[Klaus]

[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1305146246' post='8225']

Hi Brisco,

This query... it might help to qualify it: better in what respect?

Ian

[/quote]



It has a mag-alloy body and a better viewfinder than the 600D/5100D (the Sonys are different here).

Technically it shows better image noise at high ISOs but that's of course also related to its 10mp sensor.

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305183003' post='8232']

It has a mag-alloy body and a better viewfinder than the 600D/5100D (the Sonys are different here).

Technically it shows better image noise at high ISOs but that's of course also related to its 10mp sensor.

[/quote]



This is!. The images produced with a Canon 40D are better than the pics produced by a 600D-D5100-A55???



P.d.- The price of 400 euros for the 40D are for a second-hand body (not new one).

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brisco' timestamp='1305185437' post='8235']

This is!. The images produced with a Canon 40D are better than the pics produced by a 600D-D5100-A55???

[/quote]



No, that's too simplified. In order to be able to compare a 40D to a 600D/D5100/A55 you need to scale down the results to the same 10mp. You won't do that in the real life, of course, but if you did the results of these current generation DSLRs would be at least comparable.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305196771' post='8250']

No, that's too simplified. In order to be able to compare a 40D to a 600D/D5100/A55 you need to scale down the results to the same 10mp. You won't do that in the real life, of course, but if you did the results of these current generation DSLRs would be at least comparable.

[/quote]

The EOS 600D, Nikon 5100 and Sonmy A55v actually are better than the Canon EOS 40D with high ISO noise performance, quite a bit better actually.



The 40D has a nicer view finder. It is bigger and brighter.

And it has a solid high-fps (frames per second) performance if you would desire that. And its body feels solid and has a meaty grip.



But for the rest, the 600D is "more". Higher possible resolution. Better high ISO performance. Live view with contrast AF and phase difference detect AF. Much better LCD. A very good implemented movie mode, if one would want to shoot video with a DSLR. A swivel-screen. More compact and lighter.



The Nikon D5100 is quite comparable to the Canon. It lacks mirror lock up, though, its live view implementation is not as refined. It does have faster contrast detect AF during live view, but no PD-AF. It also has that swivel screen and very good high ISO performance.



On the bottom of my list would be the A55v, for its bottom hinged screen, ghost lights appearing in night scenes with bright lights in it, the lcd view finder instead of optical viewfinder with the actual scene being cluttered with info and symbols where with the other cameras that info is outside of the image frame (i find the info in the frame very distracting when trying to judge composition/framing), the loss of texture in brighter and darker areas and so on. Then there is the bottom hinged screen and some other things... last on my list.



From your choices, I would rate them on my list:

1. Canon EOS 600D

2. Nikon D5100

3. Canon EOS 40D

4. Sony A55v.

[Guest]

600D/550D has a teeny tiny OVF, no AF-C in video mode, very low dynamic range, about the level of M4/3 (see dxomark site), No wireless flash control on 550D, slow AF in liveview mode (even Pentax is faster), low frame rate, small buffer.



I will rate them as such



(1) A55

(2) D5100



.

.

.

(69) 600D

(70) 550D

[IanCD]

[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305225869' post='8272']

600D/550D has a teeny tiny OVF, no AF-C in video mode, very low dynamic range, about the level of M4/3 (see dxomark site), No wireless flash control on 550D, slow AF in liveview mode (even Pentax is faster), low frame rate, small buffer.



I will rate them as such



(1) A55

(2) D5100



.

.

.

(69) 600D

(70) 550D

[/quote]

...and, you see, here's where I think independent review sites, like DP Review, can really help - though I appreciate you don't like their reviews, and that's a personal choice - because they at least give you the parameters they're reviewing against and you have a higher level of assurance that they're taking a reasonably unbiased view... it's not an absolute assurance of lack of bias, for sure...



But what you will get from the answers here are opinions, based on different experiences and with at least the potential (I'm not accusing anyone!!) for differing degrees of bias...



It might have been helpful if I'd added after my query - "better in what respect?":-

• Image quality
  
  
• Ergonomics and handling
  
  
• Features
  
  
• High ISO image quality / ISO range
  
  
• Video
  
  
• Viewfinder
  
  
• Build quality
  
  
• In-camera editing
  
  
• Autofocus accuracy and speed
  
  
• Shooting speed
  
  
• Cost
  
  

The list of what's important would be up to you - it's your list

Below is a suggestion. It's used in all sorts of decision-making... it's based on the idea that humans become selective in the factors they attend to when making decisions, because we find it difficult to keep more than a limited number of things in our attention at the same time... so we have the potential to forget something at one moment that we knew / thought was important at another (e.g. my decision, with my wife, to buy a bed that would never fit up our cottage stairs... oooops, forgot that factor...!! Yes, I got a refund..! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> )

Ok, so the suggestion is you make a list of what's important to YOU about the new camera (and maybe the lenses)

Weight the factors according to the importance you attribute to them - for example if build quality is really important, you might give it 8, 9 or 10 (if use a 10-point scale)

Video might be less important so you might rate it 2, 3 or 4... the numebrs are up to you...list the factors, put them in an order, then weight them



I'd use a spreadsheet, e.g. Excel, to do this... you list the factors, weight them, then rate each camera body (or other life choice..!) you're considering on a scale, e.g. 1 to 10

So for each factor you get weight x rating for that factor...

Add the scores for each factor, for each camera body (life choice)

Compare the scores



Now here's the interesting bit... you can get scores with this that make you think "That can't be right, that's not what I want to do at all..."



Which tells you the whole exercise was based on a spurious notion of accuracy in turning life decisions into mathematics... but at least it has helped you to clarify what you want to do...!!

Have fun..!!!

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Ian

[Guest]

Thanks all!. I know that its not an easy question. This weekend I had in my hands any of these models: Canon 600D, 60D, 5100, A55, etc. The first thing I can verify its that the size of the Sony A55 is very very little in my hands. I dont feel confortable with this. With the Nikon I feel more confortable (Than Sony) but not at all, too.



In terms of ergonomics I think the Canon 600D its the best. I feel better than the other in this theme.



After that, I had in my hands a Canon 50D and Nikon D90 ... and the old feeling take in my hands ... robust, solid, and very confortable in my hands.



What about a 50D or D90 for 690€(only a new body)???. What do you think about its performance?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Brisco' timestamp='1305535565' post='8351']

Thanks all!. I know that its not an easy question. This weekend I had in my hands any of these models: Canon 600D, 60D, 5100, A55, etc. The first thing I can verify its that the size of the Sony A55 is very very little in my hands. I dont feel confortable with this. With the Nikon I feel more confortable (Than Sony) but not at all, too.



In terms of ergonomics I think the Canon 600D its the best. I feel better than the other in this theme.



After that, I had in my hands a Canon 50D and Nikon D90 ... and the old feeling take in my hands ... robust, solid, and very confortable in my hands.



What about a 50D or D90 for 690€(only a new body)???. What do you think about its performance?

[/quote]

Both are fine cameras.



What is your idea about lenses? Lenses have a bigger impact on how the outcome of photos will be than camera bodies.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305536066' post='8352']

Both are fine cameras.



What is your idea about lenses? Lenses have a bigger impact on how the outcome of photos will be than camera bodies.

[/quote]



My old equipment was an Canon 20D with grip, 17-40L, 70-200L, 50mm 1.8 ... now I dont want to spend this money,but I want a decent lense. I have to say that the money is important in the selection.



In the beginig I was thinking in a cheap lense with decent optics (and bad construction).



The manufacturer is not an issue .. forgot that my old equipment was Canon ... I have no any lense now .. and there is no problem to go to Nikon land.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brisco' timestamp='1305537131' post='8354']In the beginig I was thinking in a cheap lense with decent optics (and bad construction).[/quote]



A new D90 body costs over here (Germany) 585 Euros from a reputable online shop. The corresponding kit lenses (18-55 mm, 18-105 mm) certainly qualify as "decent", the next step up would be the 16-85 mm lens.