Canon vs. Nikon vs. Pentax vs. Sony

[KerTggr]

OK, some of this thread got way too technical for me. But I'm learning and gave me something to Bing during lunch at work yesterday.

Personally, I went with Sony because of some of the features and how it felt in my hands (very much like others on this thread). I'm petite and the Nikon felt huge and cumbersome to me. At the time I was looking, Sony was the only one with a dedicated record movie button rather than just a setting. With lots of small kids in our family and g'rents living far away they really appreciate short movies. So it was nice to find one that in the middle of playing, if the kids did something cute, I could just point and start recording without having to change a bunch of settings. I really like the SLT aspect of the Sony as well, but am a big tech junky so that might just be me...

 

[nigelp]

Now this may only apply in a Disney environment...

But an advantage of the Pentax system is that they come in a range of colours.

My wife has a red Pentax K-x and when she takes pictures of characters in parades etc, they easily pick out her camera and interact with her so that she has got some great shots.

Also a a lot of CMs will comment on her camera as she walks by.

 

[disney_bob]

Most cameras at the same price levels have very similar quality and feature capability. Of course there will be a few differences.

People choose one over the other because of personal preference - not technical differences if most are being honest about it

 

[Patrick in Oregon]

I chose my Sony a57 based on dpreview.com. I compared all cameras within that class and Sony out-performed Nikon and Canon in most areas. Specifically I liked low-light performance, fast(est) continuous shooting, and live preview. I also got the kit for $450 before the a58 dropped.

I admit the live preview makes me feel like I'm cheating though :/

 

[mcraige]

I bought my Sony A65 because it was recommended by 2 different people in 2 different camera stores in 2 different cities/states. They said it has more features than the comparable Cannon and Nikon, and was quite a bit cheaper than the Nikon. I've been really pleased with it.

 

[ronfin]

For me it all has to do with glass. What do I mean? I started on a Canon years ago, and started buying quality glass for it. As I upgraded my body the glass was still superior, so I already had Canon glass and moving to a different body was easy. I have too much invested in lenses to leave Canon now. I do remember that the reason I chose the Canon over it's competitors had everything to do with how it felt, and not the differences in features at the time. That pretty much was how I got started shooting with Canon cameras.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Well I was going to explain why I went with an Olympus E510, part of the 4:3 family, when I was searching for my first dSLR around 2007, but in looking up what cameras were available then, I found this article which explained some of the exact reasons I had, and I'll add smaller size and excellent glass to that as well.

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-of-2007.html

I had concerns about carrying a lot of heavy gear around, and when I first saw and felt in my hands an Olympus E410, I could barely believe it was a dSLR, feeling more like my bridge camera. Subsequently I went with the 510, though, for the In Body Image Stabilization, which the 410 didn"t have. I have since moved up to an E30, and would love an E5 at some point, but basically I love how it feels intuitive to me and how I am able to capture the images I want with it.

Olympus has concentrated primarily on their micro 4:3 line over the past few years, and I've got one of those, too, as a nice complement to the rest of my gear, but I still really enjoy the feel of a dSLR, having learned to live with the size pretty well. There are plenty of us four thirds dSLR users still happily using our older bodies! (Lenses are forever.)