Canon EOS 400D vs. Sony A100

[Gordon Howard]

I'm a serious amateur that shoots mostly landscapes and naturally lite portraits. On occasions, I like to use spot metering, which the Canon EOS 400D does not have. My other choice is the Sony A100. What are your opinions on the image quality and camera in general for these two cameras? Also, what is your opinion of Canon's Image Stablization in the lens verses Sony's Image Stabilization in the body and how it effects picture quality? I would be purchasing the Canon W 17-85 IS USM lens or the Sony Carl Zeiss SAL 16-80 Z lens instead of the kit lens.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I don't own the 400D but I have A100 and also a SAL 16-80Z.

Here is what I can say:

Image stabilization works OK. I cannot compare with Canon. I have lenses from 11 to 800 mm (400+2x extender) and I feel that image stabilizer works with all lenses.

The SAL 16-80Z is very sharp over most of it's range. Corner sharpness is less then perfect at the widest setting, but quite OK. There is some lateral chromatic aberration at wide angle, but that is easily corrected in Lightroom. My first impression was that it was supersharp, the lasting impression is that it is pretty good.

Check here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ze..._3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/sony...index_sony.html
http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1087355A


Best regards

Erik

I'm a serious amateur that shoots mostly landscapes and naturally lite portraits. On occasions, I like to use spot metering, which the Canon EOS 400D does not have. My other choice is the Sony A100. What are your opinions on the image quality and camera in general for these two cameras? Also, what is your opinion of Canon's Image Stablization in the lens verses Sony's Image Stabilization in the body and how it effects picture quality? I would be purchasing the Canon W 17-85 IS USM lens or the Sony Carl Zeiss SAL 16-80 Z lens instead of the kit lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]