# Why did you buy a Sony?



## EDL

What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?


----------



## Audible_Chocolate

Cricket...


----------



## Josh66

I needed another blu-ray player and didn't want to spend over $100 on it.  Sony was pretty much the only thing left...


----------



## EDL

Ok, I was talking DSLR....maybe I should have been more specific.


----------



## Dagwood56

a generous Christmas gift from my Uncle a few years ago gave me a one time only chance to get a DSLR, but there would not have been enough money left to buy even one lens, so since I had a minolta film camera and several minolta lenses, it was kind of a no brainer to go with Sony.


----------



## Derrel

My very first Sony was a Hi-8 camcorder that lasted about 18 months and cost $1299, 20 years ago. The eyepiece broke, then six months later it stopped working after very limited and gentle use. Fast forward 10 years, and I found myself in need of a portable CD player, so I bought a Sony Discman. The first one was marked Made in Japan, and was quite costly ($159 as I recall--this was before they were cheap!), and lasted for literally years, until it met its demise in a near car accident and was hurtled through the air for six feet and smashed into a hard surface inside the van, and broke. Subsequent Sony Discman players, made in Malaysia, lasted as little as three days, three months, and about five months. There was the red one, the yellow onem, and the gray one...all went teats up within a very,very short period of time, and all were bought when they were $49.99 at Fry's. So, basically, three POS Sony products, with $150 spent on utter junk. 

The Sony portable DVD player I bought for my son lasted about four months, when it just crapped out. That was when he was 5 years old, so that was 2008. That crappy DVD player is the last Sony product I think I will ever buy.


----------



## Crollo

somebody held a gun to my head and told me to


----------



## Designer

I almost went with Sony, considering I still have my Minolta and two lenses, but then I thought that since the lenses are over two decades old, I decided against it, and chose Nikon.


----------



## Josh66

Really, I don't think I have ever owned a Sony camera (I knew what you were asking, lol).  Maybe a camcorder, years ago.  But that might have been Panasonic - I can't remember now.

My main problem with Sony is that they insist on making you use proprietary _everything_, just to squeeze a few more bucks out of you.  All you are to them is a cash cow.

Granted, they wouldn't stay in business long if they didn't make money - but most companies try to do that without alienating their customers.

Sony is also the only camera manufacturer I can think of that wasn't making cameras in the film days (not counting video).  Maybe they were and I just didn't know (what does that say it that's true?)  That's not really a big deal, but it makes me question how much experience they have designing cameras and lenses.  When they acquired Minolta, did they also acquire all of their engineers (I don't know), or just the patents/drawings?


----------



## usayit

When I read the details of the acquisition of Konica-Minolta, they did acquire the entire division not just the IP.  Of course that could just be a marketing spin.   If so, they have a lot more past photographic experience then Panasonic.  A company that managed to create a strong presence in Micro 4 3 which is doing quite well in foreign markets....  beating out the NEX.   

I think Sony is messing up elsewhere.....  A company of that many R&D resources and a leader in the manufacturing of imaging hardware including sensors should be doing better... much better.


----------



## Josh66

usayit said:


> Of course that could just be a marketing spin.


I wonder how many lens/camera engineers were still employed by Minolta in 2006?  I mean, they were pretty much just making copy machines by then...  Would the 'talent' have stuck around that long with nothing to do, or gone elsewhere...?


----------



## dblaknaz

My first consideration is the company's quality systems track record. I  am working in a company that supplies parts to Sony. I know Sony is very  strict on quality and reliability control. So I trust the quality of  their products. For DSLR I started with A200. The price is very  affordable compared to other brands of the same specification. I like  the concept "In Body Vibration Control" (Super Steady Shot). I was able  to use my old Minolta lenses. I enjoyed using A200, I upgraded to A580  and A900 in combination with old reliable Minolta lenses.


----------



## MustangNic

Honestly? I found a new Sony A390 on sale for $250. Did a very quick bit of online research and thought it would suit me down to the ground for my first camera. Really enjoying it so far.


----------



## trojancast

Excellent sensors and flawless glass.  'nuff said.


----------



## ConradM

When I was shopping for my first DSLR with a budget of $500 I looked at the a33, the T3 and the D3100. I was initially going to go with the canon. While waiting for the canon rep at BB I spotted the sony and decided to handle it a little. 

Instantly the a33 felt great in hand. Much less bulky then the canon or nikon. Then just playing with it in the store it seemed easier to use. The flip-out LCD won me over as well. So I decided to hold off on the canon so I could go home and do more research. 

I quickly found out that for my budget, the sony just blew everything else away. The only thing negative that people could say about was the lack of an OVF. So I ordered the a33 that night and have been in love ever since.


----------



## kassad

Cost of entry.  Sony offers the best features for the price in the entry level cameras.   Outstanding finacing through the Sony store.  (atleast in 2008)


----------



## bunny99123

My first camera was a A33, and I upgraded to an A55. I too was sold on the feel of the camera, and when I compared the specs on Nikon, Cannon as well, for the price Sony was no brainer. I take beautiful pictures with it, and I love the fold out and flip LCD screen. Also, enjoy the 10 pics per second shoots.  It is not perfect a perfect a camera, and after reading specifications on other cameras, they too suffer where Sony is more advanced and vice versa.  I have film developed regularly at a local camera shop, and the employees have told me that Sony camera sells are higher than any other right now.  I saw a signature on someone's thread that said something like this, "the camera you have is the one you like." I agree with that. I don't know what camera I will have 5 years from now due to technology changing so fastly, but for the next few years this camera is well equipped to meet my needs. "Don't put down, what you don't own"


----------



## o hey tyler

My first DSLR was a Sony A200. I bought it because I was a total noob and didn't know what I was getting myself into. It had a CCD sensor when Canon and Nikon had already switched to CMOS. The noise handling was substandard and the AF was slow.The high price of lenses was another deterrent from staying with Sony. I should have done more research before buying a Sony. So I in turn made the switch to Canon and haven't regretted it.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Got my a200 cause it was affordable. Got an upgrade to a a580 because it has the same cmos sensor as the d7000 and all my lenses still work with it. Oh and who helped nikon develop the new sensor for the d800?


----------



## o hey tyler

DiskoJoe said:
			
		

> Got my a200 cause it was affordable. Got an upgrade to a a580 because it has the same cmos sensor as the d7000 and all my lenses still work with it. Oh and who helped nikon develop the new sensor for the d800?



Nikon developed and designed it. Sony manufactured it to nikon's specs with Nikon's steppers. AFAIK


----------



## DiskoJoe

o hey tyler said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got my a200 cause it was affordable. Got an upgrade to a a580 because it has the same cmos sensor as the d7000 and all my lenses still work with it. Oh and who helped nikon develop the new sensor for the d800?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon developed and designed it. Sony manufactured it to nikon's specs with Nikon's steppers. AFAIK
Click to expand...


I knew that would get a response out of you. Just a cheap poke. I did make sure to specify, "helped nikon." I was pretty surprised when I found out they had anything to do with it at all. Its definitely a good sign for Sony.

Most of my info is just from the rumors site. 
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-d800-with-sonys-36-megapixel-sensor-announced/


----------



## RobbyyKaiser

I got an a330 for christmas from my parents for a beginner 5 years ago that was an amazing beginner camera the only issue I had a problems with was the lenses were very pricey while so are other higher grade lenses like an "L" from canon after a while I discovered that you can get old manolta lenses which was kinda sweet then i out grew the sony and ended up buying a canon 60D with a few lenses but it was great I wish I held onto it for a simple 2nd shooter.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Does Sony make a full frame camera yet


----------



## Ysarex

2WheelPhoto said:


> Does Sony make a full frame camera yet



They have for years now.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

My was completely serendipitous; it was attached to the Zeiss lens that I bought.

Joe

P.S. Same thing happened with my Canon, as a matter of fact now that I think about it that's how I got my Samsung too -- there it was on the back of my Schneider lens.


----------



## Forkie

Unless I see photos of Kerri Doolittle taking photos of animals whilst talking to them in her law firm office, that post is being reported as spam.  You have 1 hour.


----------



## StandingBear1983

Ysarex said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Sony make a full frame camera yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have for years now.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Not Correct. there first Full Frame Digital SLR will be the A99 coming out this year :

Sony Full Frame Coming Soon « NEW CAMERA

Sony is going to challenge Nikon & Canon for the first time in the FF market.


----------



## kassad

StandingBear1983 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Sony make a full frame camera yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have for years now.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Correct. there first Full Frame Digital SLR will be the A99 coming out this year :
> 
> Sony Full Frame Coming Soon « NEW CAMERA
> 
> Sony is going to challenge Nikon & Canon for the first time in the FF market.
Click to expand...



Google a900 and a850  both introduced in 2008.    It appears they are out of production while they switch to the new FF camera.


----------



## StandingBear1983

ops my bad...seems like the A900 was a great camera for its time.
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Review: Digital Photography Review


----------



## DiskoJoe

They also have the a37 coming out which will be an entry level full frame camera. The A900 is still a great camera in capable hands especially when strapped with Zeiss glass. A99 should be a beast of a camera. 

Personally I just got my new a580 in the mail yesterday. That thing is a huge upgrade from my a200. I have to admit I really like having live view.


----------



## ConradM

DiskoJoe said:


> They also have the a37 coming out which will be an entry level full frame camera. The A900 is still a great camera in capable hands especially when strapped with Zeiss glass. A99 should be a beast of a camera.
> 
> Personally I just got my new a580 in the mail yesterday. That thing is a huge upgrade from my a200. I have to admit I really like having live view.



Isn't the a37 replacing the a35? Why is it FF? Link?


----------



## kassad

I think the a37 is a crop sensor.   There is a lot of talk of other FF from sony other than the a99  possibly a FF mirror-less and a 36mm x 36mm square full frame sensor.   Whether any of it comes true only time will tell.   Thje only thing that seems certain is no optical view finder.


----------



## DiskoJoe

I think I just read it wrong. They were talking about the a37 unveiling and full frame rumors. The full frame rumor was in reference to the a99. I could see this happening with the a99. 

sonyalpharumors | Blog | A full NEX-F3 and A37 and lens rumor roundup!


----------



## globalukk

For point and shoot you can't get better than Sony imo.


----------



## picman2

StandingBear1983 said:


> ops my bad...seems like the A900 was a great camera for its time.
> Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Review: Digital Photography Review



The A900 IS a great camera, now and it will be for many years to come.


----------



## smilesyota

I bought a A65 good camera, great video. Good sports and pet performance.   frames per second is great.   you can use the eye piece or the live view same speed! live view on other manufactures is a joke, so slow.


----------



## cosmonaut

I went to Sony because ithe a850 was a full frame camera I could afford. Plus lens selection. I plan to pick up their next full frame camera when it comes out. I have the Carl Zeiss 24-70mm lens. That is one nice lens.


----------



## TheBot

The trolls in here are outstanding... :|

I went w/ a Sony A350 because I had a few Minolta/Sigma lenses and it was a smart choice. Now I'm pretty entrenched in the damn thing. Battery grip, Sigma flash, etc. etc. I love the camera. Been using it since 2008.

Funny lots of people think you can only use Sony proprietary items on the Alpha series, but I didn't know you could use your Nikon lenses with Canon bodies


----------



## unpopular

I had my eyes on the 7D before sony took over Minolta's DSLR line. The a700 and the a900 were too expensive at the time, so I bought a a350. I plan to upgrade to the a700 soon.

But it was pretty much built-in IS that had me interested. No other feature, really.


----------



## TheBot

unpopular said:


> I had my eyes on the 7D before sony took over Minolta's DSLR line. The a700 and the a900 were too expensive at the time, so I bought a a350. I plan to upgrade to the a700 soon.
> 
> But it was pretty much built-in IS that had me interested. No other feature, really.



It is a great feature. I'd like to shoot FF but the price isn't practical for me at this time. A350 works great for everything I've done. One of the best purchases I've ever made.


----------



## unpopular

the a350 is OK. The finder is bad, like awful bad, and it's a bit noisy. The body is a little flimsy and never sat well in my hands until I got a vertical grip.

But, it does well, especially under ISO 400, and without it I'd never have made the jump to digital, in fact, I prob would have given up photography.

You should look into the a700. I think it's a good intermediate step between the a350 and a900, and they cost only about $500 now. Not full frame, but looks like a better body with significantly lower noise.


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> the a350 is OK. The finder is bad, like awful bad, and it's a bit noisy. The body is a little flimsy and never sat well in my hands until I got a vertical grip.
> 
> But, it does well, especially under ISO 400, and without it I'd never have made the jump to digital, in fact, I prob would have given up photography.
> 
> You should look into the a700. I think it's a good intermediate step between the a350 and a900, and they cost only about $500 now. Not full frame, but looks like a better body with significantly lower noise.



I like my a580. I have heard about some issues with the a700 that prevented me from getting it. The IS that is built in is pretty decent. I tested it against the IS that is built into my sigma lenses and did not notice any real difference.


----------



## unpopular

what issues have you heard about the a700? as I said, I am thinking about getting one, but all I am reading are old reviews by critics when it first was shipped...


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> what issues have you heard about the a700? as I said, I am thinking about getting one, but all I am reading are old reviews by critics when it first was shipped...



I heard that the adjustment wheel will start fruiting out and slipping when you try to turn it to adjust things like aperture. I have a friend that wore out two of them. This is after continued use but I have heard that from more then one person who used one. 

That a580 is really solid. More MPs, better ISO (up to 12800), amazing live view, still has OVF. I really like mine. Very solid camera.


----------



## unpopular

The 580 was my runner up. Still nervous about the pentamirror...


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> The 580 was my runner up. Still nervous about the pentamirror...



Dont worry. It works just fine. I should also mention that I can hit lots of night shots now hand held that my a200 would never have been able to do. Its solid trust me. My sony peeps all said this was the best aps-c that sony makes. I really like it. The colors come out rich and vivid and its a joy to shoot with. I do not regret the purchase in any way. You can hit iso 3200 with almost no grain. Even at 6400 you only get minimal grain and it bw its actually quite nice. I was shooting with mine at a club yesterday hitting shots in almost pitch black at iso 12800 and they look quite nice considering I didnt use any flash. 

This was one of my first shots with it. Very true to the scene. Even my wife loves my new camera. She doesnt do much photography anymore but even she was amazed how great of pictures she could take with it. The sigma 17-50 f2.8 I have on it at almost anytime doesnt hurt either. Lethal combo for the money. 




Houston skyline from George Bush Park by DiskoJoe, on Flickr


----------



## unpopular

Well. Being that it only happens to about half the cameras at about 18 months (it's several been years) and because it's an easy fix. I'll prob stick with my original plan. Thanks for pointing this put though


----------



## DiskoJoe

You should go check out one of the a580's before you commit.


----------



## kassad

I'm in a similar boat as unpopular.   Before I switch to FF I'm looking at the a700.   While the 580 is a great camera it just isn't an enthusiast body.   For me, I really want the 1/250 sec sync speed,  dual control dials,  that large pentamirror,  the larger more solid body, ratioed off camera wireless flash control and flash sync port.


----------



## Theochristodoulou

I bought a Sony because I had Minolta's for many years and already had some good lenses. I never got disappointed with sony. At the moment i use an A580 and a 16-85 CZ for most of my work. 
To my point of view cameras are just tools. Photography start with good lighting and then the visual image must be developed in our brain. Then a use of a good tool (camera) can help. But if the light is not good and there is not a clear image in our heads, even a super-mega pixel monster and super-expensive lens doesnt make any difference!  I find A 580 a nice decent camera.


----------



## deeslexia

It was certainly a compromise .
I bought the cheapest Sony A290 because my ASD likes the continuity and consistency from my Minolta 7000i / 404si days . I love it because it is uncluttered and free from those pesky ' features ' and accepts my little silver plastic fantastic 35-80 f 4 .
Obviously , this isn't for everyone 'cos I love the nom 50-120 crop factor .  
The latest A35 was more controversial as I bought it with another kit zoom and 55-200 . A Nikon D 5100 would have been the same price , with kit zoom only , and is known to be a better performer in many respects .
What swayed it for me is that I can use manual with the 35 f 1.8 , and some visual indication of the effects of exposure are apparent on the EVF . I also like the grid for composing .
It is also about the same size as my Minolta 404si - the nearest I got to a ' compact 'point and shoot , film camera .
Another factor is that I have just bought a Minolta 5000i with 35-80 f4 , early black version , 70-210 zoom ' beercan ' for £20 . The 35-80 sits permanently on the A 290 an looks the part . I love that enormous zoom ! With retirement , I can still look around for bargain lenses , just for fun .


----------



## aaronlecain

I got a Sony Walkman waterproof tape player that was awesome when I was a kid and I have enjoyed a variety of sony products. It was brand loyalty that told me to go with a Sony Alpha 77


----------



## Zess

Fantastic finder (until it gets dark) so I pretty much know what I'm gonna get beforehand
1080/60p video
Better peaking than any other camera I've used

My first DSLR was a Minolta 5D and I got it with the intention of
upgrading to the a65 which I now use for video and about 50% of my photogaphy
(the other half is my Minolta Maxxum 7 by default or w.e film camera I'm playing with that month)


----------



## Kolia

Zess, next time it gets dark, turn off the preview mode in the view finder...


----------



## skieur

O|||||||O said:


> Really, I don't think I have ever owned a Sony camera (I knew what you were asking, lol). Maybe a camcorder, years ago. But that might have been Panasonic - I can't remember now.
> 
> My main problem with Sony is that they insist on making you use proprietary _everything_, just to squeeze a few more bucks out of you. All you are to them is a cash cow.
> 
> Granted, they wouldn't stay in business long if they didn't make money - but most companies try to do that without alienating their customers.
> 
> Sony is also the only camera manufacturer I can think of that wasn't making cameras in the film days (not counting video). Maybe they were and I just didn't know (what does that say it that's true?) That's not really a big deal, but it makes me question how much experience they have designing cameras and lenses. When they acquired Minolta, did they also acquire all of their engineers (I don't know), or just the patents/drawings?



The Sony Mavica was the second digital still camera on the market after the Canon Xap Shot and BEFORE Nikon.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

I have to agree with skieur. 

Sony was pretty early in the digital camera market, and actually had many mid-level fixed lens units throughout the early 2000's. However, they lacked the infrastructure to offer a DSLR until the minolta aquisition.


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> I have to agree with skieur.
> 
> Sony was pretty early in the digital camera market, and actually had many mid-level fixed lens units throughout the early 2000's. However, they lacked the infrastructure to offer a DSLR until the minolta aquisition.



I get tired of this kind of attitude people have reagarding Sony camera equipment. The cameras are cheaper then most on the market and have the same sensors as other brands. The glass offered is great quality and to par with most other brands. I think its about time that Fan boys figure out what Nikon, Zeiss and hasselblad already have.


----------



## AngryBrit

I own an SLT-A55.  When looking at DSLR's I had my Price Range, around $700-$800.  My options.  Sony SLT-A55, Nikon D5100, Cannon T3i.

all 3 were around $700, when you compare Side by Side, the SLT-A55 takes it every time, Better ISO range, Better Image Quality, Faster FPS, GPS built in, Swivel LCD, the list goes on and on.  And I have not been disappointed.  The only issue I have is the 18-55mm Stock Lens, it's VERY cheap feel and it's very Small sweet Spot to get good images.  Looking to get the 30mm f1.8 Next (but got no money)

I bought the 70-300mm Telephoto, WONDERFUL lens  Wish the focus was faster and quieter tho, but for $250 it's quality is great.


----------



## unpopular

DiskoJoe said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with skieur.
> 
> Sony was pretty early in the digital camera market, and actually had many mid-level fixed lens units throughout the early 2000's. However, they lacked the infrastructure to offer a DSLR until the minolta aquisition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of this kind of attitude people have reagarding Sony camera equipment. The cameras are cheaper then most on the market and have the same sensors as other brands. The glass offered is great quality and to par with most other brands. I think its about time that Fan boys figure out what Nikon, Zeiss and hasselblad already have.
Click to expand...


It has been very clear though that Sony is not interested in the professional market. But I am not sure what this has to do with everyone else. I can think of only one or two people here who actually shoot a "no question about it pro level body", or ever would. For the rest of us Sony is an option that can be considered. Sony cameras reflect what sony has always excelled at: consumer goods.

Sony certainly COULD make a pro-level camera, and they do sell a lot of pro-level video equipment, and some might say that the a900 was there, though I am not sure it really compared to a D4 or 1D. Sony's cinema cameras also seem to be pretty well received, so I don't think it's a matter of Sony's abilities to produce "pro level" gear, but rather the photographic market's willingness to accept it.


----------



## jfrabat

The new A99 is targeted at ProSumer market...  I still do not think it goes all the way to a D4 or 1D level, but it certainly competes with the D800...  Less MP, but still offers some competitive advantages in other areas.


----------



## unpopular

No. I know. And the a900 competes with the 5D and the a700 with the D300. This market is exactly in line with Sony's target market, and I don't mean to say you "can't do professional work with anything less than a D4".

The 1D and D4 are mostly symbolic products, hence the phrase "flagship". Most people, professional or otherwise, don't use a $6,000 camera.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with skieur.
> 
> Sony was pretty early in the digital camera market, and actually had many mid-level fixed lens units throughout the early 2000's. However, they lacked the infrastructure to offer a DSLR until the minolta aquisition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of this kind of attitude people have reagarding Sony camera equipment. The cameras are cheaper then most on the market and have the same sensors as other brands. The glass offered is great quality and to par with most other brands. I think its about time that Fan boys figure out what Nikon, Zeiss and hasselblad already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been very clear though that Sony is not interested in the professional market. But I am not sure what this has to do with everyone else. I can think of only one or two people here who actually shoot a "no question about it pro level body", or ever would. For the rest of us Sony is an option that can be considered. Sony cameras reflect what sony has always excelled at: consumer goods.
> 
> Sony certainly COULD make a pro-level camera, and they do sell a lot of pro-level video equipment, and some might say that the a900 was there, though I am not sure it really compared to a D4 or 1D. Sony's cinema cameras also seem to be pretty well received, so I don't think it's a matter of Sony's abilities to produce "pro level" gear, but rather the photographic market's willingness to accept it.
Click to expand...



What nonsense!  You don't read much, eh?  The Sony A700 was directed at the semi-professional market and it has been used a lot in the real estate market.  The A77V  replacement is directed at the same market.  The A900 was the flagship unit directed at the professional market and the A99 is the replacement directed at the same market.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> ". Most people, professional or otherwise, don't use a $6,000 camera.



Too many people, professional or otherwise, buy a camera and only use 20% of its capability.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them. 

seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them.
> 
> seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.



Youre lucky if a realtor has a decent p&s.


----------



## unpopular

and you're unlucky if they don't have a bottle of scotch.


----------



## CP1

I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.

as for "most people" not using flagship cameras...I think that varies from city to city. Most of the professionals I know are running top models OR medium format cameras (super jealous of Hasselblads, I've only got to handle them, never take them home). I would say the consumer wouldn't be getting a D4, but the professional should consider it depending upon their market and *needs*. Also, most people don't use their camera's to the full potential...I agree, I see many of "professionals" using nice gear and getting junk results. The camera is only as good as the person behind it.


----------



## unpopular

CP1 said:


> I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.



Do you have any minolta glass you'll be getting rid of? I'm looking for the 24-50mm.


----------



## CP1

unpopular said:


> CP1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any minolta glass you'll be getting rid of? I'm looking for the 24-50mm.
Click to expand...


Haven't decided what to do with my glass, I'll be likely passing it to family who is still using Sony. I don't have the 24-50. I have the 50mm f1.7, 28mm f2.8, 80-210, 50mm f2.8 macro is whats left


----------



## unpopular

That 50/2.8 looks really nice. Would you suggest it to others? What are your thoughts?


----------



## Surrogate

Because it has never failed me I have a sony DSLR and its just simply amazing and I just love it. Never bought other brands when it came to buying a camera


----------



## skieur

DiskoJoe said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them.
> 
> seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre lucky if a realtor has a decent p&s.
Click to expand...


The realtor in this area uses a Hasselblad and virtual tour software which is perhaps why he sells lots of expensive homes.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

Yes skieur. Everything is better in Canada. We know.


----------



## panblue

I can't recall ever being "swayed" to buy a Sony over a Nikon or Canon. I bought a Sony DSLR which got replaced with a Canon, which got replaced with two Nikons, one of which was concurrently used with another Canon  What I dislike about the Sony cameras (digitals; 3 or 4, at the last count) is the colour is too saturated and the kit lenses are dire. The worst kit lenses I've ever used for CA, distortion and build quality. Years ago, I had a 707? or 717? with a "Carl Zeiss" lens. The lens was quite good optically but the imaging/sensor was rubbish. The 828 was better; the S85 was better also though IMO.



EDL said:


> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Yes skieur. Everything is better in Canada. We know.



Why don't you stop with the stupid posts!  Grow up.

skieur


----------



## dash66

My first Digital camera was a Sony - the Mavica MVC-FD73 which saved the images to 3 1/2" floppies. It was a good camera for me and lasted through some very hard use.  I then moved up to a Sony Mavica MVC-CD 500, saving the images to a mini cd.  The quality of the pictures that I got from that camera are what interested me in photography, rather than just snapshots.  It was a wonderful camera, but It got broken in one of my moves. I then got various cannon and Nikon point and shoot cameras, but was never satisfied with the quality of the product.  When I finally decided that I wanted to get a DSLR, I did a lot a research, and while I had wanted to buy a Nikon, as that was what my dad had when I was a kid, the value that Sony offered was too good to resist.  I have been very happy with this camera.  Eventually, if this photography bug doesn't die down, I'm sure I'll get a newer/more advanced model, but for now, it does almost everything I would want.


----------



## DonSchap

Okay, History lesson. Dial the calendar back to 2005, when I began to seriously look at the film to digital conversion, having really gotten into my photographic education. 

I had bought into the Minolta Maxxum camera system back in October of 1985 and it had true AUTOFOCUS. After years and years of having to manually focus the camera, this new autofocus system could do it in the dark (with the 2800AF or 4000AF flash added)! That was pretty novel, back then... and, of course, all the manufacturers went to it, after "The Mind of Minolta" stole the show. Okay, Minolta had something special to continue with and an expectation of greatness to uphold. That 9000 camera was so good and cheap to operate, back then, I was still using it for my schooling in 2005.

 Unfortunately, Minolta began playing around with the proprietary hot-shoe, back in 1995, and they lost a lot of interest in their product, as many people did not want to migrate from the standard ISO hot shoe and replace all their flashes to accommodate this new one. In fact, SONY has only just started to go back to the ISO hot-shoe, in the newest cameras. Regardless, in 2005, Minolta was bankrupt and sold itself off in a rather weird fashion to SONY, who had sat to the side and starved out Minolta to get their price. When the transfer finally happened, only about 65% of the Camera Division remained, as Minolta had begun selling off smaller, choice pieces to other interested parties. A lot of spare parts were lost in this and many unsold lenses went to SONY without any spare parts support. If your lens broke, they either replaced it or gave you your money back.

Okay, where I came in, I knew Minolta was "belly-up" in Feb 2005 and I still needed a digital SLR for school. I thought about getting a new Minolta 7D w/ Anti-Shake Technology, but with Minolta bust... getting that camera repaired, if it ever failed, just seemed impossible. Because of that issue, my decision wound up being either Canon's 20D or Nikon's D70s, back then. I actually bought both to look at and went with the Canon, in the end, returning the Nikon. I spent a carload of cash to outfit the Canon-system, with four 580 flashes, stabilized lenses and other Canon exclusive stuff, while all my nice Minolta Maxxum lenses sat idle in their cases. Meanwhile, going on in the background, SONY acquired Minolta's factory remains and they finally released the *SONY a100* in July 2006. I bought one the second day is was on the shelf and put it right up against the Canon 20D. 

Now, you must consider that the SONY a100 was a temporary camera to appease the disgruntlked Minolta folks. It was a "prototype" to the finalized *SONY a700* (which came out a full year later). The a100 was missing a lot of the advanced features, such as studio flash triggering and a vertical grip, but with "Super SteadyShot" inside, it gave me a lot more "keeper" shots than the Canon ever could, handheld, indoors. If you didn't have an expensive stabilized Canon lens on your 20D, you were, indeed, suffering. The SONY a100 gave stabilization to EVERY lens you mounted (zoom, prime, tilt-shift), even manual ones... for no extra cost! Hard to argue with that kind of bargain. In fact, it is because of the SONY a100 that _Canon_ and _Nikon_ had to reduce the cost of their stabilized lenses to something more reasonable. Cause and effect.

So, after having spent thousands in glass for the Canon-system, as soon as the *SONY a700* was released (Sept 2007), I began selling the Canon glass and flashes off and replacing it with SONY/Minolta *A-mount* equivalents. Within a month, I had every lens replaced and even had a couple new types, MACRO and Tilt-Shift. The a700's 12.2MP was more than a match for the Canon 20D/30D 8.1MP images. "Super SteadyShot" had made its point and I was looking forward to SONY finally delivering a stabilized FF-design. In 2008, they did. The *SONY a900* was released, but the $2999.99 price point was far more than many APS-C shooters could justify. The price was soon reduced to $2699.99, but still the migration to Full Frame was not happening. SONY then offered the a850 @ $1999.99 and it was, for the most part, a 3-fps a900. That did it and the a700 shooters made the leap. I along with them. Shooting Full Frame was almost "cost-effective." I say that because the cost per picture, in computer storage is a lot higher. Each Full Frame image is 24.6 MP... or about 18-32MB. That's a lot more than 12.2MP images. You had to grow your PC's resources to manage images that large, in speed, memory and storage. Going "Full Frame" is a big step up.

Anyway, in my opinion... SONY seems to still, to this day, be in need of learning still-photography needs from the users. SONY has always seemed to love their movies and little Point&Shoot cameras. They are not Minolta... and fail to understand the legacy shooters who are often incensed by the blatant disregard of requests made to the SLR camera division. Most photographers are not interested in the "latest" release of equipment, like the much younger P&S crowd is. These devotes are looking for the most reliable and flexible solution to their image-taking, especially the hobbyists. Most serious equipment costs thousands of dollars and you do not want to have to replace that, just because some manufacturer wants to try a new gimmick out. Obviously, it would empty a person's wallet out pretty quick and makes you quite humorless doing so. 

So, SONY bought the "alpha-mount" and was traipsing along, gradually adding new glass to the roster and retiring that which it could not support, due to the SNAFU that occurred during the Minolta Camera Division debacle. Then comes NEX and the "E"-mount. Panic quickly strikes the heart of all the A-mount crowd, as here comes another unasked for change. No one wants to give up their legacy glass and have to buy it all over, again, just to accommodate a new camera. Whatever boardroom decisions took place, a big sigh of relief was felt when the SLT change was all that we had to tolerate. It was still an Alpha-mount... and life could continue without the heartbreak of involuntarily retired glass sitting in some closet... AGAIN!

So, you ask... why SONY? I often wonder. They don't seem to listen very well.


----------



## unpopular

I agree 150% - I am very dissatisfied with Sony's decisions. I initially went with sony because I liked the Minolta 7D, and I am glad I got a a700 - but in a very short period of time, Sony really made a departure from Minolta in a way that I'm not entirely convinced of. If I continue with Sony, it will be an a900. It's like Sony had a bright future with the a700, a500, a850 and a900, but instead chose to go out into the weeds without any consideration to what most photographers really want.

Is SLT/EVF the future. Probably. Are there advantages in the weeds? Sure, I think so, and most who actually use SLT don't seem to have a problem with it. But the future just isn't 'here' yet, and Sony - nor Minolta - was never in any position to push the envelope and certainly not in the "our way or the Canon/Nikon highway" way that they had. We'll see what the full frame NEX/A-mount thing will look like.


----------



## rexbobcat

But didn't Canon do the same thing and everybody eventually got over it...


----------



## skieur

Some photographers are happy that Sony has pushed the envelope.  When Sony first introduced their implementation of Live View, many Canon and Nikon types were calling it a gimmick,..until it began showing up on all new DSLRs.  In camera HDR with adjustments, in camera panorama and multishot noise reduction are rather useful options as well.  The SLT has the advantages of far less vibration from a flipping mirror and therefore slower handheld shutterspeeds, a quieter shutter for churches and streetphotography, what you see is what you get in the viewfinder in terms of image, all adjustments can also be seen in the viewfinder, fast and continuous autofocus and no blackout when shooting at high speed.


----------



## unpopular

LOL - I remember reading that, that and the articulating screen - how it was such a gimmick. I was kind of scratching my head how anyone could see an articulating screen with live view as not useful.

As for slower shutter speed, idk. Any shutter speed that is so slow to be affected by mirror vibration would require a tripod and isn't going to be moving very fast. No mirror slap on hand-held seems kind of a non-issue provided you have MLU - maybe telephoto lenses on a tripod though? Quietness, I can see, especially for wedding and street photographers.

The EVF though has a lot of advantages, I think, provided that it's really as good as people say. But IDK, SLT still seems a bit like the worst of both worlds, and I am pretty sure sony will switch to mirrorless-only once the AF speed gets hammered out (and it will). Frankly, I think that this would be a good move.

Eventually everything will be mirrorless I think. As sensors get larger, mirror boxes will just be too large for photo journalism and general photography. Eventually we'll see a digital answer to the Mamiya 7. I just hope that these will be hybrid viewfinders.


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> LOL - I remember reading that, that and the articulating screen - how it was such a gimmick. I was kind of scratching my head how anyone could see an articulating screen with live view as not useful.
> 
> As for slower shutter speed, idk. Any shutter speed that is so slow to be affected by mirror vibration would require a tripod and isn't going to be moving very fast. No mirror slap on hand-held seems kind of a non-issue provided you have MLU - maybe telephoto lenses on a tripod though? Quietness, I can see, especially for wedding and street photographers.
> 
> The EVF though has a lot of advantages, I think, provided that it's really as good as people say. But IDK, SLT still seems a bit like the worst of both worlds, and I am pretty sure sony will switch to mirrorless-only once the AF speed gets hammered out (and it will). Frankly, I think that this would be a good move.
> 
> Eventually everything will be mirrorless I think. As sensors get larger, mirror boxes will just be too large for photo journalism and general photography. Eventually we'll see a digital answer to the Mamiya 7. I just hope that these will be hybrid viewfinders.



They only make mirrorless now. Well all new models are mirrorless at least.


----------



## unpopular

I don't consider SLT to be "mirrorless".


----------



## DonSchap

unpopular said:


> I don't consider SLT to be "mirrorless".



Semi-translucent technology relies quite heavily on having that 60/40 mirror in place. Without it, the continuous focusing element of the camera would not work.

SONY has departed DSLR camera design, though. That is very true. A lot of people are not convinced that the DSLT is a good change. My self among them, but it is the way that it is... and I still do not own one... and that is what it is. A major change has to occur, before I buy into this new technological approach to photography. If I made movies, that would be one thing, but... yeah, I don't. I am a still-photographer. Any movement in my photos is "supposedly" planned, for effect. You see everything in ONE SHOT.


----------



## goodguy

EDL said:


> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?


Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was


----------



## DiskoJoe

goodguy said:


> EDL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
> This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
> I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
> Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
> Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was
Click to expand...


You could have done like me and picked up a a580 that has the same technology as your d7000 and costs $400 less.


----------



## jfrabat

goodguy said:


> EDL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
> This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
> I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
> Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
> Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology?  What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT.  What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically?  Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...


----------



## goodguy

jfrabat said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
> This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
> I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
> Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
> Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology?  What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT.  What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically?  Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...
Click to expand...

My one and only problem with Sony's new technology is the 30% of light its loosing for the viewer.
For me low light performance is the most important thing.
I dont care about how its shooting movies or high rate of "Frame Per Second" its all about low light performance and while (from what I read) Sony's a65 low light performance is good it is still suffering from its inherited 30% loss.
I dont wish to anger anyone and dont want to start anything, I have the highest respect and love to Sony and think they make great cameras but the advantages the transparent mirror is not impotant for me and I am stuck with where its most important for me.
I made my choice going with a Nikon D7000 and while I am happy with my new camera I do miss my old a300, I miss it a lot!!!
If Sony in the future will offer a more standard DSLR I will be more then happy to consider it again. After all their sensors are the best and I am well aware the sensor in my D7000 is a Sony sensor.


----------



## ConradM

goodguy said:


> jfrabat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
> This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
> I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
> Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
> Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology?  What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT.  What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically?  Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My one and only problem with Sony's new technology is the 30% of light its loosing for the viewer.
> For me low light performance is the most important thing.
> I dont care about how its shooting movies or high rate of "Frame Per Second" its all about low light performance and while (from what I read) Sony's a65 low light performance is good it is still suffering from its inherited 30% loss.
> I dont wish to anger anyone and dont want to start anything, I have the highest respect and love to Sony and think they make great cameras but the advantages the transparent mirror is not impotant for me and I am stuck with where its most important for me.
> I made my choice going with a Nikon D7000 and while I am happy with my new camera I do miss my old a300, I miss it a lot!!!
> If Sony in the future will offer a more standard DSLR I will be more then happy to consider it again. After all their sensors are the best and I am well aware the sensor in my D7000 is a Sony sensor.
Click to expand...


IIRC that issue has been mostly resolved in the A99 and RX1. Maybe that will trickle down to the mid-level eventually.


----------



## unpopular

The a99 has to loose some light, the RX1 doesn't because it's a mirrorless. But all SLT's use up some light for the EVF. That's how they work, and there is no getting around it. Maybe the a99 has a more transmissive beam splitter, but nonetheless, the problem is absolutely intrinsic to SLT.

Also, it never was 30% of all light, it's 1/3 of one stop of light, so theoretically - 1/3 of 1/2 of the total light at the exit aperture of the lens, closer to 16%.

What bothers me about the SLT isn't so much that some light is lost, but rather that it is compensated post-exposure without option to instead bias the meter. If I could do that, then I'd be much more inclined to accept SLT.


----------



## goodguy

unpopular said:


> The a99 has to loose some light, the RX1 doesn't because it's a mirrorless. But all SLT's use up some light for the EVF. That's how they work, and there is no getting around it. Maybe the a99 has a more transmissive beam splitter, but nonetheless, the problem is absolutely intrinsic to SLT.
> 
> Also, it never was 30% of all light, it's 1/3 of one stop of light, so theoretically - 1/3 of 1/2 of the total light at the exit aperture of the lens, closer to 16%.
> 
> What bothers me about the SLT isn't so much that some light is lost, but rather that it is compensated post-exposure without option to instead bias the meter. If I could do that, then I'd be much more inclined to accept SLT.


I think Sony should also sell more traditional technology DSLR, they should continue making the transparet mirror and also have regular mirror cameras this will give Sony fans the chance to choose what they want and not be forced to choose wether to go with Sony or other company like I had to choose.
I was really sad to sell all my lenses that I already aquired in the 3 years I had my a300 and it took me a while to get used to my new Nikon.
I was so used to Sony and was comfortable with this brand I was not happy on moving to a new brand.


----------



## Mr_Mac

We bought our Sony because of an issue with a Canon Powershot we bought for my wife.  Seems the Canon was missing the battery charger and as the salesman went to try and find it I spotted the A35 kit for $299.  An interchangeable lens camera for under $300 seemed like a pretty sweet deal!  It wasn't until I joined this forum that I learned Minolta AF lenses fit the SLT which just made it better for us!  Now that we have had it a few weeks and I've gotten used to it I see myself ditching the Nikon idea and picking up an SLT-A65 since the wife wants to turn some of the shots into posters.


----------



## AdamJansen

I bought my Sony a350 due to getting an extremely good deal, but also because my friend shoots with a Sony and I figured he'd help me learn the controls. I also like the fact that you can use Minolta lenses, which have proven to be more cost effective during my learning stages. Why spend top dollar on high quality glass just to learn??  I'm happy with my purchase.


----------



## DiskoJoe

The minolta G series lens are actually really nice. But you cant beat the price of a good maxxum lens.


----------



## guitarsam120

Well i can tell you i got my sony because of what it gives. I am a young filmmaker/Photographer. I only have a summer job and i don't make a lot of money. I went shopping for cameras last summer and when i was searching it was only for cannon and nikon. Then  one day i was watching a movie and i watched to the end of the credits. At the end it said "Filmed with a Sony Camera". I was intrigued, so i looked into it. I though, "Well if they make professional cameras there other cameras must be good as well. SO i did a little more research and i bought the A65 sony instead of the T4i or the d5100. Best desition of my life. In my camera club i am in with a lot of older people they mocked me the first time i came out with them. After i showed them the Raw 24.3 megapixel photos they where amazed that there High-End Cannons and Nikons are not even coming close the the quality. I am able to take 10 pictures a second at 24.3 megapixels as well as buy old minot a lenses for cheap off craigslist and ebay. i have a set of 5 lenses from primes to zooms, as well as a amazingly fast minolta kit lenses that allows me to uses my cameras mirror focus tech to focus in faster then u could ever imagine. Wen i do sports at 10PPS, it auto focuses between each shot every time, perfection. Oh and the HDR, amazing as well. The camera can take a HDR handheld with no tripod. I have got a vertical grip, shotgun mic, and well as a minolta flash. Now if i had the money i would get a 5D but i don't. Maybe one day. But for anyone in the consumer and getting into the professional moneymaking photography world, Sony is the way to go. P.S:I only mention a few of the amazing features it has, go on there website and take a look.

-Sam Burton 
Rehoboth Beach Delaware


----------



## Heitz

My reasoning was this: 
Products Canon makes: cameras, lenses, printers, scanners, copy machines, etc.
Produces Sony makes: cameras, lenses, tvs, receivers, mp3 players, etc.
Products Nikon makes: cameras, lenses.

My thought was to stick with the company that put 100% of their R&D money into the one product class they do.  
I'm not sure my reasoning made sense, but there you go.

Plus, the Canon body just felt plastic-y.


----------



## Kolia

It would only make sense if we knew how much R&D money is being put by each company. 

100% of 20$ vs 20% of 100$ ...


----------



## shawnsmithphoto

The Sony rep was at Best Buy and talked me into it  Either way, I am a beginner and Sony seems more instructive than the others. Or at least I personally understand the menus and settings. It also has a built in Stabilizer I believe and that seems to help me since I am usually moving around more than the subject trying to get the right shot. As I learn more, I don't know if I will stick with Sony or go to Nikon or Canon....stay tuned


----------



## ConradM

shawnsmithphoto said:


> The Sony rep was at Best Buy and talked me into it  Either way, I am a beginner and Sony seems more instructive than the others. Or at least I personally understand the menus and settings. It also has a built in Stabilizer I believe and that seems to help me since I am usually moving around more than the subject trying to get the right shot. As I learn more, I don't know if I will stick with Sony or go to Nikon or Canon....stay tuned



Using a Nikon or Canon is weird after using a Sony Alpha when you realized you're kind of guessing how the picture will come out. 

Funny story about BB. I was there looking at all 3 brands before I got a DSLR and the Cannon rep was there. We were chatting for a bit when I picked up the A33. The thing that caught my eye was the live view and tilting screen. Then I looked through the eye piece and noticed the level. I asked the Canon rep why the more expensive T3i didn't have those features and she got mad. :lmao: It was a legitimate question too as I knew nothing about DSLR's.


----------



## ColRay

Why by Sony.. because I have several Minolta and Tamron lenes that work just fine on the Sony


----------



## Charmed

My wife bought me a Sony a200 for my 40th 3 years ago. It was my first DSLR. While out shopping yesterday she bought my a Sony a37, my first DSLT.
We have been talking about upgrading my camera for a while.


----------



## Nervine

After researching camera's for a few weeks I decided on the A55 as an entry level into photography. With no vision of what I wanted to take photo's of I have continually played with different styles. 

I was going to upgrade to the A77 however will wait to see what comes of the A78 in the next few months. 

Only downside for me is the lowlight but I can live with that.

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum


----------



## jamesthefotodude432

I wanted to get away from the bulky dslrs. At the same point i wanted a apc sized sensor and the ability to add lenses. I also wanted a viewfinder in the camera. These 4 wishes led me to the sony nex7. I kept my dslr for away but found that i was never using the nikon and when i did, i spent more times in the settings trying to get the same foto as i was so easily getting with the nex7. I was such a crazy difference in how easy and fast i got good shots with the nex7. I sold my nikon gear. When i wanted full frame, i bought the RX1.


----------



## anderj101

I used a friend's Minolta 7D and then found out that Sony had acquired the camera line from Minolta. I purchased a Sony A350 back in 2008, then sold it a couple year later in favor of the A300's sensor. Shortly after, I picked up a used Minolta 7D after finding that the lenses are interchangeable. Some years later, I purchased a second A300 as a backup. A secondary reason I chose the Sony Alpha is that I like the menus and control placement a bit better than the entry-level Nikons or Canons.


----------



## D-B-J

I didn't, I bought Nikon. But I think Sony makes the sensor... if that counts...


----------



## SDB777

I thought, hmmmm?  If the sensors in some top end cameras are coming from Sony(think Nikon), then why not just skip the middle man and get the better camera!



Scott (stirring quickly in this pot) B


----------



## D-B-J

SDB777 said:


> I thought, hmmmm?  If the sensors in some top end cameras are coming from Sony(think Nikon), then why not just skip the middle man and get the better camera!
> 
> 
> 
> Scott (stirring quickly in this pot) B



Just because they make the best sensors doesn't mean they make really good bodies etc.


----------



## JustJazzie

I bought a sony because I had an acquaintance who owned a NEX5 and the image quality compared to my old xsi just blew me away. While I love the features on my NEX-7, I cant say I am impressed with how it has held up. :-(


----------



## ConradM

D-B-J said:


> SDB777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought, hmmmm?  If the sensors in some top end cameras are coming from Sony(think Nikon), then why not just skip the middle man and get the better camera!
> 
> 
> 
> Scott (stirring quickly in this pot) B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they make the best sensors doesn't mean they make really good bodies etc.
Click to expand...


But they do. Sony is probably the only company innovating right now.

You've got an APSC mirrorless that AF's as fast as a DSLR (a6000), a full frame mirrorless that is the new lowlight king (a7s), the fastest AF APSC DSLR with the most AF points (a77 ii)... Meanwhile cannon and nikon keep putting out the same old stuff.


----------



## ZombieQueen

I got a sony A100 when it was released, it was my first... and still my only.. I HAVE NO MONEY.. ;_;


----------



## Actinia

I acquired a Sony A200 as a hand-me-up when my daughter moved to Canon. I later acquired a couple of Sigma lenses and eventually upgraded to a Sony A55. I have been very pleased with it, especially the GPS facility.


----------



## vvcarpio

A few years after it acquired Minolta, Sony had a really good deal on the A350 in 2007(?) so my wife bought the kit as a step up for us from point-and-shoots. We've stuck with Sony ever since, primarily because of the lenses we've accumulated. When we decided to go pro body, we considered Nikon and Canon but got the professional A77 instead. Great features aside, owning a Sony for me now is more of a statement.


----------



## sonicbuffalo

A friend of mine does a blog for cruisers.  His NEX pictures were flawless.  The sharpness and low light ability were awesome.  I went the knucklehead route anyways and purchased the best Nikon lenses (the Trinity), and a great 105 macro.  In the meantime, I realized we have a trip coming up next summer going to Europe.  I just didn't want to lug all the Nikon FX gear around, but I want great pictures.  I decided, after investigating, to buy a Sony A7 full frame, and thus my journey has begun.  So far, I love it.  My backpack weighs 20 lbs. less, and I have everything I need but a wide angle Sony lens.  Oh, and I also stashed some cash back in the bank from the sale of the Nikon gear.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK)

Just ordered the A6000, before i had an nex-5 and a nex-3n and i can say Sony has had the best build quality of any camera`s i have ever had.

John.


----------



## FilledwLight

I'm a disabled pro photog who has trouble squatting down to shoot or getting on a ladder.  Because Sony's cams can shoot instantaneously while using the screen, it was a no brainer.  I can now get the cam at eye level to a chihuahua (while bending or sitting) or as high up as I can reach and use the screen to compose. I've also found that I like the electronic viewfinder to get more information, as well.  It's definitely a matter of preference, as, despite those who must knock Sony to feel better about their camera choice, all the major camera companies make excellent bodies.

FilledwLight


----------



## avraam

Some models are less than a Nikon but have the same characteristics


----------



## PhilW

I started out in 35mm days with a Minolta X-700. Not long after I updated to the Minolta Maxxum 7xi and later to the Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D. Over that period I purchased some lenses to go with the cameras. Due to the lenses, I stuck with Sony and have had no problems with them. Due to lens compatibility on a specific lens purchased recently, I went with a Canon  EOS Rebel T5 as a secondary digital camera. The Sony A77 is my main workhorse now.


----------



## Watchful




----------



## wmurnahan

EDL said:


> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?


1st I could use the old Canon FD lenses that I didn't think I would ever get to use on a digital camera, second features like image stabilization with my old lenses, the Zeiss 55mm lens, FF, 24 mp. I have the a7II


----------



## Gilbertomartinz

Myself generally like Sony because it's clear, long lasting and up to date service.


----------



## lance70

I used both Canon & Nikon in the past and made the switch to Sony because of the size and weight along with image quality... been very impressed with it.


----------



## dasmith232

I like having first-hand knowledge.

Soapbox: I work with a lot of photographers in real-life and conversing over the internet. There's a general trend to dwell on things that are missing, wrong or inferior with things. Cameras, cars, wine, jobs, spouses (the list doesn't really stop). There's a video by photographer Dewitt Jones called "Celebrate What's Right with the World." I think it's worth watching.

Anyway, I got the a6000 based on recommendations. I like it. It does many things very well. There are things that the Sony does that no other camera does and that I like better. Likewise, there are things I like better about my Nikon (I love how configurable it is and how much control I can have). And Canon? Same thing. I just happen to have a lot more Canon stuff.

When I want small and light, I grab the Sony. When I want to use some amazing optics, I reach for the Canon. It's simply a matter of grabbing the right tool for the job.

When you have only one screwdriver, it can be used for many different jobs. If you happen to have a full set of screwdrivers, you're more likely to grab the optimal tool for the job as it's simply more enjoyable. And yeah, sometimes you *need* a more specialized tool for particular needs.

"It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools." Any of these cameras can take great pictures.


----------



## CherylL

I agree with dasmith when you want something small and light grab the Sony.  I have the Sony RX100iii and iv.  Use them primarily for video and time-lapse on vacation and local festivals.   They are compact, light weight and I think I blend into the background better when shooting video.  People don't pay attention since it is a compact.  If I am taking photos of the grandkids then I will go for the Canon.


----------



## bruced

Because I got a great deal on a used Alpha 300 with an 18-70mm lens and a 55-200mm lens.


----------



## Agrend7

I think this topic is quite good for my first post. 

In past I used a Nikon D300 and i was very happy with all that buttons and wheels for configuration. 

But then I sold it and bought a Sony A6000. There are two reasons for it. 
The first reason is the very good picture quality and the awesome 23 megapixel sensor. 
The other reason is: That the best camera is the one that you carry with you  

Best regards


----------



## TrolleySwag

Got an a6000 plua cash in a trade of my Canon 6d

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## orf

EDL said:


> What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?



It has a Carl Zeiss T* lens.


----------



## dkmi

In-body stabilization and the ability to use old Minolta lenses did it for me when I bought an a300 over a decade ago.  Crazy thing is that I never did bother with the Minolta lenses, or any other outside of the two kit lenses I bought with it.  Wasn't until that camera started malfunctioning that I started buying Minolta lenses.  I got a used a55 and started buying up cheap Minolta lenses and started paying more attention to trying to take great photos.  They're mostly good enough for me, but I really like some of those high end mirrorless like the A7R III.  But I've never been able to talk myself into spending the time and money to really get serious about it.


----------



## bigal1000

Small light and quality files............


----------



## RonAlv

I went with Sony, because of the FPS when I used to shoot high school women's soccer. Could not find a Canon or Nikon that could shoot 10 fps, without giving up my first born.


----------

