon and love it. I recommend Canon.' Where is your objectivity, your ability to do research on other products? What do you know about other camera manufacturers?

My friends (all canon users) think I'm silly to read reviews for Nikon products knowing I've no interest in buying one. I don't even like Nikon but I'll read about what they get up to so I can stay objective.

[Macanadian]

I don't know much about Canon or Sony camera's. Pentax user myself.

In the photography courses I've taken. I've met up with one Sony shooter and he had a problem with shooting in the studio. He had to buy a gizmoo (from ebay) to attach to his camera so he can use the studio lighting. Everyone else (Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon shooters) didn't had to buy it.

One little tid bit to think about.

[iGary]

It's gotten far too up tight and serious in this photography forum, guys. It's like a bad case of DPReview's "pro" forums.

I'm not saying everyone want's to have 50 lenses in their bag (I don't), but I sure like having a range of choices. I was just looking for a new wide angle for my 5D and enjoyed having a choice of Tamron, Tokina, Canon and Sigma. Not so for the Sony ... yet.

And I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I like the glass choices and performance better in Canon, but I like the Nikon's features better...

[leandroc76]

I haven't read everyones posts... but the short answer for the OP is this:

Cannon has and always will have superior glass and IS performance over any Sony lens.

That coming from a Nikon shooter.

I know you've heard this before, but it's all about the components 'behind' the camera... then the glass!

[Artful Dodger]

It's gotten far too up tight and serious in this photography forum, guys. It's like a bad case of DPReview's "pro" forums.

I'm not saying everyone want's to have 50 lenses in their bag (I don't), but I sure like having a range of choices. I was just looking for a new wide angle for my 5D and enjoyed having a choice of Tamron, Tokina, Canon and Sigma. Not so for the Sony ... yet.

And I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I like the glass choices and performance better in Canon, but I like the Nikon's features better...

Hi iGary, Nice to see you again ;)
Back when I started looking at DSLR's I listened to some here and actually did what iGary suggested to do first. I went around to stores and held each model I was looking to purchase (this might be key for some), listed a real growth list for some lenses (which I now have those lenses) then went back to see what options were left in the group and what group would offer long term benifits (others helped with lenses as well, thank you). From there I ended up with a D50 Nikon simply because of what it offered now and what it could offer in the near/semi long future for me.

In the end I've been more than happy without fueling a feud because no matter what camera I would have ended up with if I had zero talent, nothing about taking photos held my interest, a Nikon, Canon or any other camera would not have mattered ever :cool:
Good luck, have fun and learn from there…

[CrackedButter]

@leandroc76 You should read other peoples posts, its ignorance, it's akin to walking into a conversation and blurting out what you think is best which might not help anybody. It's not clever and you don't have that luxury in a real conversation, so don't waste the opportunity given to you in an internet forum.

I think the conversation has moved on a bit from Canon vs Sony which isn't now the case. The conversation is about how the majority of individuals will go for Canon or Nikon because other posters are recommending only those 2 brands, people need to do more research like tony-in-japan and iGary suggest. We're mac users, we're supposed to be thinking differently! :)

iGary, my comment to you is instead of saying we can offer x amount of glass for a photographer, instead stress the other advantages like you just did in your last post by talking about the 3rd parties, but too much choice can be a bad thing as well btw.

[leandroc76]

@leandroc76 You should read other peoples posts, its ignorance, it's akin to walking into a conversation and blurting out what you think is best which might not help anybody. It's not clever and you don't have that luxury in a real conversation, so don't waste the opportunity given to you in an internet forum.


I'm not exactly sure if your bashing me or agreeing with me, however the former seems more likely.

Since when did the Opinion Police start showing up?

I personally don't care what you use... in the end it all comes down to your budget and ability to make good photographs.

Someone asks a question that has been answered 500 million times before, and all the budget photogs come out of the woodwork.

[CrackedButter]

I'm not exactly sure if your bashing me or agreeing with me, however the former seems more likely.

Since when did the Opinion Police start showing up?

I personally don't care what you use... in the end it all comes down to your budget and ability to make good photographs.

Someone asks a question that has been answered 500 million times before, and all the budget photogs come out of the woodwork.

I'm not bashing you, I'm simply saying blundering into a thread without taking 5 minutes to read the thread is just bad form.

Also, the budget photographers are out because the original poster wanted a camera on the cheap, oh wait, you didn't read their post either?

[apearlman]

I personally don't care what you use... in the end it all comes down to your budget and ability to make good photographs.

Someone asks a question that has been answered 500 million times before, and all the budget photogs come out of the woodwork.

I'm glad the budget photogs came out of the woodwork for this question. Because the OP specifically mentioned he was on a tight budget, and looking for advice. So -- hooray for the budget photogs! Surely you weren't suggesting that the opinions of those budget photographers aren't as valuable as the big spenders' opinions...

I do think, though, that this is a common question and a tiny bit of research on this or other boards would yield more information than the OP could possibly need. And of course it's also true that the equipment matters less than our skills.

iGary is right... let's all lighten up around here. We're on a photo discussion board, not negotiating world peace.

[koobcamuk]

You've highlighted the problem I mentioned in my last post, in YOUR own post 'I have Canon and love it. I recommend Canon.' Where is your objectivity, your ability to do research on other products? What do you know about other camera manufacturers?

My friends (all canon users) think I'm silly to read reviews for Nikon products knowing I've no interest in buying one. I don't even like Nikon but I'll read about what they get up to so I can stay objective.

That's fine - but I am only talking from my experience. When I was shopping, I liked the look of the Canon, the feel, the UI, the CF card and just the whole package. I even prefer the name. That's just me. I can't recommend something to someone if I haven't used it. I could advise, but I chose to recommend.

I recommend he tries out a few models and buys what he ends up liking. They're all so similar anyway.

I got a Canon 400D almost a year ago for £300 on ebay - direct from Canon as a refurb unit. I love it. Want a 40D but doubt I would make use of the features.... so far.

[compuwar]

I completely disagree with recommending Canon or Nikon simply because they are the obvious and easiest choice. If you kept to that reasoning, would you even be a mac user? Shouldn’t you then be with Vista?

Actually, if the analogy is followed, then MS would be Canon and Apple would be Nikon- you'd actually be advocating running something like AIX.

Like it or not, third-party support is always going to be based upon market share. Therefore, the availability and choice for non-manufacturer options are always going to be better for Canon or Nikon than any of the also-rans.

Likewise, the availability of good-condition cheaply-priced used gear is going to be similarly distributed (take a look at the KEH catalog for a good example.)

Just like choosing a computer or an operating system, intended use is a large part of things. If you were looking to run an ERP package, a Mac is about the dumbest choice you can make. Brand loyalty for the sake of brand loyalty is a sub-optimal way to choose any product.

[compuwar]

I have read these 2 are good for beginners but I just want to know which one is a better deal? I am liking Sony at this stage I just want some more input from you experts to help me to make the decisions. (pros, cons etc)

Thanks.
D

You likely won't notice the difference in images between the cameras- and both are as capable as the other. In terms of being able to find good quality used lenses, a wide range of third party lenses and other accessories, I'd recommend going with the Canon over the Sony. Also, should you really get into photography, you'll be able to use more of the lenses and accessories on a wider range of bodies in the future.

[CrackedButter]

Actually, if the analogy is followed, then MS would be Canon and Apple would be Nikon- you'd actually be advocating running something like AIX.

Your interpretation is wrong.

If it was MS vs Apple being akin to Canon vs Nikon then MS would need to start making their own computers as well as writing the software to run them to make your interpretation work.

Tony-in-japan is correct in his point. Canon and Nikon are dominant in their field as is MS. Apple is a minority player just like Olympus, Apple is doing something different in their respective market, just like Olympus.

Both will hopefully do fine but to ignore Mac's or Olympus cameras without doing research is silly. Apple want to create the whole product, Olympus want to create small SLR's. Both are criticized for not allowing OS X to be sold with other computers and Olympus are criticized for their small sensor. Both do what they do deliberately.

But Tony-in-japan's point is the mindset in the computer world is that MS must be better because they are popular, to some this way of thinking is carried over to Canon and Nikon. 'You should go with Canon or Nikon' because 'they are the biggest players' or 'they have the biggest lens line up' or 'they will always be around'.

With that line of thinking you wonder why Canon and Nikon get bigger and bigger every year, everybody is just going with the market leaders, never exploring the other options. Remember when Mac users were trying to convince windows users that Macs are great and could offer windows users everything they want but were always on the side? Its the same with Pentax, Sony, Sigma or Olympus users. We're trying to suggest that not going with the big players is okay and you should look at the alternatives otherwise more market share for the top 2. Research and objectivity is important.

Now we as Mac users should know better, being dominant is never always better, having 3rd party options is never always better. But it does help. Remember this argument is used for Windows? Yeah we can choose from 20 word processor packages while on the Mac our 3rd party market for word processors was smaller, but it was much better quality.

[compuwar]

Your interpretation is wrong.

If it was MS vs Apple being akin to Canon vs Nikon then MS would need to start making their own computers as well as writing the software to run them to make your interpretation work.


No it wouldn't. The analogy works fine the way it is.


Tony-in-japan is correct in his point. Canon and Nikon are dominant in their field as is MS. Apple is a minority player just like Olympus, Apple is doing something different in their respective market, just like Olympus.



Not really, Apple has enough of the laptop market share to be Nikon just fine.



But Tony-in-japan's point is the mindset in the computer world is that MS must be better because they are popular, to some this way of thinking is carried over to Canon and Nikon. 'You should go with Canon or Nikon' because 'they are the biggest players' or 'they have the biggest lens line up' or 'they will always be around'.


Once again, I submit that if you're going to run an ERP package, Apple is not the best choice. Not even close. A larger lens line up, a larger selection of used lenses and things like that are advantages, no matter what you may wish.


With that line of thinking you wonder why Canon and Nikon get bigger and bigger every year, everybody is just going with the market leaders, never exploring the other options. Remember when Mac users were trying to


That's only a disadvantage if (a) you didn't choose one of the market leaders, or (b) the market leaders are putting out bad products.


convince windows users that Macs are great and could offer windows users everything they want but were always on the side? Its the same with Pentax, Sony, Sigma or Olympus users. We're trying to suggest that not going with the big players is okay and you should look at the alternatives otherwise more market share for the top 2. Research and objectivity is important.


But you're not being objective- you're focusing on one or two issues and beating the gong repeatedly. The OP had narrowed down to two brands (neither of which I happen to shoot regularly) and rather than respecting that, you non-objectively inject your personal brand choice into the mix. That's not objective, that's overly subjective.


Now we as Mac users should know better, being dominant is never always better, having 3rd party options is never always better. But it does help.


Seemingly unlike you, I chose my Mac for very specific capability and software reasons, not just because. But then prior to going with a Mac, I quite happily ran Linux as my primary OS at home since kernel .98p11 and at work since about 1.03.


Remember this argument is used for Windows? Yeah we can choose from 20 word processor packages while on the Mac our 3rd party market for word processors was smaller, but it was much better quality.

Just because it's used doesn't make it a valid argument. As for "much better quality," there's hardly a feature set in a word processor package that needs "quality." Perhaps you could quantify that quality against every word processor written for Windows? Because if you're going to make the argument that you should look at every available option in the margins, you'll spend at least several months to come up with a word processor if you look at everything that's available to type text into in Windows.

[CrackedButter]

But you're not being objective- you're focusing on one or two issues and beating the gong repeatedly. The OP had narrowed down to two brands (neither of which I happen to shoot regularly) and rather than respecting that, you non-objectively inject your personal brand choice into the mix. That's not objective, that's overly subjective.

Seemingly unlike you, I chose my Mac for very specific capability and software reasons, not just because. But then prior to going with a Mac, I quite happily ran Linux as my primary OS at home since kernel .98p11 and at work since about 1.03.

I hate cut and paste jobs (plus we're discussing an interpretation of an analogy) so I'm only going to respond to the comments which make a comment on my character.

The OP stated price was his main concern, so logic dictates I make the OP aware of the cheapest brand that is available to him. It just happens to be what I bought for myself. At work I use Canon and Nikon cameras. If you missed the part where I change my mind and recommend Canon to the OP then you should pay attention.
The reason for changing my mind was because I couldn't find the Olympus camera in his country cheaper than the Canon and for it to be worth his time chasing. The Canon camera is also a very good deal, so he's better off going for it.

Second, I went with OS X because windows was a frustrating product to use, I had already tried Linux myself and in the end I went for an Apple Mac because of its quality and reliability, there were also small other things that appealed to me. Add to the fact that if anything does go wrong with it I can contact the one company that produced it.

I didn't buy it just because I could stick it to Microsoft.

[Mantat]

First, I am a Canon guy. I own over 10k$ in Canon gear and I think I take good pictures.

I think this entitle me to say that a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about. Sony Alpha bodies are getting very good reviews and have some incredible features, such as the in body IS or eye scan to start the camera - focus point.

Also, a lot of attention is on Nikon these days but Sony is the company that is moving forward the fastest these days. Because they are in a green field they can be very creative and that is what they are doing. If I was to start from scratch with 10k$, I would give a serious look at Sony.

Finaly, the look of their lenses is straight from the future! ;-)

I cant provide you with a straight answer because there are none. Both system are good, actually every camera manufacturer has great entry level bodies these days. You just have to pick the system that you like the most.

My only real suggestion is to get a 50mm1.8 lens. What ever the system you get, you will need one ;-)

[Phrasikleia]

There are some good reasons to go with systems other than Canon or Nikon.

A big one would be a need for in-body stabilization. This is a niche need, I think, since in-body stabilization most benefits people who want to shoot handheld with shorter length prime lenses (no Canon or Nikon primes are going to have stabilization unless they're telephoto).

Another would be a desire to shoot with a stock of vintage lenses, of course. (Or a desire to acquire these lenses, which are generally of high-quality and are relatively inexpensive.)

Of course there are also body-specific incentives with each brand, but those offer weaker reasons for brand adoption, since camera bodies are a relatively short-term investment.

[CrackedButter]

First, I am a Canon guy. I own over 10k$ in Canon gear and I think I take good pictures.

I think this entitle me to say that a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about. Sony Alpha bodies are getting very good reviews and have some incredible features, such as the in body IS or eye scan to start the camera - focus point.

Also, a lot of attention is on Nikon these days but Sony is the company that is moving forward the fastest these days. Because they are in a green field they can be very creative and that is what they are doing. If I was to start from scratch with 10k$, I would give a serious look at Sony.

Finaly, the look of their lenses is straight from the future! ;-)

I cant provide you with a straight answer because there are none. Both system are good, actually every camera manufacturer has great entry level bodies these days. You just have to pick the system that you like the most.

My only real suggestion is to get a 50mm1.8 lens. What ever the system you get, you will need one ;-)

So you own 10K in gear, shoot Canon, point out that you're an authoritative source on Canon and none of us know what we're talking about, only for your post to talk up Sony products?

Then in the end your advice is to suggest buying a prime lens, something which other people on this forum already suggest anyway and the only difference is we haven't spent 10K on gear and become arrogant in order to figure this out?

[Westside guy]

First, I am a Canon guy. I own over 10k$ in Canon gear and I think I take good pictures.

I think this entitle me to say that a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about. Sony Alpha bodies are getting very good reviews and have some incredible features, such as the in body IS or eye scan to start the camera - focus point.
<snip>



Okay, have you actually read a review of this specific camera? Have you actually looked at photos taken with this specific camera?

The two reviews/previews I've seen are on Luminous Landscape and on DPreview. The camera gets good marks at ISO 200. There are reviewer comments regarding the noise at higher ISO. Additionally, there are sample images available for all to see - hence the comments people have made about noise, the "lack of pop", etc.

So if you want to make sweeping, generic statements such as "a lot of the previous poster dont know much about what they are talking about", please back it up by giving SPECIFIC examples where previous posters are wrong. I'm also not sure why you mention how much gear you own, then just say "I think I take good pictures" - that just means you're a non-pro who's apparently somewhat well heeled. Your input matters, but no more than any other person - even those with less money than you - participating on this forum.

[Phrasikleia]

So you own 10K in gear, shoot Canon, point out that you're an authoritative source on Canon and none of us know what we're talking about, only for your post to talk up Sony products?

Then in the end your advice is to suggest buying a prime lens, something which other people on this forum already suggest anyway and the only difference is we haven't spent 10K on gear and become arrogant in order to figure this out?

He didn't come off as arrogant to me. I think he's merely saying that he's heavily invested in one of the major players, but nonetheless has enough photography experience and an open enough mind to appreciate an up-and-coming brand. And his comment about the prime lens is just one more vote for a going suggestion...so what?

[CrackedButter]

He didn't come off as arrogant to me. I think he's merely saying that he's heavily invested in one of the major players, but nonetheless has enough photography experience and an open enough mind to appreciate an up-and-coming brand. And his comment about the prime lens is just one more vote for a going suggestion...so what?

So... i didn't need to tell everybody else they don't know what they are talking about nor spend 10K in order to suggest that somebody get a prime lens. Simple, as I stated before.

[bassproguy07]

the way I look at it is Sony makes everything from playstations to big screens, Canon has always made stuff for imaging and has been making cameras for years. I;m not too sure about sony's history but I know for a fact that canon has been in the industry for a very long time. Same goes for Nikon. I know I'd pick an industry leader like Canon Nikon, olympus, etc over anything else.

[Phrasikleia]

So... i didn't need to tell everybody else they don't know what they are talking about nor spend 10K in order to suggest that somebody get a prime lens. Simple, as I stated before.

I'm going to backpedal a bit. I guess I glossed over the part about others not knowing what they're talking about. He definitely didn't need to say that.

[CrackedButter]

Okay thanks Phrasikleia.

[lasuther]

I ended up going with a Olympus E420 because size of the camera and lens were the most important feature for me. I carry a smaller camera around more and end up taking more pictures.

I'd recommend looking into a E420 or E520 with dual kit lens if you can find a good price for it.

[Westside guy]

But then prior to going with a Mac, I quite happily ran Linux as my primary OS at home since kernel .98p11 and at work since about 1.03.

I hope you've upgraded those kernels in the meantime... :D

[NightGeometry]

I used a friends Oly (e-500) for quite a bit, decided to get a DSLR all of my own, and wanted an e-520. Then saw the panasonic 4/3 camera (love that lens), but nowhere physically had one to try out.

So I read up a lot more, tried various cameras (Cannon, Nikon, Pentax, and Oly). Then got to play with a Sony, and liked it, a lot. Read up some more, and realised that there are a *lot* of second hand Minolta lenses around that a) not that many people are interested in, b) are damn good lenses.

I got the Sony, because of good second hand lenses. But the important part was that I physically played with one, and just got on really well with it, if I had liked a different camera more, then I'd have got a different one.

Part of it, of course, was that not many people have a Sony DSLR - the stupid part of me likes to have something not that many other people have, I admit.

Ultimately any current low end DSLR is going to do a really good job.

Possibly if you want cheap, and to learn, buy a 35mm slr (or russian rangefinder), B&W film, and a developing canister... Home developing is fun.

[compuwar]

I hope you've upgraded those kernels in the meantime... :D

I wish I'd kept the SLS distro at .98p11, it'd still have uptimes that anything other than AIX would look in envy at (my best AIX uptime is 768 days on a system with about six interfaces acting as a firewall for ~2500 desktop and ~24,000 email users- I had to take it down to add more interfaces, or I'd have topped 800 days easily!)

[compuwar]

[QUOTE=Phrasikleia;6205953

A big one would be a need for in-body stabilization. This is a niche need, I think, since in-body stabilization most benefits people who want to shoot handheld with shorter length prime lenses (no Canon or Nikon primes are going to have stabilization unless they're telephoto).[/QUOTE]

It's a niche need for sure. The advantage is really for shooting from a moving platform, or if you've got physical limitations, as the shutter speeds you'd need to be at for hand-held are well into the point where you're likely to get subject motion blur even for a stationary human subject- especially if you're practiced in hand-held shooting (1/30th or slower for wider lenses.)

[Phrasikleia]

It's a niche need for sure. The advantage is really for shooting from a moving platform, or if you've got physical limitations, as the shutter speeds you'd need to be at for hand-held are well into the point where you're likely to get subject motion blur even for a stationary human subject- especially if you're practiced in hand-held shooting (1/30th or slower for wider lenses.)

There's no motion blur when you're shooting statues in a dimly lit museum. My husband and I do a lot of this, and his combination of body-stabilized prime lenses (Pentax) is unbeatable for the purpose. I use an IS zoom lens and a fast prime on my Canon, and his results trounce mine.

[ftaok]

There's no motion blur when you're shooting statues in a dimly lit museum. My husband and I do a lot of this, and his combination of body-stabilized prime lenses (Pentax) is unbeatable for the purpose. I use an IS zoom lens and a fast prime on my Canon, and his results trounce mine.

Yeah, I can see where in-body IS would be useful in those situations.

But the $1 string tripod could help you out on your Canon.

Here's a link from photojojo:

http://photojojo.com/content/diy/one-dollar-string-tripod/

[compuwar]

There's no motion blur when you're shooting statues in a dimly lit museum. My husband and I do a lot of this, and his combination of body-stabilized prime lenses (Pentax) is unbeatable for the purpose. I use an IS zoom lens and a fast prime on my Canon, and his results trounce mine.

Statues in a museum with any regularity is definitely a niche. Personally, if I had to do a lot of that, I'd probably get a D700 to cover the niche. An interesting test would be to switch bodies and see how much of it is the shooter and how much the camera. The guy I bought my 400/2.8 off of could hand-hold it for shots slower than 1/400- I can't get good shots that slowly, but I can't hand-hold it for any significant length of time.

[Phrasikleia]

Yeah, I can see where in-body IS would be useful in those situations.

But the $1 string tripod could help you out on your Canon.

Here's a link from photojojo:

http://photojojo.com/content/diy/one-dollar-string-tripod/

Thanks, but I tried and ditched the string tripod long ago. It really didn't help. I found that the tension I needed to put on the string in the vertical direction caused enough movement in the horizontal to be a problem. My IS lens is my best option, but alas, it's not a prime.

[marclapierre13]

My advice, go try out every one in your price range.
I dislike Canon cameras, also sony i like better, but they are my 2nd least favorite.

I love Nikon and Pentax cameras.
In my opinion the best beginner camera is the k200d, for many reasons. Do a search online, and you can find out more info about it and all the positive reviews.
To start, its weather sealed body, 10 MP's, and personally I love the ergonomics of Pentax cameras, they feel great and the layout of the buttons are fantastic.
If you want to move up a little more in advance, get the last generation K10D...it has a lot of the same features, except the k200d requires you to go into the menus in the LCD more to adjust settings, where as the k10d you dont. Also you can get the k10d or k200d for under $600

[AndyR]

I picked up a Sony A200 yesterday as my first DSLR. Price was right £253 with 18-70mm kit lens from Amazon.

I have to say I am blown away by how good it is! I thought I would miss the liveview coming from a P&S cam but so far I haven't. Can't wait to play with it a bit more, but just the few shots I got last night shows how superior it is to a point and shoot!

For me it was the price, in body IS and good reviews that swung it for me. I would have liked the Canon 450D but this was another £200 so I'll use this difference for a good 18-200mm or 70-300mm lens.

[MacMontana]

As an Sony a350 owner I am very happy with it's color reproduction and IQ. Large prints are stunning. This is far from my dream camera. But, it works great with my old Minolta primes. The new Sony Zeiss lenses are superb but WAAAAY over priced. I would go Canon if starting from scratch, but since I already had Minolta lenses the choice was obvious.

[Col127]

the 75-300mm is a really bad lens. invest a bit more and get the 55-250mm IS. much better IQ and it's got IS. :)

Hi there,

I am new into this, I hope to get some advice from you experts helping me to decide which one is better bargain :o

My budget is limited and after a few rounds of look-around and reading/research I have the finalist...



or



The Sony is 100$ dearer than the Canon and with only one lens.

I have read these 2 are good for beginners but I just want to know which one is a better deal? I am liking Sony at this stage I just want some more input from you experts to help me to make the decisions. (pros, cons etc)

Thanks.
D

[HooHar]

In the UK we have an excellent magazine called Amateur Photographer.
This weeks issue reviews these two cameras head-to-head and the Canon comes out tops because of great quality at higher ISOs.

The Sony didn't perform well at ISOs of 400 or above.

Cheers
HooHar
;)

[QuantumLo0p]

Sorry, I can't help you much. I would chose neither.

[Westside guy]

I think the OP needs to post whether/if he's made a decision, so this thread can mercifully die.

[QuantumLo0p]

I think the OP needs to post whether/if he's made a decision, so this thread can mercifully die.

Long live Thread Necromancy!!!

[bassproguy07]

get an XSi body with some L lenses you wont be dissapointed. If you want to upgrade to a better body later on, you will still have some of the best lenses and be able to sell your XSi for a good ammount

[Plymouthbreezer]

These days, one has a hard time staking the claim that Sony isn't an up and coming player in the DSLR market... With the larger prosumer bodies and newer releases of Minolta-proven glass, Sony isn't the same Sony it was just two years ago.

[hank-b]

Stephen Fry writes about DSLRs in today's Guardian - a light article but, like everything he writes, a joy to read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/20/photography.gadgets

[wheelhot]

Well, honestly, im planning to get my own DSLR, hopefully a 2 months work will be able to get me this :)

Okay, so like every newcomer, I narrowed my choice to these 3 brands, Canon, Nikon and Sony. Olympus is out even-thought I owned a Oly SLR and P&S FE-320 (which is a great little portable camera except its performance inconsistency), is because of the lens choices.

Basically, like some user posted, when you buy a camera from the 3 big brands, you will end up like signing an invisible contract with it when you start buying lenses.

So, I read a lot of reviews and it seems those 3 brands entry level DSLRs (Rebel XS, XT, D40, D40x, D60, A200, A350) all have their pro and cons.

So now I will look into forums to see user experience :D

[Abstract]

Okay, so like every newcomer, I narrowed my choice to these 3 brands, Canon, Nikon and Sony. Olympus is out even-thought I owned a Oly SLR and P&S FE-320 (which is a great little portable camera except its performance inconsistency), is because of the lens choices.


I'm sorry, but that's just silly. If you're going to consider Sony, who have some of the most expensive lenses on the market, and yet do not have many choices (unless you buy only used Minolta stuff), you may as well consider Olympus, as they probably have the best overall lens line-up on the market. I'm a Nikon shooter, so this isn't a biased opinion, mind you. Olympus' lenses are all very new designs, and it shows in their performance.

That's not to say that Sony is bad. I think the Sony A700 is VERY good. However, if you have an idea of what lenses you want to buy, and they're available for the camera you want to purchase, then there's no problem. You'll only run into problems when you start looking for 300 mm f/2.8 lenses and more specialized lenses, particularly long telephotos and telephoto zoom lenses.


I played with a Sony A350, A700, Olympus E-3, Nikon D700, Canon 50D, Olympus E-420 + 25 mm pancake lens (first time with that combo), and even an Epson Digital Rangefinder 3 days ago at Bic Camera (in Japan). All good cameras, and I don't think you can pick a bad camera today.

And with regards to lenses, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and Pentax have lots of lenses, and they're all rather easy to get if you live in the US.

[wheelhot]

Aaah, thanks for enlighten me :)

[Abstract]

Statues in a museum with any regularity is definitely a niche.

But taking photos of stationary objects indoors (in low-ish light) isn't, and I think that's what his/her point was.

[compuwar]

But taking photos of stationary objects indoors (in low-ish light) isn't, and I think that's what his/her point was.

Really? How many people do you know who regularly take pictures of stationary objects indoors in low ambient light? I've seen literally thousands of images from my friends' DSLRs, and I can think of one or two shots over a period of several years. I can't even remember the last time I had a subject that was an object indoors in low light- maybe a Christmas Tree HDR- certainly not something I'd shoot with regularity. Looking through the photo of the day threads, I similarly don't see a lot of that type of photography- most people shoot people and animals in low ambient light in my experience.

Plus, if you'd actually read the thread, you'd see the poster I was responding to is the one who originally brought it up as a niche need, so no, that's not what their point was (ref post #50 in this thread.) I was just going from they thought it was a niche need to I thought it was definitely a niche need.)

Your dissent to the contrary, I'm still convinced that it is indeed a niche need.