What's wrong with Sony?

[keith_walker2]

<p>There are heaps of Minolta A Mount lenses around, most of them are wonderful lenses and are quite inexpensive these days. However you have to increase the focal length by 1.5 to get the focal length when used on an APS-C sensor. So a 75 - 300 lens turns into a 113 - 450 ! (or should I say 'you hold the egg this way grandma')</p>

<p>I have a Sony A350 with 2 kit lenses, I also have my old Sigma A Mount lenses from my old Minolta gear and am more than happy with them</p>

[ticktock_w]

<p>Hi there! I'm so happy to come across this post, because I have experienced this from people in the past, some of whom don't even own a DSLR but consider themselves smart consumers (it's annoying, I know). Sony seems to have it worse I think. Comments like "they make good TVs, dunno about their DSLRs though." make me roll my eyes. I am impressed and more than satisfied with my A200; this camera really got me interested in DSLR photography. In fact, I am so satisfied with Sony that I probably would stick to the brand if I were to become a professional.<br /> I'm sure Canon and Nikon are very good brands, but there is something about me that prefers the "underdog" or something different. I was the only student in my photography class with a Sony. Everyone else uses a Canon EOS. I'm a bit of a rogue, preferring the uncommon path, so naturally Sony DSLRs were attractive to me. Also, I'm very loyal to the Sony brand since I find their products high quality and very stylish--design is very important to me. Another reason why I prefer Sony over Canon is that my point-and-shoot was Sony, and the portrait images of myself were so much more flattering than my Canon. I think it has something to do with the lens; the images appear much more true to life and less distorted/big-nosed, especially in close distance.<br /> I know I'm rabbling but I am extremely proud of my Sony Alpha DSLR. I love the orange "a" logo, super chic looking and my Sony carrying case, also with the "a" looks incredible stylish too! Externally, my gear is so much more sleek looking than Canon/Nikon users. Inside and out I'm satisfied! I'm pretty sure Sony, with their quality and marketing genius, will command a big chunk of the DSLR market in the future.<br /> My only grief with Sony is that there is a relatively small selection of accessories compared to other brands, but their product range has grown extensively in a short period of time.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Rich, I never said there aren't a number of simple things you can do to improve sound quality, but it seems only high-end audio consumers can hear the difference between an $800 set of cables and some that are $50. I think in many cases, the act of paying so much for these things results in mysteriously-improved hearing abilities. Obviously, for a concert or pro sound environment, you can justify paying a lot for cabling and interconnects. And I'm sure you can see the difference on a scope. But down here in the real world, it really doesn't make much difference.</p>

<p>Like I said, camera elitists are much like audio elitists.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Rich, I never said there aren't a number of simple things you can do to improve sound quality, but it seems only high-end audio consumers can hear the difference between an $800 set of cables and some that are $50. I think in many cases, the act of paying so much for these things results in mysteriously-improved hearing abilities. Obviously, for a concert or pro sound environment, you can justify paying a lot for cabling and interconnects. And I'm sure you can see the difference on a scope. But down here in the real world, it really doesn't make much difference.</p>

<p>Like I said, camera elitists are much like audio elitists.</p>

[dustin_m1]

<p>It's funny, I've had the same response in Best Buy that most others have had with idiot salespeople too. When I went on that Worldwide Photowalk a couple weeks ago, it was almost all people who were of or near retirement age and sporting 1Ds, 5D's, and a few D3x's. My girlfriend and I didn't know anyone, but we got to know the main people, the ones who are really active in photography in this small area. There was at least 4 or 5 times when one of them came over to check out what gear we were using and they made remarks about how good Minolta is, and many said that they had used it for years. Seemed like there was a lack of knowledge about Sony, though, since most didn't know that Sony carried on after Minolta. No negative comments, though, I was surprised. I guess when you get around "real" photographers who are focused on creating good photos, most understand that the brand of gear you use isn't that important.</p>

<p>After getting home and looking at some fo the walk member's photostreams, I was actually even more surprised at the lack of negative comments, because I realized that some of those shooting with pro cameras were using something way above their skill level.</p>

[phil_derosier]

<p>Nothing is wrong with Sony. Many Sony users are simply old Minolta users that refuse to trade in all their investment in glass and peripheral equipment. The continuing Sony/Minolta hybrid performs excetionally well.<br />Sony's offerings are on par with Nikon and Canon because digital imaging has matured. There is absolutely no identifiable difference in the end result of the images produced by different DSLR manufacturers. Any advantages claimed are merely re-packaged marketing ploys.<br />Sony simply has not found a price/performance point that will catapult them above the competition. The likelihood of some stunning development in the near future is slim, so a price reduction is the only alternative for Sony to take.<br />In a nut? If it works well for you and you are happy, then the hell with the opinions of the snooty elite.</p>

[rdm]

<p>Sonys are great cameras, and like Nikon's they are priced allot more than comparable cameras from other manufactures. But you are paying that extra for a really cool name and quality of a brand that has been around a very long time. So don't listen to want anyone says your paying that extra for piece of mind. Next time tell that sales person he should love you because you are willing to pay that extra for piece of mind. Oh well .. maybe he doesn't work on commission or is jealous, which is more likely.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I have used Nikon and now use Canon. But I guess it is only a matter of time now when Sony becomes front-runner alongside Canon and Nikon in the professional segment. <br>

They came out with a great FF camera (A900) in their maiden attempt last year. They have best Zeiss lenses like 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, 16-35mm 2.8. I love these lenses. See what happens when their new cheap FF cameras come out any time now.</p>

<p> </p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>What's wrong with Sony is that they are the 3rd largest seller of DSLRs. Which says nothing about whether they make good cameras or not. If you are an out and out pro for whom equipment cost is insignificant compared to having the highest level of professional support, then in all fairness Nikon and Canon are prob the way the to. Though I'm guessing even in the pro ranks, that number is relatively small and the some of those probably use medium format digital.</p>

<p>For the rest of us, buy what you are willing to pay for and the reality is you do get a lot of bang for your buck with Sony.</p>

[ticktock_w]

<p>I actually think the "Sony" logo is what attracted me to the camera. I do not like the "canon" brand nor the nikon... they seem bland and boring. Even if sony was priced higher, I would still get sony. They just seem fresh and stylish. Speaking at the shallow level here.</p>

[rdm]

<p>I feel the same way about the Minolta nam, Ticktock W.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>From my perspective, the main issue with Sony is its lenses. I don't feel that rebadged Minolta lenses have the same kudos as Nikon and Canon lenses. This is probably complete nonsense, but I think it is marketing fact. Canon have sweated marketing blood to build up its L line as "the" professional lenses, and it has worked very well. I also need to add that the L lenses are generally superb. Also Sony lenses are not inexpensive compared with the rivals, and then there is the "they are simply rebadged (old) Minolta lenses". It just does not sound cool.</p>

<p>Now, everyone can get excited about the Zeiss AF lenses, but there are few of them and, of course, MF versions of some are available for Nikon and Canon now anyway, so that is not a reason to change if you love Zeiss.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with Sony, but they need more competitively priced lenses of "known" quality. The A900 body is excellent. I speak as an outsider looking in, mind so I am not familiar with all the old Minolta-era lenses, but isn't that the point? They need to convince me and others like me that they can seriously compete. I suspect that they will succeed actually, but I don't think they are there yet.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Robin, how many Zeiss lenses do you need if you are a Sony owner?<br />Basically, their current line-up --- 16-35mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 (jointly by Zeiss and Sony) -- is more than enough for any photographer. Who wants MF these days if AF versions are available? Zeiss has also now exclusive agreement with Sony.<br>

It is a matter of time when Sony, which has much deeper pockets than Canon and Nikon, catches up with them.<br>

Already, Sony has tripled its dslr sales since last year. Great numbers in times of recession worldwide.<br>

I am Canonite, but will definitely buy A850 because of Zeiss glass.</p>

[jet_tilton]

<p>Was walking through SuperTarget today, stopped by the camera counter, and played with an A330 on display. Not bad, definitely much larger than my Nikon d40. Since I've just recently acquired the d40, may even exchange it for the Sony, which I never would have considered before trying out the 330. I wanted to get the Nikon d5000, but I am having extreme doubts about Nikon, since there is a huge recall on the d5000's! It seems that canikon is so quick to introduce new models, they aren't even testing the models thoroughly before being introduced.</p>

 

[dustin_m1]

<p>Jet, if you think that the a330 is large, did you see the other models? I picked up the a330 and couldn't stand the feel of it and thought it was too small. I have the a100 and I love the feel of it, not as good as my Maxxum 7 but close enough. That a330 grip felt nonexistent, which seems pretty dumb to me as I would think that most people rely on that grip to, you know, grip the camera. oh well, I'm just complaining. I also checked out the other brands before buying a dslr, and Nikons were comfortable, Canons were NOT, and the Sony had me sold because all my Minolta lenses would still be used.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>You are right Robin, your perspective is complete nonsense. Minolta has always had a line up of professional quality lenses that were the equivilent of Nikon or Canon, bar a few of the more exotic ones like tilt/shift etc. Sony has continued that progress (no point going into the market and producing a pro grade body without pro grade lenses to match after all). In fact, one could potentially argue that Sony has pushed the boundaries a little more with the Zeiss stuff.</p>

<p>Just for your info Robin, the Minolta/Sony G lenses represent the pro grade lenses, which is a little confusing for Nikonians I know because the Nikon G lenses are the cheap stuff. But in addition to the Sony Zeiss lenses, there is also quite a few Sony G lenses as well. BTW Gurbally, the 70-200 is a G lenses not a Zeiss I believe.</p>

[lintrathen]

<p>Hi Dusten.... I also have the A100 and agree about the solid grip feel to it. I recently purchased the A350 (via ebay) only to find that it has a smaller grip area and have had to buy a battery grip just to add a bit of depth to the body for my large hands. It works well though.<br>

What is annoying with the two different models is that Sony have changed the battery design (shape) which means I have to have two of everything. Also (because of the design change) I cannot use the battery grip on the A100.... notwithstanding the fact that Sony has also changed the battery specs as well. In doing this, Sony appear to have "orphaned" the A100 certainly in the battery area.<br>

And yes, I know the A100 is a discontinued model.... but a great one at that. </p>

[ticktock_w]

<p>Just my comment about the lenses... how many lenses does one need? It seems like Sony alone has more than enough lenses, but I'm not a professional so I wouldn't know. Not to mention the Minolta and Tamron lenses that are compatible. I'm an aspiring photographer that focuses on portraiture, so I have a clear idea what lens I need, but I can't imagine anyone not finding what they need from Sony, Tamron, or Minolta lenses... regardless of what field they want to get into.<br>

Also, in just a few years, Sony expanded their line extensively. They have a lot more to offer compared to what they had 1-2 years back. I find myself visiting the Sony website and finding new accessories that I thought Sony did not have. It's only a matter of time till they come out with new lenses, models, accessories, so that Sony users don't have to use third party gear.<br>

Speaking of using third party equipment, that was a frustration I came across with my Sony. My hot shoe did not fit with my school's lighting equipment. I was frantically searching for an adapter on ebay, etc, but I had completely overlooked Sony's own adapter! It's a little expensive, but it's high quality and is guaranteed to work for years. So basically a Sony user can use the same third party flash/strobe/transmitters as Canon, Nikon, and our lenses are great! I really don't see any disadvantages to using Sony.</p>

[matsko]

<p>I just have my new SONY A700 for a month and a half; few days ago I start having a problems with play back<br>

function: only sometimes the images in play back mode start running with no control and vary fast, also it could happen to<br>

my menu options; normally one click of rear conrol dial give you one picture at a time or one menu option; and it happen<br>

only sometimes.<br>

hope somebody could help me<br>

thx</p>

[steve_s.1]

<p>Heard a lot of (IMHO good) comments on salescritters' lack of knowlege.</p>

<p>Another point: CaNikon generally have better (DSLR) wholesale channels. Broader, deeper penetration, and -- most important when it comes to in-store recommendations! -- more "incentives" to the stores & salescritters, to sell their brands. If (for example) Nikon is offering something ("points" redeemable for product, or free product, or cash bonus, or the like), to sell at least 50 of their dSLR's in a month, but Sony isn't... which does the salescritter have an INCENTIVE to recommend? Which to disparage?</p>

 

[roopesh_kelambeth1]

<p>Ultimately... it is the photographer who create the image not the camera itself... if you have the skill in you and if you know how play with light... the device is not so important… <br>

Don’t get yourself swayed away by the cannikon’s attitude… J</p>

 

[robert_mcbeth]

<p>Reading the comment i was going to write the same thing Roopesh its not the equipment that makes a good photo its the photographer.A lot of people buy expensive cameras thinking it will make them good photographers but it dont.I have an A200 its my first dslr and i love it and as an amateur i am happy with the results i get.I have seen lots of very average pictures taken with expensive equipment.But i do feel when i am out with my sony people with canon's look at it like a toy camera,but i dont care so dont let your choice of equipment be affected by fashion just keep taking good pictures.</p>