Photoclubalpha

This one has to be done, feel free to add any comments as to why or not etc.

Bottom line is owning nothing at all, what system maker offers you the best overall for your needs? Where would you put your cash today

Very thought provoking poll Barry. I thought long and hard, and I have chosen Sony over Nikon. I think the A350 at around £400 with a kit lens is a lot of camera for your 'buck' (for me anyway) and the Nikons I would want (D5000 / D90) are too much for me (£700?). Pentax and Oly also seem too expensive and I'm more confident in Sony long term than these two. Canon don't have anything that tickles the fancy until you get in to fantasy land 5d Mk IIs.

This is VERY difficult. I voted Sony, because I think the Alpha 900 would be my choice and I don't think my finances would run to a Nikon D3X. It depends entirely on how much money might be available, and on prior knowledge of the performance of the cameras. On paper, I would have voted Canon, because the 5D MkII ticks all the boxes - native file size larger than Alamy/Getty etc require for stock work, video capable, full frame, LV with magnified manual focus, compact body not huge lump, high-res rear screen, CF card storage, medium price.

But I have had the experience of testing Canon lenses and actually using Canon a lot over the last year (far more than ever before) and there is no way I'd ever buy into the system. The lenses are even more of a lottery than Sony for quality - the difference is that the Sony/Zeiss lenses seem to be either excellent, or faulty - the Canon lenses (even L glass) are just inconsistent so a lens may seem to be perfect but just lack proper sharpness (or whatever). And, even though the high ISO results can be better, I just don't like the 'look and feel' of the resulting pix as much as I like what the A900 produces.

I would not know this without having used the cameras, so my reply is not really valid - if I had no prior idea, I would assume Canon was equal to or better than Sony because the brand in more popular.

David

I say i'd probably have picked Sony. but thats because I used minolata the most. Canon I never liked Nikon I like but can;t get along with their interfaces. without minolta experience I'd have maybe went Pentax oe Oly .. but probably Pentax. I wouldn't buy a minolta camera for ass long as Konica was involved with them which is how I ended up with Sony digitals

I'd still want a FF with plenty of pixels. No way could I afford the Nikon D3x and Canon just don't appeal to me. So it would have to be a Sony a900

That's not fair. Either you have to allow 2-3 answers, or you should restrict to, let's say, only APS format.
I would opt for either Sony or Pentax in APS just for having in body stabilization (just an example).
Bottom line, you forced me to vote for Sony.

Hasselblad H3DII-50, unless I have to pay for it.

I picked up a Nikon F90x as a starter to having Nikon as a second string because of my frustration with the Minolta lens system and by the time the Dynax 7 came out I had in fact largely converted to Nikon. But as soon as I picked up the 7 I changed my mind !

Again I have had a look at a Nikon D700 (D3/D3x too large,too heavy,too expensive) and if the A900 did not exist then I could live with it. But to me it is the difference between love and convenience.

It's no secret that I'd rather have a D300 than the a700, but in a perfect word, I'd have got the D300 as a wedding present.

Well, having no AF film bodies, I went for Sony. I considered a Canon, but in-body stabilization means I don't have to pay for it with every lens. Pentax is hard to find in these parts, and Nikon has the same shortcomings as Canon. There's also the bang-for-the-buck argument. As with my old MD Minolta systems, where else can I buy so much for so little money.

Dusty

It is funny: my first camera was a Minolta SRT101, then i went for Nikon for a while, until it was time for digital: at that time the best I could afford was the Dimage 7Hi. When it was time for a dSRL I tried Nikon (thanks to rentals department) and I just didn't like it: the D70 wasn't a good for my taste (just didn't like those files, those colors...) And Minolta announced the 7D!

If I have to start from scratch today I'll probably go to Nikon, probably because today I can get video on the 90D. Color rendition and general quality are similar, with an edge for Nikon regarding noise control. But if tomorrow Sony bring an A700+ with video, I'll probably choose Sony.

One more thing, one thing I understood, and that's the way I recommend cameras to my friends) is that, for that budget, this (pt a brand/model here) is the best camera TODAY. Tomorrow, we'll see...

Regards

It is a tough call, but I still think I'd go for Sony. Their strengths work well with the kind of pictures I take. Their primary weakness, noise at higher ISOs, rarely affects me. Before I switched to digital, there was probably close a decade during which I never shot film faster than 100, and I still find that kind of speed range quite comfortable. I have used higher ISOs, but not enough for them to affect what I'd buy unless all other factors were almost perfectly tied.

Then again, there's also the lens situation: Sony's producing some truly superb lenses. If I was using a Canon or Nikon right now, I'd be wondering exactly when I was going to be able to get something like the 135/1.8 or the 70-400G. Sony has far fewer lenses than either Nikon or Canon, but still has more I can see switching brands to get to use.

I know who voted for Canon
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=32006737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Busted!

lol

I voted for Nikon overall I think the system is more appealing "overall" I would add, no interest at all in the entry models though. But with the last batch of new Sony's, I have no interest in them either, and I wouldn't have bought into A mount low down, or Nikon. However, it's a mixed thing..as I will stick with A mount for the time being at least.