Sony a33 or Nikon d3100?

I'm looking for (my first) a Digital SLR/SLT for mainly sports photography. I plan on shooting hockey, tennis, and horse back riding (jumping). Of course I'd also use it for day to day photography. I'm also very into editing video, which is why I'm choosing between these two, since they both have AF 1080p video. I understand that Nikon is the more trusted brand when it comes to DSLRs, but the Sony has some very nice features like 7fps speed priority shooting. I really don't know which one to get! They are fairly similar price wise, so I'm rather stumped… Any advice would be helpful!

Sony has really bad customer service to start off and I was going to get the NIKON D3100 ( but i got a CANON EOS REBEL INSTEAD ) I'd suggest the Nikon d3100 over the sony a33 to tell you the truth because it shoots better

As a long time sports and action photographer, the idea that you need to shoot in bursts is laughable.

Sports photographers are generally very disciplined shooters and experienced ones never shoot in the burst mode unless called upon by their photo editor to produce a series of photos to be later compiled into some kind of animation or stacked image project.

Remember, less than ten years ago, we used 35 mm film. The most shots we could get on a roll was 37 and then we had to take the time to change film. That forced us to 1) know the game we were shooting, 2) know the team and the possible plays they would be using and 3) shoot at the peak of action.

You also need to take into consideration how well each camera can shoot in low light conditions. That is why so many of us use the Nikon D3 or D3s. Sure you are buying an entry level camera, but you more importantly starting a camera system. That system, as you build it, you will be using for decades.

Look at the way the sensors of the D3 compare to the Sony full frame camera and A33.

http://94.23.242.64/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/628%7C0/(appareil2)/673%7C0/(appareil3)/604%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Sony/(brand3)/Sony

Do not use price as your final reason for buying a camera. What is important is how well the whole system will perform as you continue your career

Nikon genrally has an advantage over Sony in the selection of available lenses. The Sony A33 has an advantage over other brands if you are using it for video (although an actual video camera would be much better). Its unusual semi-reflective mirror allows the Sony to continuously autofocus from the phase detectors in the pentaprism assembly--the kind of autofocusing that has given DSLR's their great reputation for fast focusing. Others like the D3100 can only autofocus during video by using the sluggish live view contrast detect.
However, an immovable semi-reflective mirror loses some light (although not a lot), so it can be a disadvantage in low light for stills.

A33 has a 100% coverage viewfinder, fastest video auto-focus, 7fps shooting, auto-HDR, multi-shot noise reduction, panorama shooting, 25 years worth of Minolta mount lenses.

People buy the Nikon because it's a Nikon, not because it is somehow "better".

Your choice.

Oh and the Sony has MORE lenses that auto-focus than the D3100, it's a myth that there's a lack of lenses for Sony. You have to buy AF-S lenses for the Nikon or you are stuck in manual focus. Have a look at the lens database:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

I've tried out both the D3100 n A33, I prefer the grip n feel of the D3100, its simple layout and the guide mode. The viewfinder is also great.

The pros for A33 is the higher pfs, sweep panorama n the built in IS.

The design of the Nikon bodies and lenses is closer to the old 35mm SLR style, so the Nikon simply appears more professional. The manual controls for the D3100 are easier to use than on the SLT-A33. Nikon color tones are more neutral than the A33. Nikon images at ISO 1600 and higher have a little less noise. It's easier to find lenses by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina for Nikon than for Sony.