DSLR newbie questions

I am looking into buying the Sony A-300 with an extra lense included.

https://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665345629

I am an art major who has only taken a basic into to photography class but am really interested in digital photography and to some extent professional photography (i know this takes years to learn). One reasons I was looking at this camera versus canon and nikon is because it has built in optical stabilization (will be taking some horseback riding images) where as canon and nikon have this option but only through their lenses (which I have heard are very expensive).

A few concerns - I have been told canon and nikon are really the only cameras professionals use because of their quiality, etc.

Because sony is kind of new to the game, if I were to buy this, and over some time invest in some lenses...what are the chances they will be compatible with sony DSLRs 5 or 10 years down the road when I decide to buy a new camera?


Any opinion is great!!

Thanks

My only problems with using non-standard cameras, like Sony, are the lack of lenses and, as you mentioned, the upgrade problem. You have to look at it this way, you are not buying a camera, you are buying a system. You will spend MUCH more money in glass (and you should) than in your camera, and in doing so you are buying into the system. So in a few years, when you want to get a new camera, you are pretty much locked into a system if you have a couple thousand in glass with that system.

I am a Canon shooter, have had more than a few cameras with that system, but have been slowly building my glass for almost 10 years now. And I am sure that I will be able to mount my lenses on anything new for at least another 10 years.

Anyway, my point is that glass is the most important thing, period. The Sony's are great cameras, I have heard a lot of rave reviews on them, but I wouldn't sacrifice a system to get stabilization in the camera. Not to mention there are other advantages to not having it built into the camera, but there are a ton of articles that cover that.

I completely agree with lifeafter2am on this, except on one thing....I am a Nikononian ;P . In regards to the horse back shots, I don't even know if IS would work. IS is mainly used for slight camera shake due to low shutter speeds or a long lens. Now obviously technology is advancing and by now it could probably work, but I highly doubt IS would work with the horse in a pretty good stride.

I have shot a Sony and was not as impressed with it as I thought I would be. It is a nice system, and they will grow it greatly, but I fear it will take a long time.

For me I always say try the cameras in your hand, these companies as they develop new cameras generally keep the same look/feel, so choose whichever fits best in your hand. Do not base it on soley on what functions the camera has.

Alright here are a few things:

Sony doesn't lack lenses at all. Some are forgetting the hundred + Minolta compatible lenses which offer great performance and quality. Remember that company? Minolta..

It is true that Sony is newer to the camera market than the other big companies, but Minolta wasn't. Sony does have more expensive lenses than the other guys, and that's primarily because the Sony market time.

As far as quality in the lenses from Sony, they are great. Sony and Carl Zeiss work on the lenses and Carl Zeiss is known as one of the greatest lens manufacturers. So you won't be short on quality.

Regarding IS. The image stabilization not only will steady your final shot, but it will steady your lens when you're trying to frame an image. This is extremely helpful when you are working with a telephoto lens, zoomed in. The image stabilization, or vibration reduction, will really help you steady the frame. This is the problem with the Sony systems, and other body based IS systems. You can't see the stabilization effect active and live. It only works when the camera is taking the exposure.

That's the downside, the upside is that you will 'technically' have a stabilization system for every lens you attach. So you have to compromise.

Like gomez said, you really need to use these cameras first hand. We can sit here all day and talk about how one camera is 'better' than the other. Your final decision should be based on how you feel with the camera system you are purchasing.

At this point, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, and etc', they all make great cameras. It's just that some have more flexible options than others. For instance, Nikon vs. Canon. It's arguable to say that Canon's current lens line-up is a bit more versatile than the Nikon.

So to wrap it up, my suggestion is to head on over to your local camera store, and check out the cameras individually. Make a list of cameras that interest you, and test them out at the store.

Good luck!
-AC
P.S. If for some reason people might think I'm bias to a certain brand or whatever, I'm not. I shoot a Sony A100. But I'll be going Canon in a couple of months for specific reasons...