sold, thanks!

This post has been edited by eviz: Jun 30 2012, 01:32 PM

30d user here. actually u cant compare alpha a100 with eos30d side by side. 1st of all, in terms of pixel number, sony alpha is 10mp while 30d is 8.2mp. they are using different technology for the sensor, canon uses CMOS while sony uses CCD. u can always google for the comparison of CMOS and CCD. continuous drive in 30d is much better than in a100 (30d 5fps up to 30 jpeg, a100 3fps only), for professionals or semi-pro, this feature is a good combo when purchasing a DSLR.

but the a100 is definitely better than 400d for some reasons.
u can read it here. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=19761494

if you want to compare something with EOS 30D, then you might wanna try A700

This post has been edited by soulfly: Sep 29 2007, 12:47 PM

i don't think it's an appropriate comparison.

like what soulfly said - EOS 30D vs A700

for A100, compare it with a EOS 400D.

Thanks for everyone's reply.

Ah, I see.

This is because I can get a cheaper price on 30D.

Should I get the 30D?

Can I have some comparisons on a700 and 30d please?

Much thanks.

Why not go to the shop and try both of those out?

I would highly suggest you stick to Canon EOS 30D. It's far reliable, and there is a huge amount of lenses compatible. However, the a100 isn't user friendly, and Sony lenses are very expensive and not worthy. It's all about variety, and history of course. It is upsets me that Sony bought over Konica-Minolta, because thier cameras are way superb.

So the verdict is, i'd rather purchase a used K-M 7D then the new Alpha. Or stick to a 30D instead

If you do get a Sony Alpha, you can actually join the Sony Alpha club which organizes quite a lot of activities for their members such as free workshops and competition. These are one of the many other benefits you get if you do purchase a Sony Alpha.

man u are so wrong. no wonder there's a lot of ppl don't favour sony alpha because they get the wrong perception.

sony lens are expensive, so what? just get tamron or sigma. or the older minolta lenses.
who says a100 is not user friendly? i have tested 350d, 400d, 50d, and compare to a100, there's no difference.

i'm not trying to be a fanboy or anything, i just don't like it when ppl don't really know what they're saying

a100 = KM 5D

This post has been edited by soulfly: Oct 1 2007, 06:15 PM

user-friendly issue is subjective, it's totally preferential. i didn't like EOS 400D's interface.

edited : personally i think any camera is fine, get an Sony, Pentax, Olympus - sure can get lens, it's not like you're buying lens every day. I decided to go either Nikon / Canon path simply because in Malaysia there's many N / C users thus easier to come by used lens that I like.

that's about it. If you're not thinking of upgrade / buying / changing lens used lenses often, then heck any camera would be fine. That's why I even considered the Alpha (twin lens package + trade-in camera offer that time was tempting!) and the Pentax K100D.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Oct 1 2007, 09:35 PM

If there isn't a difference, then 3 series would be the same as a C class.

I know what I am saying and I personally own a Canon 5D. Have you ever even compare the image quality between a Sony Alpha + Tamron or whatever third party lenses versus Canon 400D, 30D + Canon performance lenses? For what I think, your answer is no.

If you have $1500, spend $1000 on the lens and $500 on the body. It's all about quality glass, not mega pixels. By far, I do not seen any performance Sony, Tamron Sigma, or whatever third parties lenses that could compare with Canon L series.

Buying a DSLR is always a long term investment, if it's a short one, then go for Nikon. Thier camera bodies are better starting from D80.

I'm just trying to let this guy know that its better to stick to the right choice rather then being upset buying a whole different set. Prevention is better then cure. Btw? How can you even try to compare a Sony A100 vs. a Canon 30D. Obviously the 30D is better, so much better.

Of course EOS 30D!!! More lens choices, excellent body built and most importantly their service center can fix cameras!!!

i'm just complaining on how ppl always get the wrong perception about sony dslr

but i do agree 30D should be a better performer than a100

it's like semi-pro dslr vs amateur dslr... definitely not a fair comparison right?

especially about the availability of lens.

Wah 1st camera 30d, next camera 1d liao

This question is a no brainer, 30D hands down...A100 is not even close.

For your information. The a100 isn't an amateur dslr, it's more to an entry level. Yes, it isn't, but even if you try comparing a a700 versus a 40D, i'd rather stick to 40D. Not because i'm using Canon, it's just the experience, reviews and feedbacks. I have a friend who regretted so badly buying the a100, he sold it off the full set for rm1,800 which includes both typical lenses and a cool charger dock. The original accessories are much more expensive and unworthy. Well, you might suggest third parties as usual, but I do believe that K-M or Sony lens line up are always better after R&D. If their lenses are worst, then... I have nothing to say.

as far as i know, in this context, entry level = amateur

me thinks that way too.

best thing is GO TO THE SHOP, TEST OUT THE CAMERA PHYSICALLY, see which one you like, like their size, weight, price, user friendness and etc...

no point having one which is "GOOD" but not nice to hold, not user friendly menu and beyond your budget.

Also you need to know what u want (really need so high end ) ? If looking for entry level there is alot of choice...

30D = Amateur/Semi-pro; a700 = Amateur; a100 = Entry Level/Enthusiast

For what i think