> In the 20th Oct issue of Brit mag Amateur Photography, they tested the
> Canon Rebel XTi/400 against Sony's A100. The result was the Sony won
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> believe the Sony is that much better, particularly since I've seen
> full-sized images of the same subjects taken by both.
That or a Sony rep had the magazine crew out to lunch before the test...
Since the lens isn't really THAT bad, I suspect that is the case.

Signature
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
> In the 20th Oct issue of Brit mag Amateur Photography, they tested the
> Canon Rebel XTi/400 against Sony's A100. The result was the Sony won
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> believe the Sony is that much better, particularly since I've seen
> full-sized images of the same subjects taken by both.
I don't own either camera so I am not upset but am extremely dubious. I do
own the Canon kit lens and it's not that bad and is a good value.
Maybe a bum camera? Maybe someone is pissed at Canon?
At any rate, the cameras are getting so good that comparing brands is not as
important as it once was. The features and prices are the items that really
count.
RichA - 01 Dec 2006 00:03 GMT
> > In the 20th Oct issue of Brit mag Amateur Photography, they tested the
> > Canon Rebel XTi/400 against Sony's A100. The result was the Sony won
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> important as it once was. The features and prices are the items that really
> count.
Canon errs on the side of caution where sharpness and colour saturation
are concerned, allowing the shooter to modify them if they want.
As for features, this is the annoying part. Each camera in the 10 meg
stable has something someone might want, or lacks something someone
might want.
Sony, sharp images, mediocre AF and dust control.
Canon, good dust control, good AF, no spot meter.
Nikon, great build, no dust control, no IS onboard.
Olympus great dust control, no IS, limited availability
Pentax/Samsung....could be the ringer.