650d or 60d or sony a57 or sony a65 or nikon 3200 or pentax k30 :s

Associate
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
2,118
Location
west yorkshire.
im so confused but so pleased ive narrowed it down to just this amount of cameras!

been up endless nights youtubing, comparing, vs, ive held currently in my hands the 650d and the a57 i like the stark total recall feel of the a57 and all its autofocus level tracking on screen and its viewfinder, but ive heard the canons pee all over the sonys, yet i hear all photographers are using sonys, then theres the pentax which seems to offer great IQ, baah what could anyone recomend from the models ive listed, i want to shoot macro and wildlife and close up shots of things, ill be capturing textures but most of all its an unjustified expensive hobby :)
 
i can get the 650d through work for 500 quid, is it a good camera for if i was to advance with photography ? i dont like that its a consumer camera, i wanted to buy a prosumer camera and fill its shoes, only one that fits the bill and my budget is the 60d my budget is 550 max.
 
im actually leaning towards the sony a65, decent price to be had from digital rev and seems focussed onto the film side which is quite important for me
 
Why?

Op there is nothing wrong with any of the entry level cameras you are looking at. Just have a play with them all and pick the one which fits you the best.

Because down the line if the OP decides to go pro, if they are already invested in either of those brands it'll be better for them.

In several years I've been working with other pro's 98% have been using Nikon or Canon. Flashes, lenses, professional servicing etc.

Not to mention, as they are more popular there's a larger 2nd hand market :)

At least imo :)
 
Because down the line if the OP decides to go pro, if they are already invested in either of those brands it'll be better for them.

In several years I've been working with other pro's 98% have been using Nikon or Canon. Flashes, lenses, professional servicing etc.

Not to mention, as they are more popular there's a larger 2nd hand market :)

At least imo :)

Why not just advise him to get a D800 or 5DIII then, 'just in case'.

There is no issue at all with either the Sony or Pentax systems, anybody that looked beyond the end of their Canikon noses would know that already.

I've never once struggled for a lens that I wanted and don't know any Sony owners that have either. But then I'm no pro, I never will be a pro and never want to be a pro. However maybe I should have still bought a Canon or Nikon just in case....

For a new user or keen amateur the Sony's in particular offer some extremely useful features that neither of the big 2 offer. Things like in body IS, proper usable live view with vari-angle LCD, auto stitch panorama's and Auto HDR make for some quite useful and fun tools to use.

The EVF's on the A65 & A77 are brilliant as well and offer all sorts of flexible and handy options.
 
Why?

Op there is nothing wrong with any of the entry level cameras you are looking at. Just have a play with them all and pick the one which fits you the best.

Upgrade path.
More lenses and accessories.
Bigger secondhand market.

My brother in law had to same question a few years ago, I told him the same thing and he got a Sony, he is not a professional and never will be nor want to be, even though he gets good photos with what he got but guess what he wishes he'd bought instead now.

For example, Sony's new A99 body has 102 focus points. Amazing, but I guess you also know how many lenses that works to get that feature.

There is nothing wrong with keeping your options open, that is the point.
 
Last edited:
The other question is why not? What is limiting abpou t Canonas and Nikons, what do you gain form Sony or Pentax.


Basically there is absolutely no reason not go go for a Canon or Nikon and some important reasons not to go with Pentax or Sony. And that has nothing to do with the quality of the cameras or lenses.
There is also some inherent risk investing in a system from a company struggling to make their camera business profitable. Nikon is growing market share and has good profits considering economic climate. Sony and Pentax are loosing share and loosing money, Sony may persevere but they will always be behind and struggling compared to the Canon+Nikon duopoly. The same happened in the Film days and the market was ct down to only Canon and Nikon more or less, the same has now more or less happened to the digital world.
 
Why not just advise him to get a D800 or 5DIII then, 'just in case'.

There is no issue at all with either the Sony or Pentax systems, anybody that looked beyond the end of their Canikon noses would know that already.

I've never once struggled for a lens that I wanted and don't know any Sony owners that have either. But then I'm no pro, I never will be a pro and never want to be a pro. However maybe I should have still bought a Canon or Nikon just in case....

For a new user or keen amateur the Sony's in particular offer some extremely useful features that neither of the big 2 offer. Things like in body IS, proper usable live view with vari-angle LCD, auto stitch panorama's and Auto HDR make for some quite useful and fun tools to use.

The EVF's on the A65 & A77 are brilliant as well and offer all sorts of flexible and handy options.

I agree they are nice cameras, but as a professional my opinion is the same as Ray's just because we've both seen the people switching systems further down the line.

It pays to look down to what the future may hold, even if you don't agree. It's not just the equipment, but the things like menu's and options they have.

My best mate runs a Pentax system, he loves it, I've used it and it's a nice camera and provides good results, he uses lots of older lenses etc but that didn't stop him borrowing my D700 for a wedding. I'm pretty certain you can use older pentax lenses on Sony's can't you? great if you can, but it's finding decent quality ones.

Personally, of those extra's you've listed I can't say I would really use any of them. Lens IS is great, Live view I don't use and the rest can be done with software myself :) I can see them being great to some, but not my cup of tea :)
 
Last edited:
Upgrade path.
More lenses and accessories.
Bigger secondhand market.

There is nothing wrong with keeping your options open, that is the point.

The upgrade path on the Sony system is fine. Every single prime lens in the Nikon / Canon system has a Sony equivalent that is in some cases better.

You are right about keeping options open always a good thing.

The other question is why not? What is limiting abpou t Canonas and Nikons, what do you gain form Sony or Pentax.


Basically there is absolutely no reason not go go for a Canon or Nikon and some important reasons not to go with Pentax or Sony. And that has nothing to do with the quality of the cameras or lenses.
There is also some inherent risk investing in a system from a company struggling to make their camera business profitable

So rather than looking at the feature sets on offer, lets all just say get a Canikon because its not one of the others. In fact when I buy my next car I may just buy a Ford because its not Citroen.

Your 'inherent risks' simply dont exist in my mind DP. Sony are going nowhere and Pentax have been in the game a long time as well. I seem to remember you saying something similar a few years ago and guess what they are still here and still innovating.

I agree they are nice cameras, but as a professional my opinion is the same as Ray's just because we've both seen the people switching systems further down the line.

It pays to look down to what the future may hold, even if you don't agree. It's not just the equipment, but the things like menu's and options they have.

My best mate runs a Pentax system, he loves it, I've used it and it's a nice camera and provides good results, he uses lots of older lenses etc but that didn't stop him borrowing my D700 for a wedding. I'm pretty certain you can use older pentax lenses on Sony's can't you? great if you can, but it's finding decent quality ones.

Personally, of those extra's you've listed I can't say I would really use any of them. Lens IS is great, Live view I don't use and the rest can be done with software myself :) I can see them being great to some, but not my cup of tea :)

Which just shows that you picked the body for your needs, but that doesn't mean someone elses needs wont be better suited to a Panasonic / Olympus / Sony etc.

I guess all I'm trying to get across is that there are other companies in the photography business other than Canon and Nikon. However sometimes in this forum you wouldn't know it.
 
Minolta was in the game a long time too, so was Kodak, Fuji also made DSLR in one point and I think Sigma did too.

Canon and Nikon together holds 80%+ of the market, always has been.

It's the safer bet.

Stuff like built in IS, (never need it, never even had a IS lens), flip LCD (its not exclusive to Sony), auto stitching panorama (PS does it), HDR (so does Canon).

Now, what you really want is nice glass, lots of it.
 
Minolta was in the game a long time too, so was Kodak, Fuji also made DSLR in one point and I think Sigma did too.

Canon and Nikon together holds 80%+ of the market, always has been.

It's the safer bet.

Stuff like built in IS, (never need it, never even had a IS lens), flip LCD (its not exclusive to Sony), auto stitching panorama (PS does it), HDR (so does Canon).

Now, what you really want is nice glass, lots of it.

In body IS is bloody useful for noobs such as me, its gives me the option of using at least a stop lower ISO and works with every lens.

Flip LCD's aren't unique to Sony but full phase detect AF while using it is, you either like it or not. Personally I love it but I can understand that some tog's like to use the viewfinder exclusively and thats fine. But it very user friendly and extremely convenient.

Also if video is important not only do you get that stabilized, but you also get phase detect AF as well which again neither Canon or Nikon offer.

Yeah the others such as auto panorama's are nice to have but not really game changers, I just find them really useful.

Totally agree on the glass front, however you are at a different level of the market to me and I'm guessing the OP is too.
 
Totally agree on the glass front, however you are at a different level of the market to me and I'm guessing the OP is too.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Sony has a lower ceiling compare to Canon and Nikon.

There is a reason Sony put in more feature in their bodies, to entice people starting out, they read the spec list and get impressed and buy into it.

Then you are pretty much stuck and normally by the time you reached the point you want nice glass, you've invested too much to change.

I mean, tell me, how much is Sony's 35/1.4 ?
 
I mean, tell me, how much is Sony's 35/1.4 ?

About a grand. Does that not compare well to the Canon L?

edit: Actually on ******* the Sony is cheaper than the Canon both under £900 though.
Although as a rule the pro level does seem more expensive on the Sony system by a couple of hundred quid on each lens.

I wouldn't class that as being 'stuck' though would you? I'm never going to spend 1k on a lens and we are not talking about a pro here. The OP has asked about entry level bodies and for some reason here we are comparing L glass to Carl Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
Which just shows that you picked the body for your needs, but that doesn't mean someone elses needs wont be better suited to a Panasonic / Olympus / Sony etc.

I guess all I'm trying to get across is that there are other companies in the photography business other than Canon and Nikon. However sometimes in this forum you wouldn't know it.


Actually, my first camera was a Minolta film slr and several lenses. :)

It took a long time to decide on what camera to go for, and tbh, the entry level sony's etc probably offer more then the entry level Nikons did, my D60 was very basic.

However, down the line it paid off for me :) those of us that recommend Nikons or Canons aren't all fan boy's, we're just speaking from personal experience :)

Also, I would buy a ford over a citroen ;) :p lol
 
If we are going to use a car analogy then you got to buy 1 brand, forever.

What will you buy? A Citreon or Audi?

You want to drive a C5 or do you want to drive a R8?

It's all about upgrade path.
 
But an R8 is a millionaires car which I never want to or ever will own so I dont even look at that end of the market.

I'll take the C5 please. :p.

PS: For the record I drive a Mondeo. :D
 
Yeh I'm not a fan of Sony DSLR's, just can't get past the ugliness (yes I'm shallow).

This is an interesting camera though.
If that camera turns out to be a proof of concept like the X100 was for Fuji, then I could very well be tempted to switch camps. Would love something like this with mirrorless technology and EVF and the usual Sony in body stabilisation.
 
Back
Top Bottom