# Is Sony a good brand for DSLR's?



## settons (Aug 6, 2008)

Hey Everyone,

I was wondering what you thought about Sony DSLR's?  I went looking for a DSLR (my first), planning on purchasing the D80.  The sales person said that Sony A300 was a great camera especially for the money.  The live-view isn't that important to me (nice to have), but the anti-shock built into the body sounds really interesting.

I'm just wondering whether anyone has any opinions regarding Sony or whether I'm best to stick with a more well known brand like Nikon.

Please help!


----------



## benp2k6 (Aug 6, 2008)

I have the A-200 and really like it.  I have never owned any other DSLR.  The biggest problem I have run into is that there aren't as many lenses made for sony like there are for Nikon & Canon (there are some very sick lenses made for it, just not as many to choose from).  I personally like the interface of sony over others.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Aug 6, 2008)

From what I hear the Sony's are just fine....


everyone hear is going to tell you to hold and play with them both.... i guess that helps....


I would advise you to consider when buying a camera you end up buying into a system... If all you are ever going to have is one DSLR and one lens it really doesn't matter but once you start getting into multiple lens purchases you wanna make sure your in the right camp....


----------



## dEARlEADER (Aug 6, 2008)

benp2k6 said:


> The biggest problem I have run into is that there aren't as many lenses made for sony like there are for Nikon & Canon




this is kinda the point i was getting at....

if you are a cheap o like me you may end up supporting your lens habbit via the used market....  and when looking for used Canon and Nikon just have more out there...

if any of your buddies are into photography you may want match up with them so you can swap lenses etc...


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 6, 2008)

> The biggest problem I have run into is that there aren't as many lenses made for sony like there are for Nikon & Canon


Keep in mind that Sony bought out the photo division of Konica-Minolta...so the Sony DSLR cameras are currently compatible with modern Minolta lenses.  That does give you a fair bit of used lenses to choose from, but the selection of new 'Sony' lenses are limited when compared to the market leaders, Canon & Nikon.


----------



## overparduffer (Aug 6, 2008)

I also have an A200 and like it.  Bought it a few weeks ago... first DSLR.  Only negative I heard about it was the length of time between flash and shutter.  Of course now it seems like too many shots of my daughter are with her eyes shut or partially shut.  Not sure if it's the camera or just my awareness of it since that's what I was told.


----------



## bullitt453 (Aug 6, 2008)

I'm also an A200 owner and love my camera. I've shot with borrowed enrty level Canons (XTi & XT) and Nikons (D40 & D70). The A200 was far more comfortable in my hand than any of the others. They were all just too small for my hand, with the exception of the D70. The antishake built into the body was another good selling point for me. And, like Big Mike said, you can get used Minolta glass all the way back to the early '80s for the Alpha mount Sonys.

If you are truly interested in the Sony and don't care for Live View, then I would strongly recommend the A200.  They are pretty much the exact same camera with the exception of Live View.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Aug 6, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Keep in mind that Sony bought out the photo division of Konica-Minolta...so the Sony DSLR cameras are currently compatible with modern Minolta lenses.  That does give you a fair bit of used lenses to choose from, but the selection of new 'Sony' lenses are limited when compared to the market leaders, Canon & Nikon.



even with minolta backing some simple searching will show the sony/minolta combination has less than half of the raw availability of either canon or nikon lenses in the used market....

for example a crude search on ebay

canon lenses = 170

nikon lenses = 164

sony lenses = 25

minolta lenses = 42


not scientific by any point... but you see what i mean...


----------



## Crimsonandwhite (Aug 6, 2008)

I had the a200 and just upgraded to the a700.  The a200 is a very capable camera, in fact I can make you a great deal on an a200 with kit lens.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 6, 2008)

WARNING!  Non-technical rant about Sony follows...

Speaking entirely outside of technology, Sony is a horrible company with extremely questionable business practices.  Remember we all vote with our dollars, and if you buy from them you are basically saying you're ok with that.

Obnoxious sub-par incredibly expensive proprietary technology, root kits on Sony music CDs, investing major time and energy to make it basically impossible for people to legally own their music, while pirates can continue to get around it, suing kids and grandmas for file sharing, yadda yadda yadda.  The list goes on and on and on.

I used to buy Sony products for everything... need a stereo?  Hm, what does Sony have to offer? Ok, I'll buy that.  Need a TV?  A monitor?  A (god save us) phone?  Sony sony sony...

I, like many people, no longer purchase ANYTHING Sony.


----------



## sdowden (Aug 21, 2008)

manaheim said:


> WARNING!  Non-technical rant about Sony follows...
> 
> Speaking entirely outside of technology, Sony is a horrible company with extremely questionable business practices.  Remember we all vote with our dollars, and if you buy from them you are basically saying you're ok with that.
> 
> ...


I was the same and everything I owned was Sony, I then stopped buying anything sony and went the other way.
When buying my DSLR I spent a month looking at each camera, in Melbourne (Australia) there are about 6 camera store within 100 meters of each other. I went to each, spent about an hour and felt each camera, asked a ton of questions and went home, I read every review I could find of each camera (A200, 400D etc.) & in the end the feel of the sony was the way I went.
The only issue I have is the lack of lenses, yes Nikon & Canon have over 150, but I can buy Sigma who make some great lenses. 
I'm by no means are a Sony fan, but I'm in love with this camera and would tell anyone to at least look at the Sony cameras.


----------



## Sirashley (Aug 21, 2008)

Dude, Listen to us when we tell you that the a200 is a freakin awesome camera. I too am a noob, I had never owned a DSLR before, but I did a ton of research before I bought one. The best buy for the money is hands down the Sony and for a noob, it has all the features you'll need and then some. I have the a200 and I absolutely love it. It was between the D60, the Xti, and the a200. I work in the electronics department at my job so I got to play with each one extensively. The Xti was the first one I ruled out, it felt cheap to me (before all you Canon people kill me, its just an opinion...LOL...) I was down to the D60 and the a200, the D60 was 200$ more, and did not have the auto-focus motor built in. Also, the D60 is more compact, and I have big hands. Lastly, I am a noob, so after I read the reviews, I bought the Sony. 

If I had it to do all over again, I'd still buy the Sony. It really is a great camera especially if you are on a tight budget. Just my two cents...


----------



## TSelman (Aug 21, 2008)

My cousin has an old Sony Alpha, I saw it a week ago. They seems pretty good. I don't know how the lens compatibility is though.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 21, 2008)

Ive done a lot of research on entry level SLRs recently, and I went with the sony alpha a100. I think any camera in the sony alpha line looks good.


----------



## STICKMAN (Aug 21, 2008)

I have family members that shoot with the A100 and love it. I too have given it a once over and think it has some great key features. I shoot with a d40 and it seemed to be well paired with the a100. All in all there both great units that will provide for years to come hopefully. The biggest difference i notiice was sound, the a100 was louder then the d40 but sound aside neck and neck...........


----------



## icassell (Aug 21, 2008)

I had a ton of old Minolta MF glass  from my 35mm days and looked at the Sony for that reason.  Looks good, but decided to invest in new glass and camera so I bought my Canon.  I think if I had had a bunch of Minolta AF glass, I probably would have bought a Sony, but am happy with my decision.  My local camera stores always seem to have lots of old Minolta glass for sale.


----------



## pez (Aug 21, 2008)

I once worked for Minolta Corp. repairing SLR's, but always owned Pentax equipment. However, I always admired the Minolta stuff and would have bought a K-Minolta dSLR... except that Evil Sony bought them out!! So I got the Pentax K10.
That said, the Sony's are great cameras and get great reviews. The new A700 looks like it knocks out all comers in terms of bang for the buck! So I am conflicted.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 21, 2008)

At least in Germany, Sony appears rather horrible when it comes to servicing cameras, support.



manaheim said:


> need a stereo?  Hm, what does Sony have to offer? Ok, I'll buy that.



Denon!



> Need a TV?



Sony ...  But many winters old ... still CRT.



> A monitor?



Eizo!



> A (god save us) phone?



Siemens!


----------



## pez (Aug 21, 2008)

Much as I despise Sony in general for the above mentioned reasons, they replaced the CCD in my old Minolta A-1 out of warranty for free (although there _was_ a class-action suit, as I later found out...).


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 21, 2008)

pez said:


> Much as I despise Sony in general for the above mentioned reasons, they replaced the CCD in my old Minolta A-1 out of warranty for free (although there _was_ a class-action suit, as I later found out...).



Well, these things might be regional, but my parents were close to go to court when a service repair for a Minolta was messed up seriously and worse follow up actions ...


----------



## D-50 (Aug 21, 2008)

I look at it this way Sony makes all types of products, Nikon and Canon specialize in Cameras and optics.  In 50 years I would be amazed if Canon and Nikon are not making Cameras, however after this DLSR craze ends will sony stay in the market, will they continue to develop there brand and create better and higher end lenses? maybe maybe not.  Considering a DSLR is an investment and a quite expensive one (its nto just the first purchase but all the stuff you are goint o want as you get ino it) why not go with a solid brand that will stand the test of time rather than a company that sees a market segment they can be profitable in right now.  Who know maybe Sony will become the next leader in DLSR high end cameras but I doubt it.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 21, 2008)

icassell said:


> My local camera stores always seem to have lots of old Minolta glass for sale.



The pawn shops around here tend to have a good bit of Minolta AF glass.  Of course, sometimes it's attached to a film body, but that's hardly an issue since I still use film too.  With pawnshop prices, you're usually buying the lens cheap and getting the body free.

Until I needed something lighter than my 8000i for a hike, my StSi was more or less just a back cap for one of my lenses.  Now I use it for color while the 8000 stays with B&W.  Next time I run into a deal like that, the extra body will probably be used for B&W 100 since the 8000 always seems to have 400, and usually pushed 2-3 stops at that...not exactly ideal for bright sunlight.


----------



## Mystwalker (Aug 21, 2008)

Sony sure pack a lot of features for a lower price then Nikon or Canon.
Not sure you even need or care about those features though.
Nothing wrong with Sony, Nikon or Canon.

BUT ... if you look at all the camera/lens on sidelines of Olympics, I bet most (all?) of them are Canon or Nikon.


----------



## carolinasoutdoor (Aug 22, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Sony sure pack a lot of features for a lower price then Nikon or Canon.
> Not sure you even need or care about those features though.
> Nothing wrong with Sony, Nikon or Canon.
> 
> BUT ... if you look at all the camera/lens on sidelines of Olympics, I bet most (all?) of them are Canon or Nikon.


I bet you see a ton of "Coca-Cola" shirts, cups, cans, etc. as well. However, I'm a pepsi man myself.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 22, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> even with minolta backing some simple searching will show the sony/minolta combination has less than half of the raw availability of either canon or nikon lenses in the used market....
> 
> for example a crude search on ebay
> 
> ...



Not to mention that 1st party minolta lenses are rarely compareable to a 1st party nikon or canon lens.

Sony makes excellent cameras (heck they make most of the guts of the nikons as well), however the lens issue would be a deal breaker for me.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 22, 2008)

Sony = evil.


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 22, 2008)

carolinasoutdoor said:


> I bet you see a ton of "Coca-Cola" shirts, cups, cans, etc. as well. However, I'm a pepsi man myself.


 
I drink pepsi while using my sony.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 22, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Not sure you even need or care about those features though.



Sometimes I just like to sit back and push the button.  I've tested the "preset" modes, and often they're pretty close to what I would have done for normal situations.

It's also handy if I want to hand my wife a camera to use while I'm using a different one; I just tell her which little icon to turn the dial to, and when we go looking through the pics later, she's got at least some usable ones.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 23, 2008)

Ugh I hate when people say see how it feels in your hands. Well vertical shooting is VERY useful and if you have a grip for the camera, its much easier to grip, feels better, and the grip for my camera (XTi) is geared toward vertical shooting...

Everytime I take the grip off, it feels weird, once the grip it on, ooh baby....

I dont care what the camera feels like as long as its not horrible...


----------



## lukeap69 (Aug 23, 2008)

A200 is a good camera. I have 2 friends who bought them 2 months ago (both starting to learn) and both of them are selling them right now. It is just difficult to find lenses and if you do, most of them are more expensive than the Canons or Nikkors (at least where I come from) and not to many choices too.

Good thing is I have the Minolta 50 1.4 which they can use as portrait lens. But again, these are rare.

Personally, I like the A200 as an entry level camera (I have Canon system). And it is the cheapest kit you can find here.


----------



## Doug (Aug 23, 2008)

Back a few years I bought a Minolta Maxxum 9 to take on a trip The camera was used and a good deal. I also picked up some lenses. I waited and waited for minolta to come out with a digital camera (they were the last camera company to release a digital). I then heard that Minolta had merged with Konica, they came out with the Minolta/Konica Maxxum 7D and I bought one. I thought I'd use it for a while and when they came out with the K/M Maxxum 9D I'd get one. Sadly that never happened, Sony bought out K/M and came out with the A100.

I've been happy with my 7D and have only had one problem with it that Sony (through Precision Camera) repaired for free even though it was out of warrenty

At that time I heard that the K/M engineers were going to work for Sony. I don't know if they did. 

I like the 7D and it's ease of use, a lot of the options that the 7D had were carried over to the Sony. As for lenses they are out there but they are also becoming a little pricey, especially the hi end lenses. There aren't a lot of used Sony lenses.


----------



## epp_b (Aug 23, 2008)

The thing that might leave you wanting with IS/VR/AS/whatever built into the body is that you can't actually see it happening (other than a little digital guide telling you that it's working).  With Canon and Nikon where IS/VR is built into the lenses, you can see the frame becoming stabilized through the viewfinder.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 24, 2008)

epp_b said:


> The thing that might leave you wanting with IS/VR/AS/whatever built into the body is that you can't actually see it happening (other than a little digital guide telling you that it's working).



I've never found that to be much of an issue, since I tend to just pretend it doesn't exist at all, and do my best to stabilize the camera regardless of shutter speed, IS function, etc.  That way, I'm pleasantly surprised when the shot turns out better than I expected.

Plus, I don't screw up with my film cameras by getting lazy about steady holds.


----------

