Canon 400D vs Sony A500: Putting Two Entry-Level DSLRs Under the Microscope

When it comes to choosing an entry-level DSLR that punches above its weight, the Canon EOS 400D and Sony Alpha DSLR-A500 often pop up in conversations among enthusiasts and budding pros alike. Both cameras promise solid foundations, versatile feature sets, and respectable image quality - but beneath those surface similarities lies a fascinating contrast in technology, ergonomics, and real-world usability. As someone who has tested dozens of DSLRs over the past 15 years, I’m excited to take these two vintage champs out for a detailed spin and share insights that help you figure out which one deserves a spot in your camera bag in 2024 and beyond.

Let’s peel back the layers step by step, from hardware to handling, covering all major photography disciplines and use cases. Ready? Let’s dive in.

Sitting Down for a Size Chat: Handling and Ergonomics

Before snapping a single frame, the way a camera feels in your hands often makes or breaks the shooting experience. The Canon 400D tips the scale at 556 grams, sporting compact dimensions of 127×94×65 mm. The Sony A500 clocks in slightly heavier at 630 grams with larger footprints at 137×104×84 mm. But numbers only tell half the story - how does that translate into real-world handling?

The Canon’s relatively trim frame feels nimble and easier to wield during stroller strolls or urban walks. It’s especially beneficial if you have smaller hands or prefer something less bulky that doesn’t scream “camera guy.” In contrast, the Sony A500’s broader grip and beveled edges offer a reassuring, solid hold which is a blessing for longer shoots that demand steadiness and control, such as landscape excursions or wildlife tracking sessions.

Ergonomically, both have the classic DSLR feel - a standard optical pentamirror viewfinder up front and a familiar button-and-dial layout. Yet, the Canon 400D keeps it simple with fewer control buttons cluttering the top plate, while the Sony A500 introduces a more complex command dial and additional function keys for quicker access to settings.

If pocketability or lightness is your mantra, the 400D has a slight edge. But if you prize firm grip and rapid access to your shooting parameters (quickly changing ISO, drive mode, or AF point selection), the Sony’s heftier but control-rich design feels more attuned to more serious shooters. We’ll see how that translates once we look under the hood.

A Closer Look from Above: Control Layout and Usability

Prying open the top of these cameras reveals a subtle but meaningful difference in control philosophies.

The Canon 400D opts for a straightforward approach: a classic mode dial on the left (featuring standard Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual modes), and a shutter release flanked by a power switch and a dedicated exposure control dial on the right. It’s an inviting layout for beginners - nothing too daunting but with enough manual controls to learn on the fly.

Sony’s A500 retains the essential mode dial but adds a second control dial behind the shutter button, streamlining manual exposure adjustments. Plus, there are more dedicated buttons to toggle features like ISO and white balance directly without dipping into menus - a boon for users who crave efficiency in the heat of the moment.

One minor gripe with both systems: neither has illuminated buttons, meaning night or low-light handling demands some familiarity or guesswork.

In practical terms, this means the Canon is well suited for casual or first-time DSLR users enjoying manual controls as a gentle introduction, while the Sony caters a bit more towards enthusiasts or semi-pros who relish fast, in-the-field tweaking without fumbling with menus.

Sensor Tech and Image Quality: Where Resolution Meets Reality

Specifications on paper don’t always tell the full story, but they provide a good baseline for evaluation. Let’s put these two alongside the DxOMark benchmark to objectively assess their imaging potential.

Canon 400D employs a 10.1-megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor measuring 22.2 x 14.8 mm with a 1.6x crop factor. The Sony A500 ups the resolution to 12.3 megapixels, paired with a 23.5 x 15.6 mm APS-C CMOS sensor sporting a slightly lower 1.5x crop factor. This means Sony’s sensor captures a bit more image area and detail - a subtle but welcome gain.

DxOMark scores reveal the Canon with an overall score of 62, boasting strong color depth (22.1 bits) and a decent dynamic range (11.0 EV), while Sony A500 marginally surpasses it with a 64 score, slightly higher dynamic range (11.6 EV), but a fraction lower color depth (21.8 bits). Low-light ISO performance also favors the Sony (ISO 772 vs 664 for Canon), indicating cleaner images at higher sensitivities.

Why does this matter? For daylight landscape shoots where dynamic range helps pull detail from bright skies and deep shadows, Sony’s sensor offers a tad more latitude. For portraits requiring subtle skin tone nuances, both cameras deliver respectable, if basic, color fidelity.

Interestingly, neither sensor boasts an anti-aliasing filter absence - typical for this generation - so moiré can occasionally rear its head on fine patterns.

The Backscreen Story: How Do They Communicate?

LCDs are essential for framing, reviewing shots, and navigating menus, and their design can substantially impact shooting pleasure.

Canon’s fixed 2.5-inch, 230k-dot LCD reflects its era - serviceable but small and not particularly sharp by today’s standards. The fixed angle can feel restrictive during awkward angles such as low ground macro work or overhead crowd photography.

Sony’s A500 offers a significant ergonomic bonus with a 3-inch, 230k-dot tilting screen. While the resolution is similar, the tilting design dramatically improves versatility - think finding creative angles or shooting video footage (although neither camera has native video capabilities). The A500’s menus benefit from a more visual interface and expandable options thanks to the screen size advantage.

For street photographers or those shooting tight in crowds, the Canon’s hesitant fixed screen can feel limiting. Sony’s approach - while still not touchscreen - gives a more flexible live preview experience.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Moment

Both cameras use phase-detection AF with 9 focus points, but their implementation differs enough to influence action photography and reliability.

The Canon 400D delivers a continuous shooting rate of 3 frames per second (fps) with somewhat basic autofocus tracking - center-weighted and multi-area AF modes for general use but lacks face detection or advanced tracking features.

Sony A500 doubles the burst speed to 5 fps and introduces live view with some face detection autofocus, which was somewhat pioneering for its release era. Face detection helps improve accuracy in portrait and candid shooting, especially for amateurs.

Neither camera offers animal eye AF or comprehensive subject tracking - things we take for granted on modern cameras - but Sony’s added continuous autofocus refinement gives it an edge when photographing moving subjects like kids at play or street scenes.

During my tests, the Sony’s AF was snappier and more accurate locking in on faces indoors, whereas the Canon could struggle a tad in lower contrast situations. For wildlife or sports shooters dabbling with telephoto lenses, Sony’s higher fps can better freeze action bursts, but enthusiast wildlife shooters might outgrow both quickly.

Lenses and Ecosystem: Expanding Your Creative Reach

Lens mount compatibility is a critical practical consideration. Both cameras use tried-and-true mounts with extensive lenses available, but from different ecosystems.

• Canon 400D: Canon EF and EF-S mount lenses - a mature ecosystem with over 300 lenses ranging from ultra-wide zooms, bright primes, to super-telephotos. As one of the most widely adopted mounts in photography history, you can find great third-party and used lenses to expand your kit affordably.

• Sony A500: Sony/Minolta Alpha mount, supporting about 143 native lenses. While smaller and less abundant compared to Canon’s, the lens selection covers the basics well, including several quality primes and zooms. Third-party support is more limited, and older A-mount lenses do not always autofocus optimally on Sony bodies, occasionally requiring adapters for modern glass.

If lens investment flexibility is a priority - say, you’re building a versatile kit for travel, macro, and portrait - Canon’s broader ecosystem is advantageous. Sony’s lineup works better if you already own some Minolta glass or seek hybrid kits blending legacy and digital pieces.

Battery Life and Storage: The Practical Grind

Picture this: you’re hiking in remote landscapes or shooting a multi-day wedding, and battery endurance becomes as important as image quality.

The Canon 400D’s battery life isn’t officially published, but field experience shows it lingers about 500 shots per charge with the LP-E5 battery. Storage is handled via CompactFlash cards, a common choice at the time, though bulkier and pricier today.

Sony A500 shines with a generous 520-shot battery life per NP-FM500H pack, slightly better due to more efficient electronics and live view options that don’t kill power outright. Using SD/SDHC cards gives more storage flexibility and affordability compared to CompactFlash.

In practice, Sony’s use of more current memory cards and longer battery life means fewer interruptions mid-shoot. Canon users should consider bringing spare CF cards and extra batteries for extended days out.

Weather Sealing and Durability: Can They Brave the Elements?

Neither the Canon 400D nor Sony A500 offers environmental sealing, dust or splash resistance, or ruggedized features. While built sturdily for casual users, both need sheltering during adverse weather - rain or dust storms are definite no-go zones.

If you frequently shoot outdoors in challenging conditions, investing in protective housing or weather-sealed lenses becomes essential regardless of body choice here.

Video Capability: A Missed Opportunity?

Both cameras were released before DSLRs became mainstream video tools and thus lack any video recording capabilities.

If video is a priority - be it casual family clips or serious hybrid workflows - these models fall short and are best bypassed for more modern mirrorless or DSLR cameras boasting HD or 4K video.

Diving into Specific Photography Disciplines

How do these cameras perform when tasked with the nuts and bolts of everyday photography genres? Drawing from hands-on tests and extended use scenarios, here’s how things stack up.

Portrait Photography: Capturing Character and Emotion

The Sony A500 edges ahead thanks to face detection AF and higher resolution sensor. Its better burst rate allows rapid-fire capture of expressions in dynamic shooting. Canon’s rendition of skin tones remains pleasingly warm, but its slower AF means missed moments.

Both deliver creamy bokeh with quality fast EF or A-mount primes but leaning on lens selection rather than body difference.

Landscape Photography: Painting With Light and Shadows

Sony’s larger sensor area and improved dynamic range lend it a slight advantage in preserving sky and shadow details during golden hour or harsh daylight.

Canon’s 10MP sensor resolution might limit large-format prints or aggressive cropping, but delivers sharpness sufficient for casual landscape sharing.

Neither body has weather sealing or in-body image stabilization - meaning a sturdy tripod and steady hands remain vital.

Wildlife and Sports: Speed and Responsiveness Matter

Sony’s 5 fps shooting and face detection autofocus provide modest help capturing moving subjects. Canon’s 3 fps may frustrate fast-paced action shooters.

Neither camera sports advanced AF tracking or animal eye features, leaving hunting wildlife shots challenging.

Street Photography: Stealth and Agility

Canon’s lighter weight and smaller size gain points for inconspicuousness on the street. Sony’s tilting screen is a bonus for low-angle shooting but larger size may invite more attention.

Low-light AF is marginally better on Sony, useful in dim urban environments.

Macro Photography: Up Close and Detailed

Neither camera has specialized macro features, but both benefit from available macrophotography lenses in their respective mounts.

Sony’s tilting screen aids creative composition.

Night and Astro Photography: Stars and Shadows

Sony’s higher max ISO (12800 vs Canon’s 1600) and cleaner low-light performance give it a clear edge for astrophotography or dimly lit scenes.

Canon’s lower ISO ceiling will limit handheld night shots - tripods become mandatory.

Video Workflows: What’s Not There Is Relevant

Neither offers video, immediately sidelining both for hybrid photo-video shooters in 2024.

Connectivity Regarding Modern Workflows

Both cameras lack Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS. Image transfer relies on USB 2.0, painfully slow by today’s standards. SD card or CF card readers remain the main pipeline for ingesting images.

In workflows requiring instant sharing or tethered shooting, these are severe limitations. Consider usage scenarios and if external Wi-Fi adapters or card readers are viable workarounds.

Price and Value Analysis: Old Dogs with Vintage Appeal

Prices hover around $600 new at launch - now both can be found affordably used. In 2024, expect bargain bin pricing in the $100-$250 range, depending on condition and bundled lenses.

If you crave a solid, budget-friendly DSLR for learning or casual shooting, particularly with Canon’s extensive lens options, 400D is still serviceable. For those desiring better autofocus, live view versatility, and superior low-light handling, Sony A500 remains a worthy contender.

Verdict: Who Should Choose Which?

Let me lay it out plain:

Performance Scores Summarized

Canon’s solid 62 score makes it a dependable choice, while Sony’s 64 nudges it a bit higher due to refinements in sensor and AF capabilities. The margin is slim but real.

How They Stack Up By Photography Genre

The chart confirms our hands-on impressions: Sony leads in portrait, night, and action genres; Canon shines in simplicity and lens availability.

Final Thoughts and Practical Recommendations

Both cameras represent valued milestones in DSLR history. The Canon 400D launched photography dreams for many, combining approachable controls with respectable image quality. The Sony A500 marked Sony’s earnest play in the DSLR game, hinting at future mirrorless innovations through live view and sensor IS.

While both show their age in lack of video, modest sensors by today’s megapixel standards, and scant connectivity, they still serve as capable cameras for photographers learning fundamentals or on tight budgets.

If you find yourself hunting for a DSLR purely to learn photography, Canon’s simplicity and lens choice are hard to beat. If you want a bit more flexibility, speed, and low-light performance for varied shooting conditions with tilt-screen artistry, Sony’s A500 remains a charming, if slightly bulkier, partner.

Whichever you pick, be sure to invest good glass - you’ll find lenses matter far more to image quality than megapixels alone. And enjoy the nostalgic joy of using cameras from the dawn of digital SLR evolution. After all, great photography is timeless, even if our tech keeps marching on.

Sample Images: Real-Life Snapshots from Both Cameras

Canon 400D front Canon 400D screen back Sony A500 front Sony A500 screen back

Here’s a look at portraits, landscapes, and street shots side-by-side. Notice the slight edge Sony holds in detail and low-light balance; Canon still delivers pleasing warmth and punchy colors.

If you want a hands-on trial or more nuance on any particular shooting style, drop a note - I’m always eager to delve deeper. Happy shooting!