Come to think about it..I was supposed to be a Sony alpha user. Then 400D came along with about the same price point.. Most of my friends advised me against a Sony (mainly because its a new comer??).. so I ended up with a 400D. Dang, wish someone had told me how crappy Canon the kit lens is. Now i have to shell out more dough for a better lens. Heard the alpha kit lens kicks a$$.

canon's 350d(old model),400d(new model)
pentax k100d(new model)
sony alpha 100(new model)
nikon's d50(beginner) and d70s(slightly more advanced) but both are old models.
olympus E-500?(old model too)

dun influence TS la
should support he get alpha ma

since alpha SSS is built in the body and its already a 10mp

;p all lens are decent

still need further upgrade on body?

;p spend la on the carl zeis lens

...Keep in mind that the Alpha is Sony's FIRST SLR but Canon already made almost a dozen EOSs for themself. Experience, technology and R&D of SLR ... Canon is light years ahead of Sony!

Have to seriously correct you there ... Sony did not buy over KM, only their camera business. Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. ceased their camera business on March 31, 2006. As of April 1st, 2006, Sony Corporation took over customer service for Konica's, Minolta's and Konica Minolta's cameras and camera-related products.

In my own words, K shrink into M and KM shrink into Sony. Canon shrink into anyone? Nah, more like Sony might dump the camera business alongside everything else and concentrate on their home appliances and gaming products in the future if you ask me!

Know the truth.

upgrading the system in the later stage of life is another matter.
we are talking about now.

if sony is going to produce a better camera, i am sure canon and nikon will produce a better camera as well.

what i would like to see is sony to put in more effort into it. yeah, this is their first dslr and stuffs but come on, it's a joke. people are talking about good noise reduction at higher ISO rating... it's no longer high MP count war out there...

and for the metering... i am not so sure... there was a comparision of alpha and nikon d80 that i saw (i think it's lyn or dpreview) and yeah, sony's had a tendency of under exposing the images by one stop, if would to compare to nikon's.

the only reason i will go for the sony is because of their carl zeiss lenses... if not, i am sure my nikon's lenses are as good as if not better than minolta's.

sony sendiri target 10% of the dslr user out there buy their camera. i don't know where they are going to find this 10% from... probably from diehard fans.

for the same price, i would definately go for the canon (400D)... though i am not a canon's fan, except for their 5D...

That one has nothing to do with company takeover-lah brother ... it's employment already. If Canon/Sony pay me well and employ me of course I also cabut-lar!

no...
i am talking about starting new as what the tread starter mention. if he can't afford the carl zeiss lenses, what's the use of starting a sony's system? as i have mentioned it earlier.

carl zeiss' lenses had already surplus the canon's and nikon's in system like hasselblad and rollei but do you see me jumping ship to using hasselblad and phase one? no!

i am talking about practicality. sony will definately improve their system, no doubt about that. but if you are one of those entry level dslr user (you are of course if not you won't consider sony alpha in the first place) you do not see yourself investing RM 7000 for a 70-200 f2.8 lens.

in the future yes but how good is sony's compare to canon's and nikon's? same? marginally better that it's worthy for you to be a some forummers said 'white elephant'?

2 quiestion,
1. I realised that Canon 400D no spot metering? It it important? Coz Nikon & Sony and other all have...Pls give advise bro. Thanks
2. In the long run Canon cheaper in terms on lenses?

ermm... i am a nikon user from the moment i started learning photography professionally. 

i am not bias in any brands. i am just saying that sony's DSLR seems to be too noob for the time being. and if one would to get the sony DSLR, wait for their next camera...

things i would like to see...

1. noise reduction in higher ISO (piority)
2. more higher quality lenses (F2.8 lenses) (but not the carl zeiss range)
3. and faster focusing lenses
4. i am not sure about the layout of the buttons and functions of this alpha camera. true, it's basically whether one is use to it or not. i tried using my friend's canon 1d mkII and i was cursing like siao when i was using the camera. so can't comment.

well, if one like this camera for no obvious reason besides it's a sony (sings to the tune again) then by all means get it. if not, my advice, go for the canon 400d. nikon? abit expensive... unless you wanna wait for the rumoured D60 (christmas)

nothing is wrong with the alpha camera, i am sure about it. my only problem with this camera is the high noise... besides that, i am sure it's a good camera...

what so good about the in hardware DRO? reviews of it havent been impressed, and have mostly concluded that its simply better to do it in pp. we also have no idea of Sony's future plans, and whether they will offer a good upgrade path or just keep releasing budget model after budget model. then of course, there is the issue with lens prices which wipe out any cost advantage of the body if u wish to get more glass anyway. have u seen the price of the 70-200 2.8 SSM? its about USD 2.4k! The Nikon equivalent, is around USD 1.8k WITH VR at that. i'm not dissing Sony, and they may well get their act together in the future but I wouldnt want to investing in their system at the moment, unless i have cash to spare.

Good thing you said 'equally' suck and not 'worst than' the Alpha
Yes, to those Mat Sallehs and those well-built palms, the EOSs have been small ever since 350D