# I don't get how people can say there's a better camera than the a33/a35 below $700...



## ConradM

The main argument I always hear is that the alphas lack an OVF which makes the 7fps worthless. Or something like that. 

Well now that spring is here, I've been shooting my kids a bunch I know that I would hate not having that 6 or 7fps burst. Oh and of course I have to mention how awesome it is that the thing continually AF's.


----------



## jaomul

Nice shots. It is a matter of opinion though about ovf and evf, so that's just the way it is.


----------



## Josh66

Not bad.  $700 is a pretty good chunk of money though.  I know I could buy a better camera for that (probably three better cameras).  Better for me is probably not better for you though.  

It's all relative.


----------



## ConradM

O|||||||O said:


> Not bad.  $700 is a pretty good chunk of money though.  I know I could buy a better camera for that (probably three better cameras).  Better for me is probably not better for you though.
> 
> It's all relative.



I'm talking new cameras for the new user.


----------



## ConradM

jaomul said:


> Nice shots. It is a matter of opinion though about ovf and evf, so that's just the way it is.



Yeah but it kind of bums me out that people write the evf off when I think it works fine for the average person.


----------



## Josh66

ConradM said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad.  $700 is a pretty good chunk of money though.  I know I could buy a better camera for that (probably three better cameras).  Better for me is probably not better for you though.
> 
> It's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking new cameras for the new user.
Click to expand...

New users can't use used cameras?  Just sayin' $700 is a lot, but not that much when it comes to cameras...  (Does a lens have to come out of that $700 too?)  You completely missed my point, BTW.

Just so I don't have to reply again when you still don't get my point - what is good for you is not necessarily good for me.


----------



## Derrel

I demo'd the A33 and A35 a year ago or so now I guess it's been. I thought the A33 was a neat, small camera. Nicer than I had anticipated it would be, and quite compact. Beginning within days, the Nikon D3200 with 18-55 kit zoom will be at Best Buy and other stores for $699. That means a brand-new Sony-made sensor of 24.2 MP and pretty darned good High-ISO performance, as well as VERY high-rez images, for just under the $700 price point. For the person who has no investment in another lens system, I'd say it's well worth a look if you wanna' be open-minded and consider all the options available. Again as I said earlier, the Sony A33 was, to me, a nicely-made camera with an appealingly SMALL size and weight. Good "feel" in the hand, and surprisingly fast AF. Decent viewfinder image.


----------



## DiskoJoe

a37 is coming out soon $599.


----------



## Kolia

To me its obvious those who critique the EVF haven't tried it.  I prefer it to the OVF I've had before. It covers more area, gives you more information, works better in low light...

Canon and Nikon will have to come up with their version of EVF to keep up.


----------



## rexbobcat

Kolia said:


> To me its obvious those who critique the EVF haven't tried it.  I prefer it to the OVF I've had before. It covers more area, gives you more information, *works better in low light*...
> 
> Canon and Nikon will have to come up with their version of EVF to keep up.



 &#3232;_&#3232;


----------



## unpopular

I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.


----------



## Derrel

Update: Late last week I went to Best Buy and checked out the new Nikon D3200 I referenced above in my earlier post...it has the, "Great new sensor, same tiny, crappy viewfinder!" (That's the new slogan Nikon has for the D3200... Ashton Kutscher can deliver that line with a perfectly convincing, yet just-ever-so-slightly mischievous smile that makes the soccer moms simply melt...)


----------



## unpopular

I checked out the VF on the a65, it was a nice departure from my a350 and the crapola you expect from an APS-C ... Still saving for the NEX 7 or maybe even a x-pro1. While I'm still weary of a pellicle, the viewfinder was nice, big and bright with lots of optional overlays.


----------



## kassad

Kolia said:


> To me its obvious those who critique the EVF haven't tried it.  I prefer it to the OVF I've had before. It covers more area, gives you more information, works better in low light...
> 
> Canon and Nikon will have to come up with their version of EVF to keep up.



I agree I would rather use EVF with bright 100% coverage than the mirror optical view finders in most camera in this class.    Compared to a penta prism I would rather have a penta prism than an EVF.


----------



## kassad

Derrel said:


> Update: Late last week I went to Best Buy and checked out the new Nikon D3200 I referenced above in my earlier post...it has the, "Great new sensor, same tiny, crappy viewfinder!" (That's the new slogan Nikon has for the D3200... Ashton Kutscher can deliver that line with a perfectly convincing, yet just-ever-so-slightly mischievous smile that makes the soccer moms simply melt...)



I hate to admit it, but the Kutcher ads turn me off of Nikon.


----------



## unpopular

Ashton should stick to stupid stoner movies...


----------



## KmH

Ashton laughs all the way to the bank. Cha-Ching!


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.



It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.


----------



## prodigy2k7

ConradM said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.
Click to expand...


They are popular for a reason. The reason is not because they are popular.


----------



## Steve5D

EVF?

OVF?

What are those? I'm a Canon guy...


----------



## prodigy2k7

Optical view finder
Electronic view finder


----------



## Steve5D

prodigy2k7 said:


> Optical view finder
> Electronic view finder



Got it; thanks!


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> I checked out the VF on the a65, it was a nice departure from my a350 and the crapola you expect from an APS-C ... Still saving for the NEX 7 or maybe even a x-pro1. While I'm still weary of a pellicle, the viewfinder was nice, big and bright with lots of optional overlays.



tHE NEX-7 is a good way to go. Plus check out this awesome mutha that have coming out for it! I would love some glass like this.

sonyalpharumors | Blog | New "Shenyang Zhongyi" 35mm f/0.95 for NEX is coming


----------



## DiskoJoe

prodigy2k7 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are popular for a reason. The reason is not because they are popular.
Click to expand...


well?


----------



## DiskoJoe

KmH said:


> Ashton laughs all the way to the bank. Cha-Ching!



You know he does.


----------



## kassad

DiskoJoe said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I checked out the VF on the a65, it was a nice departure from my a350 and the crapola you expect from an APS-C ... Still saving for the NEX 7 or maybe even a x-pro1. While I'm still weary of a pellicle, the viewfinder was nice, big and bright with lots of optional overlays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tHE NEX-7 is a good way to go. Plus check out this awesome mutha that have coming out for it! I would love some glass like this.
> 
> sonyalpharumors | Blog | New "Shenyang Zhongyi" 35mm f/0.95 for NEX is coming
Click to expand...


I really hope it's not only available in gold.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

ConradM said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.
Click to expand...


Conrad, I've seen you on here before now trying to create flame wars, you started off in the past with a  controversial thread  title and then seemed to disapear completely when the arguments began! Oh here we go again, another deliberately controversial thread title..


----------



## unpopular

prodigy2k7 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are popular for a reason. The reason is not because they are popular.
Click to expand...

It's not even true. Sony has been very successful with consumers and enthusiasts, especially given that they've only recently entered the market. Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class, it's unfortunate that the market has taken Sony elsewhere.


----------



## belial

Every camera especially entry level has pluses and minuses. if the pluses pf ypur body outweigh the minuses then you have a good body for you.


----------



## ConradM

Nikon_Josh said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why people feel the need to defend their cameras so strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about defending my camera. I don't really care what people say or think about my camera per se. I just think it's a shame that 90% of people moving from a P&S to a DSLR look past Alphas because of popular choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conrad, I've seen you on here before now trying to create flame wars, you started off in the past with a  controversial thread  title and then seemed to disapear completely when the arguments began! *Oh here we go again, another deliberately controversial thread title..*
Click to expand...


Not really, just stating an opinion.


----------



## prodigy2k7

> It's not even true.


Yes it is.



> Sony has been very successful with consumers and enthusiasts


I'm still waiting for them to go out of business. They make too many things!



> Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class


I can say that with just about any other entry-level DSLR.


----------



## kassad

Come on, people this Sony thread was going along so well.


----------



## Kolia

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> &#3232;_&#3232;



It does work better in low light. Granted it gets noisy when the signal is boosted but it is still brighter than the naked eye. 

Another benefit is when focusing manually. The AF will switch to the old contrast based focus measurement and will highlight in focus areas in the EVF. This works over the whole image area, not just the usual AF zones.

You can also zoom in areas (going 1:1 pixel from the sensor to the EVF I believe) to further make a fine focus. 

One might not like the Sony brand but these are definite pluses IMO.


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> *Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class*



Uh. No.


----------



## DiskoJoe

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. No.
Click to expand...


If you take price in as a factor then this statement could very well be true. Sony has price points that are hard to beat. The a700 was a really good camera and the a900 is a formidable weapon when strapped with high quality glass. The specs continue to get better. We are not speaking about entry level cameras such as your past a200 here. I know a few local pros that use A900's with Zeiss glass and get great results. I have also seen them use the new a77's and get great results. The nex-7 that Sony makes is great too. I read on the rumors site recently that it tied scores with the review of the new Canon rd mark iii. If that isn't enough to convince someone that Sony is really trying to up their game I don't what else to say. 

Plus check out this awesome lens they have coming out designed for the Nex. 

sonyalpharumors | Blog | New "Shenyang Zhongyi" 35mm f/0.95 for NEX is coming

They make a 50mm f0.95 too.


----------



## kassad

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. No.
Click to expand...


uh Yes, particularly the a700 certainly better than the 30D  and with the exception of Nikon's amazing AF comparable to the D300.


----------



## unpopular

I don't mean to start a war here. By most accounts the a900 was a decent solid body, and I don't mean to say they were THE BEST - because you can't really say that. These two bodies were good, they just were ... of course, it's worth pointing out that the a700 was really nothing more than the Maxxum 8D. The a700 has more in common with Minolta than it does with Sony.

But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)


----------



## kassad

unpopular said:


> ....
> But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)



Well said.


----------



## unpopular

prodigy2k7 said:


> Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that with just about any other entry-level DSLR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of these cameras were "entry level". Perhaps "professional" could be debated, but so could that definition.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Different strokes, different folks. Gimme an RZ67 over an A33 any day of the week.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-RZ-Camera-Outfits/1/sku-RZ019990521430?r=FE


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)



Oh that's right. I forgot I was supposed to be appealing to anti-sub-non-conformists like yourself. In that case, SONY R00LZ!@!@@!!!

If the A700, and the A900 were so revolutionary and yards ahead of the competition, why did the sales not reflect as so?


----------



## unpopular

I did not say that at all. I didn't say that they were better or even the best, or revolutionary. Though, I think Tyler, you're a better example of why they didn't sell than anything these cameras did or did not offer. They tried to jump in on a semi-professional level in a market known for inane brand loyalty.... I'm not stuck with Sony, I use Sony for a number of reasons including price. What attracted me to Sony/Minolta was the built-in IS which I haven't used that much because it relies on the a-mount.... But I'd use anything. I don't care enough about the brands or bells and whistles to be loyal to any one brand. Sony nor Nikon not Contax-Kyocera nor Wista nor Bronica nor any other camera brand I've used and enjoyed have given me anything worth serving as Ashton Kutcher for. I mean, i did... When I was like 15, and I thought Nikon rocked for no other reason than because that's what I happened to own.


----------



## o hey tyler

I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service. 

Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever. 

With the A700 going for $100 more than the 30D upon its release, there's plenty of reasons to go with the 30D.


----------



## DiskoJoe

unpopular said:


> I don't mean to start a war here. By most accounts the a900 was a decent solid body, and I don't mean to say they were THE BEST - because you can't really say that. These two bodies were good, they just were ... of course, it's worth pointing out that the a700 was really nothing more than the Maxxum 8D. The a700 has more in common with Minolta than it does with Sony.
> 
> But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)



Sony's camera line is basically Minolta with the Sony brand. I like Minolta though.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Sw1tchFX said:


> Different strokes, different folks. Gimme an RZ67 over an A33 any day of the week.
> 
> Mamiya RZ RZ67 WITH WAISTLEVEL, 127 F3.8 (77), 120 6X7 BACK, MEDIUM FORMAT SLR MANUAL FOCUS CAMERA OUTFIT - KEH.com



Well who would not take a mamiya over a a33? Thats not really a good comparision.


----------



## DiskoJoe

o hey tyler said:


> I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service.
> 
> Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.
> 
> With the A700 going for $100 more than the 30D upon its release, there's plenty of reasons to go with the 30D.



Your walkman eat your tape or something?


----------



## o hey tyler

DiskoJoe said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service.
> 
> Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.
> 
> With the A700 going for $100 more than the 30D upon its release, there's plenty of reasons to go with the 30D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your walkman eat your tape or something?
Click to expand...


No, I just don't have my head up Sony's rectum. Sony has wronged me in the past. Apparently they haven't wronged you, or you just haven't figured it out yet.


----------



## Derrel

Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.


----------



## DiskoJoe

o hey tyler said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service.
> 
> Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.
> 
> With the A700 going for $100 more than the 30D upon its release, there's plenty of reasons to go with the 30D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your walkman eat your tape or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just don't have my head up Sony's rectum. Sony has wronged me in the past. Apparently they haven't wronged you, or you just haven't figured it out yet.
Click to expand...


What exactly happened to you? I have to know now. I have never seen anyone hate a company so much.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Derrel said:


> Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.



They seem to be able to compete in the midrange as well and the high end. Wonder why Nikon decided to use their chips?


----------



## o hey tyler

DiskoJoe said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your walkman eat your tape or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just don't have my head up Sony's rectum. Sony has wronged me in the past. Apparently they haven't wronged you, or you just haven't figured it out yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly happened to you? I have to know now. I have never seen anyone hate a company so much.
Click to expand...


Betamax, mini disc, UMD, memory stick, root files on CDs, etc. 

Proprietary everything is stupid.


----------



## unpopular

o hey tyler said:


> I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service. Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.


Man, Tyler. Nobody likes the Maxxum hot shoe, but you must REALLY hate it! I wouldn't buy a new Sony DSLR either. They depreciate very rapidly and just don't make investment sense. I'm not really supporting Sony, at least not financially, by buying a used Sony camera. There really isn't anything proprietary on my a350 other than the hot shoe, which is more of an annoyance than a hindrance - and adapters cost like nine bucks domestic. The NEX series, aside from the 7, is another story.


----------



## unpopular

o hey tyler said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just don't have my head up Sony's rectum. Sony has wronged me in the past. Apparently they haven't wronged you, or you just haven't figured it out yet.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly happened to you? I have to know now. I have never seen anyone hate a company so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Betamax, mini disc, UMD, memory stick, root files on CDs, etc. Proprietary everything is stupid.
Click to expand...

What does MD and Betamax have to do with the a700?


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly happened to you? I have to know now. I have never seen anyone hate a company so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Betamax, mini disc, UMD, memory stick, root files on CDs, etc. Proprietary everything is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does MD and Betamax have to do with the a700?
Click to expand...


Nothing. It has everything to do with Sony's track record.


----------



## unpopular

Yeah. But I was talking about the a700 as a viable body, and nothing about Sony as a company. Sony also participated in plenty of other non-proprietary technologies, including bluray, iirc. And if you have not noticed, whenever Sony attempts proprietary technologies it fails miserably, so it's kind of beside the point.


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> Yeah. But I was talking about the a700 as a viable body, and nothing about Sony as a company. Sony also participated in plenty of other non-proprietary technologies, including bluray, iirc. And if you have not noticed, whenever Sony attempts proprietary technologies it fails miserably, *so it's kind of beside the point.*



No dude, that's totally the whole point as to why I won't buy into Sony's BS. Maybe it's beside the point for you, but not for everyone.


----------



## jake337

ConradM said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad.  $700 is a pretty good chunk of money though.  I know I could buy a better camera for that (probably three better cameras).  Better for me is probably not better for you though.
> 
> It's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking new cameras for the new user.
Click to expand...


New to me, is new to me.  Regardless of the age of said device.


----------



## unpopular

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. But I was talking about the a700 as a viable body, and nothing about Sony as a company. Sony also participated in plenty of other non-proprietary technologies, including bluray, iirc. And if you have not noticed, whenever Sony attempts proprietary technologies it fails miserably, *so it's kind of beside the point.*
> 
> 
> 
> No dude, that's totally the whole point as to why I won't buy into Sony's BS. Maybe it's beside the point for you, but not for everyone.
Click to expand...

The subdiscussion at hand is if the a700 and the a900 are decent bodies on a technical level. If Minolta made these bodies then there would be no politics and they'd receive the same kind of reception as the 7d had, which at the time was very positive despite relatively poor sales. Whether you would buy them or not has nothing to do with if they are "amongst the best" at their time and class. I don't care if you got burned by Sony. Nobody does. It's just spam.

Tyler. I like you enough; despite that you're completely nonobjective in these discussions.


----------



## DiskoJoe

betamax!!!!! LMFAO!!!!! Well I cant fault that logic.


----------



## jake337

I don't get how people can't see past what they have in front of them.  Technology based companies make stuff, which is then replaced by new stuff.  The cycle will continue and be endless.


----------



## Alex_B

very bad experience here with sony customer service in Europe ... for decades. That is why I would never buy a Sony. But that is just me and some people I know.With Canon and other brands this was a totally different world ( repairs, focus adjustments of lenses, and whatever ... always been treated very fair and professionally)


----------



## kassad

unpopular said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service. Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Man, Tyler. Nobody likes the Maxxum hot shoe, but you must REALLY hate it! I wouldn't buy a new Sony DSLR either. They depreciate very rapidly and just don't make investment sense. I'm not really supporting Sony, at least not financially, by buying a used Sony camera. There really isn't anything proprietary on my a350 other than the hot shoe, which is more of an annoyance than a hindrance - and adapters cost like nine bucks domestic. The NEX series, aside from the 7, is another story.
Click to expand...


Actually I like the Maxxum mount.   I use it for radio triggers easy on easy off.   Slide the trigger on, it locks into place automatically no thumb wheel to try to tighten or loosen up on you.   Push a button and it slides right off.


----------



## jfrabat

o hey tyler said:


> Proprietary everything is stupid.



Just a thought, but doesn't apple do the same and everyone thinks is the bee's knees?

I DO work for Sony, so I am probably a bad example, but even my brother, who is an avid Nikon fan, admitted that the A77 was a pretty slick camera.  I think the reason a lot of people buy Canon or Nikon (as their first camera) is because they ask someone they know is a photographer (amateur or pro) what camera to buy, and the natural choice for that person is recommend the brand he uses.  Ussually he uses that brand because (1) it is a good brand (seriously, all of the main brands producing DSLR are making good products), (2) they already ave an investment in lenses, which would require additional investment if they changed to a different lens mount, and (3) they are used to the controls.  But in all honesty, saying that one BRAND is better than the other, at least to me, is like saying what color is prettier (which, by the way, everyone knows it's green!).  You can argue that X model is better than Y model, but it's hard to make the point that brand A is better than brand B.  You can probably argue that brand A is better for XY purpuse, but not in everything.

Having said all of the above, I can tell you Sony is competing rather well (at least in my market, Central America) with Nikon and Canon, and I also can tell you that I found it curious that in the report WHATS NEXT on Digital Photographer (or was it Shutterbug?), many of the new technologies they see as standard for the future are already in production with Sony, such as the EVF.  I think EVF will eventually become the norm and OVF the exception as time goes by, we will see more and more cameras implementing this.  Of course, I think the EVF will also improve drastically to overcome most of the things people complain about it...  Another typical comment on Sony is that the glass is not as good as Nikon or Canon, but if you compare the G series or Zeiss glass, they more than hold their own (not to mention all the other third parties that make glass for Nikon or Canon that are lass now making glass for Sony as well, such as Sigma, Tamron, etc.).  Oh, and yes, there is a reason why nikon is using Sony's chips in their camera; if Sony's sensors were all that bad, I doubt such a well known, prestigius brand as nikon would risk using it.

Now, to the OP, I do think that Sony's entry level cameras are pretty good.  I compared my niece's Canon (dont remember the model, but it was also an entry level DSLR) to the A37, and the A37 stood its ground rather well.  I think the problem is that a lot of people make their opinion BEFORE they have personally tested the product, and base their opinions on what others have to say about it.


----------



## ConradM

Derrel said:


> Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.



That was basically my point. 

I have a friend that is replacing her dropped D3000 and she asked my opinion. She has a budget of about $1000 for a body and 2 lenses. I told her to get an A55, a prime and a zoom. The only thing that comes close is the D5100, but IMO the A55 is going to be better for stuff she likes to shoot like sports and video. It'll also be easier to use.


----------



## DiskoJoe

ConradM said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was basically my point.
> 
> I have a friend that is replacing her dropped D3000 and she asked my opinion. She has a budget of about $1000 for a body and 2 lenses. I told her to get an A55, a prime and a zoom. The only thing that comes close is the D5100, but IMO the A55 is going to be better for stuff she likes to shoot like sports and video. It'll also be easier to use.
Click to expand...


the a55, a580, d5100, and d7000 all have the same sensor in them. Some recent test shots with my a580 came out looking almost identical to those my gets from his d5100 except my camera cost less and had a internal focusing motor. *jfrabat *makes a good point about sony quality glass as well. G series or Zeiss are pretty hard to beat. The sigma and tamron offering as just as good as the ones made for other makers too.


----------



## bunny99123

I practiced for years with P&S, and with Photoshop was able to create some very good photos. I did research and had a budget of $700 cash to buy a camera. I went to a photography store and tried out Nikon, Canon and Sony. I look up the specifications along with using the cameras. There was not alot of difference in the specs or the pics that was taken for the same level of cameras...just price. I picked the Sony A35, because I got the basic kit (included lens) with bag for $550. I like the A35, because the pictures are very good for a beginner or someone that refuses to go into debt.  I have very small hands and the camera fit perfect for me. I can see that it would be a little small for a man with large hands. I was able to trade in my A35 and up grade for an A55 when the A57 came out for a very affordable difference. In the past, I had always owned Canon 35 mm cameras in the old days. The A33 and A35 is a good deal for a beginner, and affordable. I will upgrade in about a year or so to another camera, and I will purchase from whom produces the best camera for the best price. Technology is changing so fast, who knows who will have the better camera even in a year or two from now.


----------



## MTVision

bunny99123 said:
			
		

> I practiced for years with P&S, and with Photoshop was able to create some very good photos. I did research and had a budget of $700 cash to buy a camera. I went to a photography store and tried out Nikon, Canon and Sony. I look up the specifications along with using the cameras. There was not alot of difference in the specs or the pics that was taken for the same level of cameras...just price. I picked the Sony A35, because I got the basic kit (included lens) with bag for $550. I like the A35, because the pictures are very good for a beginner or someone that refuses to go into debt.  I have very small hands and the camera fit perfect for me. I can see that it would be a little small for a man with large hands. I was able to trade in my A35 and up grade for an A55 when the A57 came out for a very affordable difference. In the past, I had always owned Canon 35 mm cameras in the old days. The A33 and A35 is a good deal for a beginner, and affordable. I will upgrade in about a year or so to another camera, and I will purchase from whom produces the best camera for the best price. Technology is changing so fast, who knows who will have the better camera even in a year or two from now.



Would you switch brands if Nikon came out with a cheaper better camera down the road?
Just curious because it seems like that could be expensive in the long run. I have a little over 5,000 invested in photography - which isn't a lot compared to most. Probably 4,000 or more is brand specific gear. If canon came out with a better camera for less money and I decided to switch I would lose out. I would never recoup what I've spent on Nikon gear plus I would have to start all over. 

If you aren't really invested in your brand and only have 1 lens then I can see switching down the road without a huge loss. But then again that's just my opinion.


----------



## unpopular

Megan - as for me, someone who isn't 100% sold by Sony just yet, I don't think people would be into this kind of investment unless they're pretty happy with the brand they have. In such a case where Nikon made a better system, I think you'd have to weigh out the benefits. What if Nikon made a medium format system for less than $3,000? At that point I'd think that it'd be worth the jump, especially considering that you'll need new lenses anyway. But I think looking at all the money you had spent is kind of a bad way to look at it. The time you've used the equiptment should be worth something, and if it offsets any future benefit it was a good investment.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

When it comes to Ford vs. Chevy, or Canon vs. Nikon -  Sony is like a "Dodge" but can hang with the low-bottom end of the Nikons and Canons anyways....


----------



## unpopular

People keep saying stuff like this, but never succeed in explaining what exactly Sony lacks.


----------



## jake337

jfrabat said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proprietary everything is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought, but doesn't apple do the same and everyone thinks is the bee's knees?
> 
> I DO work for Sony, so I am probably a bad example, but even my brother, who is an avid Nikon fan, admitted that the A77 was a pretty slick camera.  I think the reason a lot of people buy Canon or Nikon (as their first camera) is because they ask someone they know is a photographer (amateur or pro) what camera to buy, and the natural choice for that person is recommend the brand he uses.  Ussually he uses that brand because (1) it is a good brand (seriously, all of the main brands producing DSLR are making good products), (2) they already ave an investment in lenses, which would require additional investment if they changed to a different lens mount, and (3) they are used to the controls.  But in all honesty, saying that one BRAND is better than the other, at least to me, is like saying what color is prettier (which, by the way, everyone knows it's green!).  You can argue that X model is better than Y model, but it's hard to make the point that brand A is better than brand B.  You can probably argue that brand A is better for XY purpuse, but not in everything.
> 
> Having said all of the above, I can tell you Sony is competing rather well (at least in my market, Central America) with Nikon and Canon, and I also can tell you that I found it curious that in the report WHATS NEXT on Digital Photographer (or was it Shutterbug?), many of the new technologies they see as standard for the future are already in production with Sony, such as the EVF.  I think EVF will eventually become the norm and OVF the exception as time goes by, we will see more and more cameras implementing this.  Of course, I think the EVF will also improve drastically to overcome most of the things people complain about it...  Another typical comment on Sony is that the glass is not as good as Nikon or Canon, but if you compare the G series or Zeiss glass, they more than hold their own (not to mention all the other third parties that make glass for Nikon or Canon that are lass now making glass for Sony as well, such as Sigma, Tamron, etc.).  Oh, and yes, there is a reason why nikon is using Sony's chips in their camera; if Sony's sensors were all that bad, I doubt such a well known, prestigius brand as nikon would risk using it.
> 
> Now, to the OP, I do think that Sony's entry level cameras are pretty good.  I compared my niece's Canon (dont remember the model, but it was also an entry level DSLR) to the A37, and the A37 stood its ground rather well.  I think the problem is that a lot of people make their opinion BEFORE they have personally tested the product, and base their opinions on what others have to say about it.
Click to expand...


Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).

All these bodies having the same sensors means what?  The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.


I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......


----------



## jake337

unpopular said:


> People keep saying stuff like this, but never succeed in explaining what exactly Sony lacks.



It must just lack a historical fan-base........


----------



## bunny99123

Yes, I would write off money spent on lens, because all technology depreciates as time advances. If it meant I would be able to keep up with other photographers, and that is how I make my living. It comes a time in a business to cut your loss and advance. We have paid over a couple of $1000 for computer and software and then repurchased again a few years later to keep up with graphic designs.


----------



## gsgary

jake337 said:
			
		

> Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).
> 
> All these bodies having the same sensors means what?  The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.
> 
> I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......



No Phase One IQ is what you want


----------



## jake337

gsgary said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).
> 
> All these bodies having the same sensors means what?  The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.
> 
> I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Phase One IQ is what you want
Click to expand...


Both?  The Phase One should mount to the P3 system as it accepts 3rd party backs!


----------



## Dao

bunny99123 said:


> Yes, I would write off money spent on lens, because all technology depreciates as time advances. If it meant I would be able to keep up with other photographers, and that is how I make my living. It comes a time in a business to cut your loss and advance. We have paid over a couple of $1000 for computer and software and then repurchased again a few years later to keep up with graphic designs.



You may not know,  not like computer equipment, the good quality lens won't depreciate much or sometimes it increase its value. 


2 to 3 years ago, a used Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens in great condition cost around $1300.  But now, it is hard to find one cost $1300.  They usually cost more.   And a new EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens cost around $600 few years ago while the used one around $500.  Guess what the price of a use EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is, around $600.


And I am sure a $1300 computer bought in 2008 may cost less than $300 now.   And I think for business write off, computer equipment only have 5 years. (please correct me if I am wrong). So I believe if  a business donate a 6 years old computer, it may not able to claim anything.  However, a 6 years old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens still worth at least $1300 if it is in great condition.  (even if the purchase price back then was lower than $1300)


----------



## DiskoJoe

2WheelPhoto said:


> When it comes to Ford vs. Chevy, or Canon vs. Nikon -  Sony is like a "Dodge" but can hang with the low-bottom end of the Nikons and Canons anyways....



d5100 and d7000 have the same sensor as the a580 and a55

the d800 has a sony chip in it

the d3200 has a sony chip in it

and the a99 that sony is developing will have the same sensor that nikon is using plus a 102 point af system

plus most people forget that when sony started to produce slr cameras they did not start from scratch, they bought out minolta which was an established camera manufacturer with a proven track record. So when you buy sony you are really buying minolta technology. 

As for lenses Minolta G quality glass is great and so is the Zeiss sonnar line that they produce. Plus with options such as sigma, tamron and tokina you can get great quality glass. 

Canon also has EVF in the works for some of their new line. 

So why are major companies such as nikon and canon using or adapting sony technology? Simple. Its good technology. 

Or do you think they should spend the extra money to develop their own technology so you can go purchase an inferior product with their label stamped on it?


----------



## DiskoJoe

Dao said:


> bunny99123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would write off money spent on lens, because all technology depreciates as time advances. If it meant I would be able to keep up with other photographers, and that is how I make my living. It comes a time in a business to cut your loss and advance. We have paid over a couple of $1000 for computer and software and then repurchased again a few years later to keep up with graphic designs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not know,  not like computer equipment, the good quality lens won't depreciate much or sometimes it increase its value.
> 
> 
> 2 to 3 years ago, a used Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens in great condition cost around $1300.  But now, it is hard to find one cost $1300.  They usually cost more.   And a new EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens cost around $600 few years ago while the used one around $500.  Guess what the price of a use EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is, around $600.
> 
> 
> And I am sure a $1300 computer bought in 2008 may cost less than $300 now.   And I think for business write off, computer equipment only have 5 years. (please correct me if I am wrong). So I believe if  a business donate a 6 years old computer, it may not able to claim anything.  However, a 6 years old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens still worth at least $1300 if it is in great condition.  (even if the purchase price back then was lower than $1300)
Click to expand...


You need to go update yourself on business depreciation. IRS depreciation schedules and salvage value are a couple key points you may want to look in to. You are kind of on the right track but it is a more exact kind of science then what you describe.


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> People keep saying stuff like this, but never succeed in explaining what exactly Sony lacks.



The only thing I've heard that has any kind of validity is the lack of an OVF. But that hasn't really slowed me down.


----------



## kassad

Sony is lacking in a few areas




Lenses.   While they do offer     lenses that 90% of users are looking for there are a few gaps either     in offereings or quality of those offering.   Like a 24-105 f4  Pro     level, any type of tilt shift, 400mm f2.8, some of the lenses are     older Minolta designs.  Most of these older lenses where deisgned     for 35mm film as a result lack modern coatings and can suffer from     flare and chromatic aberations.   Other lenses are simply behind the     quality of the equivalent of their Canikon counterparts. Ie the     70-200mm f2.8
Wireless flash control.   Sony has     simply continued to use the Minolta wireless.   The Minolta system     was ground breaking when it was introduced.   Unfortunately it     hasn't been supported or updated by Sony.   No IR controllers.   The     way you have to mount each of the flashes to the camera before using     them wirelessly.   The way the controlling flash can not be set to     not contribute to exposure.  (This can be done with a single flash     controlled by the pop-up flash, though you'll not find it in any     manual)  Why Sony doesn't advertise their system is beyond me.         Most people let alone most Sony users are unaware that Sony supports     wireless 3 channel ratio-ed   TTL off camera flash support.
Pro/Serious Amateur support.      Currently Sony does not offer any full frame cameras.  Sure the A99     is rumored to be announced soon, but we have heard that for 6 months     now.   While I'm sure at sometime we will see a FF camera, will it     be up to the quality of the Canikon offerings? I am certain we will     never see a true pro level camera equivalent to the 1DX or D4.       When a FF camera comes out will it have a solid selection of Zeiss     and G lenses to go with it?  What this means is a lack of upgrade     potential for users.
EVF/ SLT   While this is a point     of contention I feel that the EVF is a great upgrade from a small     dim penta mirror system offered on consumer level camera from     Canikon it really can not replace a large bright penta mirror.   The     A900 had the largest brightest OVF of any DSLR camera. That will be     thown away.   The lack of dynamic range that can be displayed in a     EVF will never be able to compete with a quality penta prism with a     transparent LCD overlay.
 

 Bottom line is Sony is competing for the lower end of the market.  Entry level customers.   There they are very competitive


----------



## unpopular

^^ I don't really think anyone at this point disagrees that sony is marketing towered casual to enthusiast users. It's unfortunate, because I think Sony started out with some really solid mid-end to higher-end bodies.


----------



## DiskoJoe

kassad said:


> Sony is lacking in a few areas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lenses.   While they do offer     lenses that 90% of users are looking for there are a few gaps either     in offereings or quality of those offering.   Like a 24-105 f4  Pro     level, any type of tilt shift, 400mm f2.8, some of the lenses are     older Minolta designs.  Most of these older lenses where deisgned     for 35mm film as a result lack modern coatings and can suffer from     flare and chromatic aberations.   Other lenses are simply behind the     quality of the equivalent of their Canikon counterparts. Ie the     70-200mm f2.8
> Wireless flash control.   Sony has     simply continued to use the Minolta wireless.   The Minolta system     was ground breaking when it was introduced.   Unfortunately it     hasn't been supported or updated by Sony.   No IR controllers.   The     way you have to mount each of the flashes to the camera before using     them wirelessly.   The way the controlling flash can not be set to     not contribute to exposure.  (This can be done with a single flash     controlled by the pop-up flash, though you'll not find it in any     manual)  Why Sony doesn't advertise their system is beyond me.         Most people let alone most Sony users are unaware that Sony supports     wireless 3 channel ratio-ed   TTL off camera flash support.
> Pro/Serious Amateur support.      Currently Sony does not offer any full frame cameras.  Sure the A99     is rumored to be announced soon, but we have heard that for 6 months     now.   While I'm sure at sometime we will see a FF camera, will it     be up to the quality of the Canikon offerings? I am certain we will     never see a true pro level camera equivalent to the 1DX or D4.       When a FF camera comes out will it have a solid selection of Zeiss     and G lenses to go with it?  What this means is a lack of upgrade     potential for users.
> EVF/ SLT   While this is a point     of contention I feel that the EVF is a great upgrade from a small     dim penta mirror system offered on consumer level camera from     Canikon it really can not replace a large bright penta mirror.   The     A900 had the largest brightest OVF of any DSLR camera. That will be     thown away.   The lack of dynamic range that can be displayed in a     EVF will never be able to compete with a quality penta prism with a     transparent LCD overlay.
> 
> 
> Bottom line is Sony is competing for the lower end of the market.  Entry level customers.   There they are very competitive



Bottom line most of what you said was garbage and you shoot sony. 

The zeiss lens are made for full frame as are the minolta lenses.  And the 24-105 f4 is not a pro lens. Check this out. Blows the canon and nikon versions away. 

sonyalpharumors | Blog | 500mm lens hands-on by Engadget.

The flash manual explains everything you just said and can be done with the most basic series they make. This cannot be said for canon or nikon. And you can use radio poppers for the flash just like with every other brand of camera.

Sony has had full frame cameras for years. The 850 and the 900. 

as for EVF it is still developing and will get better. It is the way of the future.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Also look at this lens from slr magic made especially for the nex e-mount

sonyalpharumors | Blog | New "Shenyang Zhongyi" 35mm f/0.95 for NEX is coming

35mm f0.95! Only other company that has lenses on the market with specs this good is Leica.


----------



## unpopular

What specifications are you talking about? Give me a big enough 35mm DCX and I could give you a 35/0.2. You'd have loads of CA and coma. But you'll get a 35/0.2 lens.

http://forum.xitek.com/forum-viewthread-tid-998029-extra-page=1-ordertype-2-t-1335492994.html

bokeh is hardly nokton...


----------



## kassad

DiskoJoe said:


> ....
> 
> Bottom line most of what you said was garbage and you shoot sony.



Yes I shoot Sony so what I have to say is not garbage.   It's not bitching because I don't like the PS3 or my walkman broke 25 years ago or I'm still pissed about Betamax.   These are the real concerns I have as a Sony shooter.   These concerns would not be present if/when I switch to Canikon.   I am not confident that Sony will suddenly start supporting pro/serious amateur level users.   Currently I'm not invested enough in any system to be tied to it.   Before I make that investment I want to be confident that the company will be there with the offering tools I'll be looking for in 5-10 years.   

Sony does not offer the tools I'm looking for in photography and with the track record of development in the last few years I'm not confident they will.

Sony makes some fine cameras.   Some of the lenses from CZ are amazing, frankly those lenses are why I hesitate to jump ship.    We'll see, rumor has it that Sony will again have a FF camera to their line up and that some of the Minolta legacy G lenses will be updated.   I wish Sony the best of luck, but Canikon offer the tools I'm looking for right now and I'm confident either of them will continue to offer those tools in 5-10 years.


----------



## kassad

Here is a Blog entry from Kurt Munger that expresses a lot of my irritation with Sony far better than I can.
Sony&#8217;s cameras and lenses by the numbers | Photo Jottings
Kurt has always been a great resource for Sony/Minolta users.   He's far from a  Sony hater which should be obvious from one look at his page.
Sony alpha DSLR, SLT and NEX lens and camera reviews


----------



## belial

DiskoJoe said:
			
		

> Bottom line most of what you said was garbage and you shoot sony.
> 
> The zeiss lens are made for full frame as are the minolta lenses.  And the 24-105 f4 is not a pro lens. Check this out. Blows the canon and nikon versions away.
> 
> sonyalpharumors | Blog | 500mm lens hands-on by Engadget.
> 
> The flash manual explains everything you just said and can be done with the most basic series they make. This cannot be said for canon or nikon. And you can use radio poppers for the flash just like with every other brand of camera.
> 
> Sony has had full frame cameras for years. The 850 and the 900.
> 
> as for EVF it is still developing and will get better. It is the way of the future.



All he said is Sony doesn't offer full blown pro level bodies. And they don't. 850 and 900 were still only mid range bodies. And it is good to know when you start to invest more and more on lenses that a flagship body is waiting for you at some point.


----------



## Omofo

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. No.
Click to expand...

what an educated response...


----------



## o hey tyler

Omofo said:
			
		

> what an educated response...



Educated response, or personal opinion? 

I'd side with personal opinion, like the rest of this thread.


----------



## deeslexia

I have an A290 which EVERYONE despises and I love it .
I have an A35 which MANY PEOPLE denigrate , guess what ? I love it .
... but then , I also have 4/3rds Leica Digilux 3 / Panasonic L1 ' boxes ' with minimal pixels , and I would never part with either .

There were always more competent cameras available at the price point , but they suit ME .

Which is sufficient .


----------



## jake337

o hey tyler said:


> Omofo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what an educated response...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educated response, or personal opinion?
> 
> I'd side with personal opinion, like the rest of this thread.
Click to expand...



It's more about the quality of light you are using than anything anyways....


----------



## cosmonaut

kassad said:


> Sony is lacking in a few areas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lenses.   While they do offer     lenses that 90% of users are looking for there are a few gaps either     in offereings or quality of those offering.   Like a 24-105 f4  Pro     level, any type of tilt shift, 400mm f2.8, some of the lenses are     older Minolta designs.  Most of these older lenses where deisgned     for 35mm film as a result lack modern coatings and can suffer from     flare and chromatic aberations.   Other lenses are simply behind the     quality of the equivalent of their Canikon counterparts. Ie the     70-200mm f2.8
> Wireless flash control.   Sony has     simply continued to use the Minolta wireless.   The Minolta system     was ground breaking when it was introduced.   Unfortunately it     hasn't been supported or updated by Sony.   No IR controllers.   The     way you have to mount each of the flashes to the camera before using     them wirelessly.   The way the controlling flash can not be set to     not contribute to exposure.  (This can be done with a single flash     controlled by the pop-up flash, though you'll not find it in any     manual)  Why Sony doesn't advertise their system is beyond me.         Most people let alone most Sony users are unaware that Sony supports     wireless 3 channel ratio-ed   TTL off camera flash support.
> Pro/Serious Amateur support.      Currently Sony does not offer any full frame cameras.  Sure the A99     is rumored to be announced soon, but we have heard that for 6 months     now.   While I'm sure at sometime we will see a FF camera, will it     be up to the quality of the Canikon offerings? I am certain we will     never see a true pro level camera equivalent to the 1DX or D4.       When a FF camera comes out will it have a solid selection of Zeiss     and G lenses to go with it?  What this means is a lack of upgrade     potential for users.
> EVF/ SLT   While this is a point     of contention I feel that the EVF is a great upgrade from a small     dim penta mirror system offered on consumer level camera from     Canikon it really can not replace a large bright penta mirror.   The     A900 had the largest brightest OVF of any DSLR camera. That will be     thown away.   The lack of dynamic range that can be displayed in a     EVF will never be able to compete with a quality penta prism with a     transparent LCD overlay.
> 
> 
> Bottom line is Sony is competing for the lower end of the market.  Entry level customers.   There they are very competitive



 I agree with all but would add there are some like me who don't like a camera with advanced features that will never be used. When I was looking to go full frame the bottom line for me was image quality. I am quite satisfied with my a850 and I am in no hurry to see Sony rush a camera to market. It seems Olympus has a new camera every month and Olympus faithful sell out and upgrade constantly. Sony shooters are patient and can get by just fine without upgrading every year. As far as the flash issue there are plenty of wireless options that fit my Sony camera and have never give buying flash products a second thought. I can count on my hands the times I have used a pop up flash. Pop up flashes are only good enough to get by and as far as using the pop up for firing other flashes the range there is a problem. Most good photographer are going to be using a pocket wizard.
 But yes Sony has a low end target market. As far as the EVFer I disagree with you on that one. It is a wonderful invention and works better than I thought it would when they first hit the market.


----------



## kassad

I highly respect your opinions Cosmonaut.


----------

