Canon vs. Nikon vs. Pentax vs. Sony

[SkaGoat]

Why do people choose Pentax & Sony over the bigger dSLR makers Canon & Nikon?

 

[Animagic!]

Warning: This is all just my two cents. It isn't anything technical, just my personal opinion.

I was recently faced with this issue when I decided to purchase my first DSLR. After looking around at what value different make and model cameras offered me I settled upon (the very unpopular and somewhat hated) Sony a58. It is a new camera, released only a couple months ago, but it has received a cold reception. A lot of photographers bash on it.

And I love it to death. I do not regret buying the a58 in the least.

Canon and Nikon are the two obvious choices. And like Chevrolet vs Ford, Coke vs Pepsi, etc. there will ALWAYS be people who feel like their camera (or car or soda) is the ONLY camera worth buying. The Canon vs Nikon debate can get pretty heated and nasty, like Apple fans arguing with Android fans over cell phones. For the most part, Pentax and Sony users don't make a large enough majority to be heard over the Canon and Nikon users.

Nikon makes excellent cameras. Canon makes excellent cameras. They both have tons of lenses to chose from. You can't go wrong with either brand.

However, when it comes right down to it I think it is all about what you are the most comfortable with and what "feels" right when you handle the camera. That's why I chose a Sony. I know Sonys. I'm familiar with them. I like their layout and I feel comfortable with them. There wasn't any dramatic learning curve, complicated menus, or new terminology to worry about. Sony is my comfort zone. To me it was a no brainer.

I'm a "fast and dirty" photographer, meaning I shoot on the run with minimal set up or time to take a shot. I like freezing a moment and moving on to the next one. So for me a fast camera was a must. Sony's SLT technology is fast, theoretically faster than a mirror, so that was a definite plus. The camera I chose, the Sony a58, has a good value for the money. 20mp sensor, fast SLT tech, decent high ISO noise, etc. etc... It's a simple entry level camera that's inexpensive; however, the most important factor of all is that it works for ME. I'm sure others would hate my camera, but it's perfect for me.

And that's why I chose a Sony over a Pentax, Canon, or Nikon.

 

[havoc315]

I started shooting Sony because I shot Minolta in the old days, and my lenses are compatible.

All four brands can give you indistinguishable images, but Sony dSLTs do have some strengths over the rivals. Sony abandoned the traditional dSLR. The last couple years, they sell dSLTs.
So some strengths of Sony and dSLTs :
-Sony and Pentax use in body image stabilization, as opposed to lens based. That means you can buy an affordable 20 year old lens, and it gets the benefits of stabilization. When shooting with prime lenses, they get the benefit of stabilization. So I can shoot with my nifty fifty at a slower shutter speed than my Canon and Nikon friends.
-dslt live view -- Sony has the most functional live view of any dSLR. Seamlessly switch between viewfinder and live view, keeping full phase detection auto focus.
-EVF-- some people love it, some hate it. But certainly makes it much easier to get a proper exposure.
-burst shooting --My Sony a55 shoots 10 frames per second. Most of the rivals only shoot around 5 fps.
- features I like on my a55-- articulated LCD, panorama, in camera HDR.

Of course, the brand also has cons. But those are the strengths as I see them.

 

[traylorc]

Sometimes your choice of camera bodies comes down to items such as 1) What camera feels good in my hands 2) Which camera has a menu that seems more intuitive 3) What camera has the features I consider most important.

I shoot Nikon because I picked up a D90 and I liked the way it felt in my hands. I was able to maneuver through the menu system instinctively. I could have easily went with Canon...but I just like the Nikon better. I don't get caught up in the fan boy showdown discussions. I just know what works for me, and I respect other people's decision to shoot with whatever makes them happy.

 

[hakepb]

I'm sure an actual Pentax user will chime in, too. In general the main strengths of Pentax DSLr's are:
In body stabilization (nice with a large choice of legacy glass)
Weather sealing (may only be in mid-range models?). Canon and Nikon only put that level of weather sealing on their most expensive pro models.
Pentaprism viewfinder, much brighter than the cheaper pentamirror viewfinders on most DSLr's.

 

[zackiedawg]

As others mentioned, sometimes it doesn't come down to any consideration of brand, but of feel, features, price, and whether it will meet all your needs. If it ends up being a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax doesn't much matter in the end, as long as it does what you need it to do, and makes you happy.

For me, I chose the camera I did because of features, above all...at the time there was nothing made by Nikon or Canon that had the features I liked and wanted, and actually to this day there still isn't...and while the model I've had these past 2 years isn't made anymore, it still remains unique in its feature set and sadly for me any replacement by any brand today will have to involve compromising on some of those features as they aren't available anymore by any manufacturer...part of the reason I still shoot with this particular DSLR.

I'd buy another brand in a heartbeat, with no hesitation, if it offered the same or better features, fit my hand well, had the lenses I needed, and the price was right. I've never been one to buy on a brand name, and definitely not one to buy the 'top' brand of anything (I admit I actually have a near-pathological dislike of anything which is the top-selling brand in any category, as I've always liked being different than the horde and if the horde likes something that much, I tend to look another direction - probably why I've never owned a Toyota, Timex, Apple, etc...once it becomes the best seller or the must have, I don't want it anymore).

 

[SkaGoat]

As others mentioned, sometimes it doesn't come down to any consideration of brand, but of feel, features, price, and whether it will meet all your needs. If it ends up being a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax doesn't much matter in the end, as long as it does what you need it to do, and makes you happy.

For me, I chose the camera I did because of features, above all...at the time there was nothing made by Nikon or Canon that had the features I liked and wanted, and actually to this day there still isn't...and while the model I've had these past 2 years isn't made anymore, it still remains unique in its feature set and sadly for me any replacement by any brand today will have to involve compromising on some of those features as they aren't available anymore by any manufacturer...part of the reason I still shoot with this particular DSLR.

I'd buy another brand in a heartbeat, with no hesitation, if it offered the same or better features, fit my hand well, had the lenses I needed, and the price was right. I've never been one to buy on a brand name, and definitely not one to buy the 'top' brand of anything (I admit I actually have a near-pathological dislike of anything which is the top-selling brand in any category, as I've always liked being different than the horde and if the horde likes something that much, I tend to look another direction - probably why I've never owned a Toyota, Timex, Apple, etc...once it becomes the best seller or the must have, I don't want it anymore).

What are those features that are unique? I'm between cameras right now, will probably end up with a Canon T5i (i have a couple EF lenses), but I don't want to overlook anything while I have the chance.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I have to go back over thirty years because when it came time to move to digital, I had several lenses that I wanted to continue to use. At the time that I transitioned, the Pentax K10D was very highly regarded APSC camera. So basically my decision was made a long time ago when I purchased my Pentax Lx film camera. I could have sucked it up and changed, however I have continued with Pentax because, as others have stated, it just fit me, both ergonomically and menu-wise. All camera systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Pentax' strong points are their bodies and backwards compatible lens line. The bodies are compact, rugged and all except the newly introduced entry level K500 are WR. For now they have remained with the APSC and Medium formats. The two weaknesses of the system (IMHO) are there is no FF line and few fast sports lenses at affordable prices. However, there are options. I use a lot of Sigma lenses because Pentax didn't offer exactly what I was looking for and Sigma did. When I started with Sigma lenses they were not all that well received. Over the last couple of years their stock has risen and now they are producing lens that are getting good reviews with options that no other manufacturer offers. I still like Pentax and we will have to see how the brand will continue under the leadership of Ricoh, which purchased the brand about 1 1/2 years ago.

 

[havoc315]

What are those features that are unique? I'm between cameras right now, will probably end up with a Canon T5i (i have a couple EF lenses), but I don't want to overlook anything while I have the chance.

As has been mentioned, some of the major "unique features" are:
Pentax -- Even in mid-level models, you get weather proofing and bright pentaprism viewfinder. Along with Sony, it has IBIS (in-body stabilization), opening up tons of legacy glass.

Sony -- IBIS, superior live view, EVF. For the A55/57/65/77 -- Great burst rate shooting (for odd reasons, this was downgraded significantly in the A58). Nice articulated LCD in the A55/57/65/67 (again, downgraded in the A58 -- For anyone looking at Sony, my recommendation is to skip the A58, and find the A57 on clearance, or get the A65/77 which can be found at good pricing).

The Canon T5i is now about the same price as the Sony A77 (which is an older model, but top of the line):
Comparing the 2 --
Advantages of the Canon T5i -- Brand recognition, touch screen, and OVF (not everyone likes EVF)

Advantages of the Sony A77-- IBIS, high resolution, higher rated image quality (though not necessarily noticeable to the casual viewer), weather sealed, much faster burst rate (12 vs 5), more focus points (19 vs 9), higher ISO range (16000 vs 12800), GPS, EVF, larger viewfinder, and professional features such as micro-adjusting focus.

Shared features: Both have excellent video and allow phase detection in video (though only with special lenses on the Canon. On Sony, all lenses but only with open aperture). Sony has an excellent panorama feature, not sure about the Canon. They both have in-camera HDR.

 

[zackiedawg]

What are those features that are unique? I'm between cameras right now, will probably end up with a Canon T5i (i have a couple EF lenses), but I don't want to overlook anything while I have the chance.

Though my particular model is no longer in production (Sony stopped making DSLRs, and currently only makes SLT versions), a lot of the unique features on my DSLR are currently on the SLT models...the one thing that makes me currently still prefer my DSLR model is that is has all those SLT features, but also still has an optical viewfinder, which I prefer.

The Sony A580 DSLR has in-body stabilization, tilting LCD, full phase-detect AF in live view with full exposure simulation, as well as main sensor live view mode (dual live view modes), so that it can shoot in live view mode exactly as fast as in optical finder mode, it has the multi-frame stacking modes built in (MFNR, HHT, AMB all can fire 6 frames and stack them in-camera for noise reduction and detail rebuilding at very high ISO levels), as well as HDR mode (stacks 3 frames in camera with an EV range up to 6EV for a single HDR output), sweep panorama (only DSLR to ever have that feature, normally reserved for mirrorless and P&S, and quite effective), a full infolithium battery meter (gives an actual percentage of charge remaining and very accurate down to the last %) and huge battery life (CIPA-rated at over 1,000 frames, but capable of an easy 4,000 shots on a charge when out shooting heavy), huge buffer (it can handle 7fps for 30+ JPGs without slowing, or 20-24 RAW at 5fps), dual memory card slots (I like being able to load two cards) and an optical viewfinder.

Other cameras have a few of those features, and Sony's SLT models have all those features, but not with an optical viewfinder. And the big thing for me was ergonomics - it's not a small or light camera, but not a tank either - it's got a very big, deep finger grip which I can wrap my fingers around for one-handed transport even with big lenses - I can't get comfortable with DSLRs that have shallow or thin grips like entry Canons and some Pentax models. I shoot with a few heavy, long lenses, so I need that beefy grip for better support.

I also have a mirrorless camera as a backup/2nd body, and it is much smaller and lighter - which I like when I want to lighten the load - but i couldn't replace my DSLR with a mirrorless yet because they don't have the huge buffers, massive battery life, ergonomics with big lenses, or optical finders. I went with a different brand than Nikon or Canon in mirrorless too, mostly because I find those two brands are actually the least competitive in the mirrorless marketplace with their offerings - I find Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji to all make much better devices for my needs and wants.

 

[wiigirl]

Sometimes your choice of camera bodies comes down to items such as 1) What camera feels good in my hands 2) Which camera has a menu that seems more intuitive 3) What camera has the features I consider most important.

I shoot Nikon because I picked up a D90 and I liked the way it felt in my hands. I was able to maneuver through the menu system instinctively. I could have easily went with Canon...but I just like the Nikon better. I don't get caught up in the fan boy showdown discussions. I just know what works for me, and I respect other people's decision to shoot with whatever makes them happy.

 

[photo_chick]

The in body stabilization had me looking at Sony and Pentax for a while even though I was firmly entrenched in Canon gear. Canon's in the lens IS makes me a little nauseous sometimes, if I use it for long periods of time. The in the body IS isn't supposed to do that. So while I didn't jump ship and go to another brand I could very easily see someone else choosing one of those brands for that reason.

 

[havoc315]

The in body stabilization had me looking at Sony and Pentax for a while even though I was firmly entrenched in Canon gear. Canon's in the lens IS makes me a little nauseous sometimes, if I use it for long periods of time. The in the body IS isn't supposed to do that. So while I didn't jump ship and go to another brand I could very easily see someone else choosing one of those brands for that reason.

Though there are some differences of opinion, the consensus is that the lens based system provides more stabilization. With Sony giving you 1-2 stops.., but a good Canon lens giving 2-3 stops or more.
But having it in the body is a quieter system, less "wobbly", and makes for lighter lenses. And to me, the real big advantage of having it in the system -- stabilizing older lenses, stabilizing primes. Using a 1.8 prime lens WITH image stabilization gives a real low light advantage.

Supposedly, Sony is adopting Olympus's 5-axis IBIS, which may be superior to the current 2-axis IBIS that Sony is using.

Of course, when talking about these differences between the brands -- All 4 major brands make fantastic dSLR (or dSLR-like) cameras, that can produce comparable results.

Sony is rumored to be abandoning their current dSLTs in favor of an entirely mirrorless "dSLR-like" system. I'm looking at it with mixed curiosity and dread. If it doesn't provide true dSLR-equivalent phase detection focus, and if it isn't backwards compatible with old old glass.... I may need to consider changing systems in a few years. But I have too much invested in glass to make that decision lightly.

That's the thing -- Unlike other technology -- You can have a Sony TV set, but Samsung blu-ray player, etc...
Once you start truly investing in a system, it becomes very difficult to change systems.

 

[SkaGoat]

Sony is rumored to be abandoning their current dSLTs in favor of an entirely mirrorless "dSLR-like" system. I'm looking at it with mixed curiosity and dread. If it doesn't provide true dSLR-equivalent phase detection focus, and if it isn't backwards compatible with old old glass.... I may need to consider changing systems in a few years. But I have too much invested in glass to make that decision lightly.

That's the thing -- Unlike other technology -- You can have a Sony TV set, but Samsung blu-ray player, etc...
Once you start truly investing in a system, it becomes very difficult to change systems.

Canon has a hybrid AF system on their newest camera's. They have on sensor phase detection, it's only a matter of time until that shows up on mirrorless setups.

 

[zackiedawg]

Canon has a hybrid AF system on their newest camera's. They have on sensor phase detection, it's only a matter of time until that shows up on mirrorless setups.

It's already there, actually. Nikon's Series 1 was the first mirrorless to do PDAF on sensor, and last year Sony added it on their NEX series starting with the NEX6 and 5R. It's likely going to expand too, once they get all the bugs out - it's still not quite up to DSLR specs yet, as it fails in low light and has to resort back to CDAF on all of those cameras, and in some cases it still can't track quite as well, but likely lots of R&D money will be working on it.

 

[havoc315]

Canon has a hybrid AF system on their newest camera's. They have on sensor phase detection, it's only a matter of time until that shows up on mirrorless setups.

As Zackie said, it already exists on the Nikon 1. Works well in good light, but struggles in low light. Early reviews of the Canon suggests about the same -- does well in good light.
Lets see if the next Sony dSLR can really complete the evolution.

 

[SkaGoat]

As Zackie said, it already exists on the Nikon 1. Works well in good light, but struggles in low light. Early reviews of the Canon suggests about the same -- does well in good light.
Lets see if the next Sony dSLR can really complete the evolution.

Canon may have already made it better on the 70D, it's not out yet, but the previews available online say it's the best hybrid AF system yet, it works across 80% of the frame vertically and horizontally, in light as low as 0 EV and at an aperture as low as f11.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It's already there, actually. Nikon's Series 1 was the first mirrorless to do PDAF on sensor, and last year Sony added it on their NEX series starting with the NEX6 and 5R. It's likely going to expand too, once they get all the bugs out - it's still not quite up to DSLR specs yet, as it fails in low light and has to resort back to CDAF on all of those cameras, and in some cases it still can't track quite as well, but likely lots of R&D money will be working on it.

The Sony a99 has a dual autofocus system that is using phase detection I believe.

 

[hakepb]

The Sony a99 has a dual autofocus system that is using phase detection I believe.

I believe the dual AF sensors are in addition to the FF 24mp sensor. All 3 are continually fed due to the translucent mirror:

From a B&H article:
"Furthermore, the light being diverted to the AF sensors is now split between two separate AF sensors in order to utilize distinct focusing styles simultaneously, for precise focusing and subject tracking. Both of these AF sensors utilize a phase-detection method for determining focus, but are geared differently to suit the two converse applications of standard AF modes. One sensor features 19 focus points and 11 cross-type points, for more critical focusing and greater depth perception. The other, a 102-point focal plane phase detection AF system, gathers wider coverage of the entire scene. When combined, these two sensors offer precision and wide coverage for a faster and more in-tune method of achieving sharp focus regardless of the subject matter."

 

[havoc315]

I believe the dual AF sensors are in addition to the FF 24mp sensor. All 3 are continually fed due to the translucent mirror:

From a B&H article:
"Furthermore, the light being diverted to the AF sensors is now split between two separate AF sensors in order to utilize distinct focusing styles simultaneously, for precise focusing and subject tracking. Both of these AF sensors utilize a phase-detection method for determining focus, but are geared differently to suit the two converse applications of standard AF modes. One sensor features 19 focus points and 11 cross-type points, for more critical focusing and greater depth perception. The other, a 102-point focal plane phase detection AF system, gathers wider coverage of the entire scene. When combined, these two sensors offer precision and wide coverage for a faster and more in-tune method of achieving sharp focus regardless of the subject matter."

Correct, the sensor based system is meant to assist with tracking, and it only works with certain lenses.

That's my concern about future Sony mirrorless dslrs -- whether the lenses will work with my Minolta (50mm macro, beercan, 35-105, 135 prime) and Tamron (70-300, 10-24) glass.