Gizmodo
This month, four eagerly awaited cameras all hit the market with a big ole thud: Canon's EOS Digital Rebel XSi, Sony's Alpha a350, Nikon's D60 and Olympus' E-420. They are not all evenly matched on paper, as you will see, and they certainly vary in price. But what's different about them, really? They are all aimed at people who wake up one morning and realize their point-and-shoot's pics are pretty crappy, people who don't consider themselves photographers but wouldn't mind spending a little money (under $1,000) to put those high-school photography lessons to practice with a decent body-and-lens kit. I decided to fiddle around with the four hottest new entry-level DSLRs and see what I could see.
The Weigh In As you can see, there's a wide range. I'm not saying weight is everything, but being the heaviest (by a lot) doesn't help the Sony.
On Paper Before we get into each camera's capabilities, have a look at their specs. Cameras are arranged in order of price, from cheap to pricey. You can see how it's easy to fall in love with the lower-priced models. But in action, you statt to realize why the pricing is so slanted.
1600 ISO and Auto White Balance In these shots, you can judge two things. First, some cameras have noisier high-ISO results than others (cough*Olympus*cough), and second, that auto white balance isn't the easiest thing to master. (I'm talking about you, Nikon.) Fortunately, two cameras do both reasonably well:
Action Shots in "P" Automatic Mode Some of you have beef with me complaining that some DSLRs have lousy automatic settings, but the truth is, great DSLRs do damn well on auto, so it's a way to separate the good from the bad. Here you can see from a quick session with all four cameras that getting a clean shot of a moving cat in low light isn't always possible:
Note the Nikon's shot: The cat is squinting because of the auto-focus lamp that goes on before the shot—generally annoying when trying to capture kids and pets in their natural states.
Full Manual Shooting
Here's what happens when I try to take the same or similar shots with the different cameras, using more or less the same manual settings. (The above shot was from the Sony Alpha a350.)
Daffodils: Low f-stop, medium shutter speed, handheld Dawn: Medium f-stop, fast shutter speed, handheld Creek: High f-stop, slow shutter speed, tripod
THE END RESULT
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi - First Place
What I Liked It's an all around decent camera, much lighter in weight than the Sony but with most of the same performance. The cheap starter lens, which you may scoff at, gives it an added weight bonus, making it lighter than all but the Olympus.
What I Didn't Like Live View is limited, or you might even say crippled. You can't preview autofocus—I'm not even sure the autofocus works very well in this mode. In the manual, Canon concedes that this is really for still life shooting and other limited applications. Also, for being $150 to $170 more than the Nikon, it's more or less the same class of camera, especially for manual shooting.
Sony Alpha a350 - Second Place
What I Liked All around intuitive camera with impressive automatic modes, a Live View that can demonstrate a lot, and solid control for people who know more. It's got the teaching ability of the Olympus with the picture reliability of the Canon. Although the a350 with 14-megapixel sensor is not as good a buy as the Canon at the same price, I think the nearly identical $700 a300 kit might be the best value of all right now.
What I Didn't Like The thing is giant, especially with the 16-80mm lens I tested. (The a300 is the same size and weight, by the way.) In Live View, I noticed from time to time that white balance on preview was different than what came out in the shot, which was annoying. The worst attribute, though, is the exceptional processing delay after you take each shot.
Nikon D60 - Third Place
What I Liked There's a keep-it-simple design here that works: not many hidden frills, but many nice clear options. I think for the money, this is the best idea for knowledgable, confident shooters, though it's not the best bet for beginners. I like one rare random perk in particular, the stop-motion video maker.
What I Didn't Like Simple means no frills like Live View previewing that the other models have. Though it's very handy when done right, like on the Olympus, it can also be done badly. Judging from Canon's execution, I can see why Nikon didn't bother. I have two particular pet peeves with the Nikon: Low-light autofocus triggers a very bright AF lamp, which makes pets and children go all squinty, and the auto white balance makes things too yellow indoors, and can't be overridden when in automatic modes.
Olympus E-420 - Fourth Place
What I Liked Besides the remarkably low price, I think this camera has the capacity to teach you a lot about manual settings because of the Live View. Like the Sony, this shows you the effects of your WB, exposure, f-stop and shutter settings in a live preview as you make them. Oly has this down, and was the one that started it all.
What I Didn't Like The lightweight camera is missing a lot of strong tech: the ISO 1600 is noisy, autofocus doesn't respond nearly quick enough, and shooting in automatic modes turns up blurry and unfortunate shots.
There you have it, folks. I've tried to include enough of my methodology to let you judge this stuff for yourselves. Surely there's a lot to talk about, including the obligatory "body vs. glass" debate. I agree that lenses make a difference, but with new DSLR advancements, the bodies are starting to have a greater impact on how well people take pictures. You may know it all, but any one of these cameras can help the ignorant noob more than anything that came before. OK, that's my take... you have the floor.
Update: Check out our DSLR Battlemodo follow-up, which answers some of the questions raised in the comments below.
Comments
I don't see how weight is such a stumbling block here. If your taking the dSLR plunge you wont be overly concerned with pocketability.
Also its a little unfair to test the sony with a top of the line carl ziess lens and compare that to the cannon kit lens. (also a weight factor)
Too bad the Pentax K200D didn't make it into the mix.
For what it's worth, I think the Sony's sample shots were the most consistently good.
I'm a huge Canon fan, but I really don't like the XSi's switch to SD unlike every other Canon dSLR which uses CF.
The XSI is just better. I shoot mostly with Canon and don't mind the switch to SD. The memory is so cheap it's nothing to switch.
Mmmm...weight: not good criteria from someone who "wakes up"' realizing their point-and-shoot is not up to snuff. I would think image quality would be first ("professional" looking results), and that would go to the best sensor and glass combination.
Which would be Canon. But not because of the weight.
great, thanks
personally I would defer to dpreview.com for any definitive word on what's what.
Not that you guys don't do a good job :)
but their tests are a bit more... scientific.
@med: They are just taking their sweet time doing it.
Wow, im in the market for a DSLR in this exact class. This is a good overview of the cameras.
I really like the features of the A300, but im really worried about getting lenses for it (which, from Sony, are hard to find good deals, unlike Nikon and Canon).
How did you like the VR on the Nikon vs. the built in SteadyShot on the Sony?
The live view on the Sony has a dedicated second sensor, whereas Canon's uses the standard "flip the mirror" out of the way trick, so it actually can't autofocus without bringing the mirror back down. Slower, but it is more accurate.
You are all just a bunch of Apple fanboys!
canon doesn't have a camera in the same 'class' as the D60, really. the D80 is the competitor for that 'class' of camera, and comes in under 900 for the body+kits lens. canon has their G series of cameras as the 'next step up' from point and shoots.
not a big fan of this comparo, pretty worthless if you guys don't include much info on the lens availabilities, color accuracy, chromatic aberrations, etc.
@diabolusunknown:
Sony is (imo) the best for budget lenses because they are fully compatable with the entire line of minolta AF lenses which can be had dirt cheap on ebay.
I personally have the A700 and have 1 sony zoom and 3 minolta lenses.
the sony zoom was 500 (before a $300 discount), the 3 minoltas were 250 and they're better/more useful than the sony.
@med: Agreed on dpreview.com, I like their reviews. I also liked that Wilson presented us with a nice layman-friendly type of article--fairly ambitious for Gizmodo and quite welcome. Thanks, Wilson!
There is another site I really like for camera news and reviews:
[www.dcviews.com]
What's nice about dcviews is that they gather info from dozens of photo review sites and present the highlights through a single portal; as such it's often my first stop for camera info.
The switch to SD is great if you are really objective about it. fast SD cards are a lot less expensive than fast CF cards. My laptop has an SD slot, but no CF slot. I don't like carrying around a card reader and transferring directly from the camera is way too slow. In addition, the expense of repairing a bent pin in the CF slot is no small matter in terms of price of turnaround time. I welcome the change and I look forward to Pro models such as the 5D making the switch one day.
Simply put... 'Live View' is a selling point designed by the camera company's marketing team. If you are using a DSLR camera, then you are beyond using a live view for taking pictures.
@chiablo: I agree 100 percent. I thought it was a joke the first time I heard about it. Although, it may prove useful occasionally. I just don't see where yet.
@chiablo:
There's a bit more to it than that. These cameras are designed to be easy transitions from the P&S's, this is why they feel it necessary to replicate the lcd "VF". When you pull into the semi-pro models LV does have a few niche uses like getting pixel perfect focus on macro shots and judging WB.
@matt buchanan:
The whole point of sony's new LV is to avoid the mirror flip so the camera still uses the standard AF engine. There is no loss of accuracy except you can't really use it for either of the 2 niche uses (see above).
@sergio_e: Yup. Call me a snob. Live view leads to bad form as well (the dreaded chicken-wings or arm-stretch).
By the was, on the D60, you can turn off the AF Assist Lamp. RTFM. :)
Thanks for the review. I've been thinking about purchasing the Sony a300 since I first caught word of it and this set my decision in a bit firmer. (Isn't MP basically the only difference between the a300 and a350?)
I'm really disappointed with Nikon on this one, especially on the white balance.
I'm also glad to see how well the Canon did, as I've considered it as well. I'm with flame500 on the subject of lenses for the Sony though, which is a big selling point. Plus I'm a HUGE Minolta fan.
@chiablo: @matt buchanan:
Actually both of these comments are wrong. I'm a professional photog that uses Canon cameras and a Canon educator, and i'll chip in with two corrections. One, the XSi is actually Canon's first DSLR to have a contrast-based autofocus system specifically designed to work with the mirror "up". You'll find the setting under the "Live View Autofocus" custom function, I don't remember which one it is at the moment. That custom function allows you to choose between the "quick" mode which lets you press the * button to get an autofocus and the "live" mode which works with the standard half-press without lowering the mirror. It is VERY slow however, but it is a first gen technology. I'm sure the DiGic IV processor will improve this feature. As a side not, neither the 1D pro bodies nor the 40D have the "live" focus mode.
Second, as a photographer who has been shooting product and architecture for over a decade, I can attest to the live mode being a MUST HAVE FEATURE for these arenas. Critical macro focusing with remote capture and live view is an amazing thing. After enabling live view and zooming in with the loupe mode (the same buttons used to zoom in on a captured image in review mode) I can focus on one facet of a jewel on a ring, or on a particular building element, then enable the DOF preview and mosey on around the frame with the joystick (or directional buttons on an XSi) to check my field of focus. It's a godsend. Just my 2 pence.
Man, I heart my Canon XTi. This review is vindicating. Best $400 I ever spent.
Seriously kids, if you're buying a DSLR
1) Buy one from a pro camera manufacturer (i.e. not Sony or Olympus)
2) Buy one which gives you access to the best lens selection for future expansion (i.e. not Nikon)
Canon every time - not even worth the text for the full review
This review is not comparing the same class of camera's, so i find this very misleading/biased.
Agree that weight should not be such a huge factor
I think having poor auto settings is almost a strength for the Nikon, as it will discourage the use of auto and push users to be more creative/learn how to use the camera they just bought.
You can buy old Minolta lenses for dirt cheap, but you get what you pay for. You can also buy old Cannon and Nikon lenses, but people don't brag about it because there is a good selection of new one's that are just better for these cameras.
@itchytooth:
Yeah, The K200d is a slightly watered down version of what was a lot of sources camera of the year last year. Yet, doesn't make the comparison. Maybe they should add a lowercase "i" in front of the name.
You got the order right, but I do have a few things to say to defend the Canon.
1. Live view is retarded. Only if you use a remote to take a picture, there should be no reason to use live view. And, even then, you are most likely a professional, and will have a much more expensive camera that can attach to a monitor or laptop for that purpose.
2. The lens that comes on the Canon is a nice lens. Not great, but not anything to "scoff" at. It is an IS lens, for Christ's sake! The only kits I have seen with better lenses are the 40d and the D200. Both of them are well over a thousand dollars, as well.
3. It is the same class as a Nikon, but much, much better. Don't get me wrong, Nikon's are very nice. But they can't touch a Canon when it comes to color, ease of use and stability in this price range.
I know this seems nit-picky, especially since it won, but I spent all day at work today playing with all of these, and that is what I came up with.
Also, I am a complete douche bag.
Yeah review is a bit off also, a Olympus E510 would have been a much better comparison in that class. The BUILT_IN image stabilization alone is a huge factor when you start using the full barrel. The Eseries have in-camera stabilization that buys you a good 2 fstops, and it doesn't require you buying a image stabilization lense like most.
I personally would go Canon/Olympus over Nikon/Sony. Where nikon excels is that you can pretty much use any Nikkor lense built in the last 10-15 years with their digicams, however you do loose some chip-related functionality.
Never really took Sony to serious, though carl zeiss optics are good in the pocket shooters.
Redo the review shooting the type of shots people who wake up and want a SLR would shoot.
Hold it over your head and shot some paparazzi shots, or try to take a pic at full zoom 125MM with no tripod, shot a pic directly at the son, other weird stuff...I think the results will looka bit dif.
There's no perfect camera. Branditis is moronic, and people who identify themselves with brands show themselves to be mindless sheep.
I like Nikons because they feel better in my hands. Full stop.
I have seen beautiful pictures taken with Nikons, Canons, Pentax and Olympus DSLRs. Sony's new to the game. It is the photographer, not the camera. You need a basic level of adequacy from your equipment, anything else just makes life easier.
My only advice; if you are going to go to the trouble of buying a DSLR, don't treat it like a point and shoot. Learn how to shoot manually so you can at least understand what the heck is going on. Take a course and buy a bunch of John Hedgecoe's books.
/rant
This review is weird, it doesn't really tell you much, at all, about the actual cameras.
You tested the Sony with a lens that costs more than the whole camera. Sort of defeats the purpose.
What about the image stabilization? In lens vs in body? Any opinions?
Wouldn't the $600 Sony A200 be a better fit against the D60 and E420?
Does the E420 even have image stabilization?
Why is weight so important?
What about auto bracketing features, kit lens comparisons, barrel distortion, jpeg compression, menus, the shape of the body, shutter delay, etc?
You mention things like:
"the exceptional processing delay after you take each shot"
Were you shooting in Advanced DRO mode? This is known to delay shot to shot times on the Sony.
Maybe a direct live view comparison? You talk about it in the conclusions but no where in the review.
This review is written from the point of view that the reader already knows nearly everything about the cameras. If they didn't, they'd have no clue about half the stuff written in it. And since the reader already knows what you're talking about, why bother reading it?
I love Gawker sites, but this comparison should have just shown the images and left out the worthless text.
/end rant
@getz76: well said!
In the end, take your own cars, and try out a few cameras, they all behave differently. I'm a big olympus fan, because I have always been able to get more consistency and predictability out of my shots, and Canon would be a close second though I only own Canon film cameras.
You want a good DSLR? Save up and get the Canon 40D. You'll never regret it. Need a good, fast, wide angle lens for it? Get the Sigma DC 18-55 1:2.8 EX MACRO. Don't cheat on your shots and get a Speedlite 580 EX II as well. Oh, and it won't hurt to pick up the Battery Grip for the 40D with an extra battery. My most important tip though, whatever you get, make sure you pick up the fastest memory you can, try to always take pictures in RAW mode so you can finish developing the picture in CS3 and you're good to go. If the above is a bit much for you then the Canon XSi should be plenty fine. I love Canon SLRs and that Digic IV processor is awsome. I love the 40D. I've been using it for 5 months now and am still impressed every time I use it. It's almost as easy as point and shoot. Most of my shots come out nice the first time. Of course I shoot in aperture priority most of the time and I make sure I have a good white balance :) Took the 40D to the Caribbean with me for Christmas. Took over 500 pics there and lover almost every one of them. The EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM kit lens it came with is pretty good but that Sigma lens I mentioned above is really good for close up portrait shots. A couple of other things that might make using these SLRs a bit more comfortable are an eye view extender and a Shieldzone LCD clear protector overlay. I got these two because, one, I am very paranoid about LCD screens and will do what I can to keep them from scratching. As such, using the camera means you're more than likely to put face grease on the screen. Hence the eye piece extender. It increases cheek to cam gap. I also like the leather grip strap (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Hand-Strap-E1-Review.aspx). I hate neck straps. Hey, I'm just a normal Joe (well, apeguero not Joe). I got sick of wasting time trying to take pics of my kids running all over the place and longed for the days of my Nikon F3. My first DSLR was a Canon Rebel 300. Liked Canon so much that I moved up the line to the 10D (boy that's also a nice cam), then the 20D then a step back to the XTi. Each time I'd sell the DSLRs because I wasn't using them as much but then ended up needing them, none-the-less. My last DSLR for now will be the 40D. I might eventually consider a full frame replacement to the 5D but I don't know if it would be worth replacing my APS lenses. Hope my honest opinion (albeit one sided) helps. Look, weight and features are nice but in the end it's how the camera handles the glass it's looking through that really matters. If the camera you like is a bit heavy then you may want to consider buying a couple of 20lb dumbells while you're at it :)
@Adam: Yes, the E420 has image stabilizatiion in camera, works with any lense you fit.
@getz76: Sony's DSLR is what Minolta had in the blackboard before they sold to Sony, yes? If so then chances are Sony's product is not new to the game since it's just a re-badged Minolta which in it of itself has an honorable history in the industry.
Overall,
Canon XSi seemed to be more consistent with better pictures. It had the least amount of noise which is possibly the most important factor of the image sensor.
And yes weight does matter, especially when you re going to be carrying it around you would want the lightest possible one and also preferably one which is smaller in volume. I defer with the point again about the Carl Zeiss lens as that is underestimating the Canon lenses. They are pretty good lenses even if they are basic lenses. Sony only has to use Carl Zeiss as they don't have the experience in lens making. Its a huge investment developing lenses especially ones for such cameras. So it is a fair comparison between those two lenses. Olympus did have a lot of noise that's true too but it was the cheapest of the lot.
Good Comparison you guys !
@MINI Driver:
wow. what an utterly worthless comment. i actually cringed reading that.
@helfrez:
Wrong! It does not have sensor-shift image stabilization like the E-510, and E-3. This review fails to point out how the kit olympus lenses outperform the crappy canon kit lens
Its really amazing how childish people can get when there defending their favorite brand (its actually worse than the mac/pc thing).
The bottom line is all of these cameras are quality cameras and I don't think anyone in the target market would lament buying any of these. That being said, in a review like this or at dpreview they go into real minutia which isn't useful information for the end user. The best way determine which brand/camera is right for you is to go to a good photo stor