Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sony DSLR's?
- Thread starter Everythingisnt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And Nikon is a film SLR maker that got into electronics when going digital. Maybe that means Sony is more qualified than Nikon with regards to DSLRs? I'm still a Nikon user, though.
Many of you are showing your bias. I'd get that in check before giving advice.
if rumors are true on how most of the sensors found in cameras now are either made by Canon or Sony...i'd say you have nothing to worry about in regards to Sony hiking up her skirt and leaving. besides, their biggest consumer electronic competitor Matsushita (Panasonic) just entered in the dSLR foray so it's highly unlike for them to quit.
as for the camera itself that's all up to you. if you like they way they feel and shoot then by all means go for it. i wouldn't worry much about their quality cause their acquired lineage made some pretty good hardware.
as for the camera itself that's all up to you. if you like they way they feel and shoot then by all means go for it. i wouldn't worry much about their quality cause their acquired lineage made some pretty good hardware.
I have used a Sony Alpha A100 for about 18 months now and I'm pleased with it. I was a long time devotee to the Konica Minolta A-series prosumer cameras until my last one got struck down with the 'smearing sensor' issue. I bought the Sony because the control layout was virtually identical, and some pricey extras I already had, such as the remote, were compatible.
Pros:
Picture quality very good: 10.2 mp APS-C sensor is the same as used in the Nikon D200, a camera costing 1.5-2x as much. Of course, the post processing engine makes a lot of difference too, but garbage in, garbage out, right?
Ergonomics extremely good: dial on top gives access to most common features: metering, focus, white balance, ISO etc - this means no hunting through menu trees to make simple adjustments.
3D Tracking autofocus even on kit lenses is best in class - I have tested this at airshows with aircraft at 400 knot closing speeds. This thing does not compromise. Difficult to appreciate until you use it in anger, but very impressive.
Medium weight magnesium frame cloaked in good quality plastics make for a sturdy feel without too much weight. I firmly agree with an earlier poster: medium weight is better then lightweight.
Form is good - it fills a hand and feels secure when being held. I find the Canon hand grip too small and the camera feels a little insubstantial.
Sony have maintained the A-Mount made popular by KM, and years of legacy lenses are available very cheaply. Sony's pro lenses are pricey but compare well with the competition.
Card writing speed and battery life are both exceptionally good.
Cons:
Body not weather sealed.
Kit lenses are soft at all but mid-aperture, mid-range (eg f8 150mm on the 75-300mm), but are cheap to buy and give acceptable results until you make a comparison.
Parts of the body are cheaply built - the battery and card covers are thin plastic and very fragile.
I have a Sigma 28-200 that I bought off a friend a month or so ago. He had it on the front of a Minolta film SLR for twelve years. Auto focus and image sharpness are fantastically good. Just goes to prove what someone else said above - the glass gives the picture quality, the body is just a capture device.
EDIT: I forgot to mention one of the most important differentiators of the Sony - in-body image stabilisation. It's smart and effective and you'll be able to save a fortune by not having to buy IS or VR lenses, not to mention the hundreds of legacy non-IS lenses out there with very sharp glass that are being flogged cheap.
In summary, then, extremely good camera, but make an investment over and above the kit lens to unleash the full and very capable potential. Don't dismiss old glass - you'll be surprised at what quality you can get for pennies because you don't need IS.
Pros:
Picture quality very good: 10.2 mp APS-C sensor is the same as used in the Nikon D200, a camera costing 1.5-2x as much. Of course, the post processing engine makes a lot of difference too, but garbage in, garbage out, right?
Ergonomics extremely good: dial on top gives access to most common features: metering, focus, white balance, ISO etc - this means no hunting through menu trees to make simple adjustments.
3D Tracking autofocus even on kit lenses is best in class - I have tested this at airshows with aircraft at 400 knot closing speeds. This thing does not compromise. Difficult to appreciate until you use it in anger, but very impressive.
Medium weight magnesium frame cloaked in good quality plastics make for a sturdy feel without too much weight. I firmly agree with an earlier poster: medium weight is better then lightweight.
Form is good - it fills a hand and feels secure when being held. I find the Canon hand grip too small and the camera feels a little insubstantial.
Sony have maintained the A-Mount made popular by KM, and years of legacy lenses are available very cheaply. Sony's pro lenses are pricey but compare well with the competition.
Card writing speed and battery life are both exceptionally good.
Cons:
Body not weather sealed.
Kit lenses are soft at all but mid-aperture, mid-range (eg f8 150mm on the 75-300mm), but are cheap to buy and give acceptable results until you make a comparison.
Parts of the body are cheaply built - the battery and card covers are thin plastic and very fragile.
I have a Sigma 28-200 that I bought off a friend a month or so ago. He had it on the front of a Minolta film SLR for twelve years. Auto focus and image sharpness are fantastically good. Just goes to prove what someone else said above - the glass gives the picture quality, the body is just a capture device.
EDIT: I forgot to mention one of the most important differentiators of the Sony - in-body image stabilisation. It's smart and effective and you'll be able to save a fortune by not having to buy IS or VR lenses, not to mention the hundreds of legacy non-IS lenses out there with very sharp glass that are being flogged cheap.
In summary, then, extremely good camera, but make an investment over and above the kit lens to unleash the full and very capable potential. Don't dismiss old glass - you'll be surprised at what quality you can get for pennies because you don't need IS.
a lot has been said here and it's late in the night for me so I'll keep things short.
I have a sony a100 (same as above), played around with other sonys, nikon and canon.
Sony
Pros: good quality, I prefer sony, go to a shop and check it out hands-on and you'll see what i mean. easy to use interface, wow-factor, images are great - sharp, lenses are great. standard lens is 18-70. Live view is the most advanced out of the 3. rugged grip. BIG screens. cheaper than rivals. image stabiliser (super steadyshot)
Cons: lenses and accessories are expensive. there's no generics (i.e. flood flash, remote shutter), although there are some but not many. history is short (but you can refer back to minolta). weak flash (I suppose all standard flashes are like that).
Canon
Pros: people just use it. I cannot convert them to sony fans, dunno why, perhaps the history of camera-making. sharp images, accessories are cheaper and generics are widely available. live view is not bad.
Cons: it's canon. not that their bad... their standard lenses goes from 18-55, quite limited. looks bulky. expensive.
Nikon
Pros: also having a history, reliable, die hard fans out there love them. their lenses area really good (the add-ons), lightweight. shutter sound is soft, nice and small. priced modestly.
Cons: not so much wow-factor anymore (back in the film ages they're great), not all have auto focus bodies. standard lens also not great. grip isn't so good. I don't like the lens grip either. battery not so good. not all have image stabiliser.
To sum up, think what you like. i also had a choice between these 3, all with similar specs and prices, but sony won me because... all the factors just added up and it clicked.
you will get many canon/nikon fans that will tell you that they're really, really nice. so sit on the fence and go have a hands-on experience @ your local camera shop.
note: sony A200's grip is shallower than A100's. if you have long fingers you'll find that slightly annoying.
I have a sony a100 (same as above), played around with other sonys, nikon and canon.
Sony
Pros: good quality, I prefer sony, go to a shop and check it out hands-on and you'll see what i mean. easy to use interface, wow-factor, images are great - sharp, lenses are great. standard lens is 18-70. Live view is the most advanced out of the 3. rugged grip. BIG screens. cheaper than rivals. image stabiliser (super steadyshot)
Cons: lenses and accessories are expensive. there's no generics (i.e. flood flash, remote shutter), although there are some but not many. history is short (but you can refer back to minolta). weak flash (I suppose all standard flashes are like that).
Canon
Pros: people just use it. I cannot convert them to sony fans, dunno why, perhaps the history of camera-making. sharp images, accessories are cheaper and generics are widely available. live view is not bad.
Cons: it's canon. not that their bad... their standard lenses goes from 18-55, quite limited. looks bulky. expensive.
Nikon
Pros: also having a history, reliable, die hard fans out there love them. their lenses area really good (the add-ons), lightweight. shutter sound is soft, nice and small. priced modestly.
Cons: not so much wow-factor anymore (back in the film ages they're great), not all have auto focus bodies. standard lens also not great. grip isn't so good. I don't like the lens grip either. battery not so good. not all have image stabiliser.
To sum up, think what you like. i also had a choice between these 3, all with similar specs and prices, but sony won me because... all the factors just added up and it clicked.
you will get many canon/nikon fans that will tell you that they're really, really nice. so sit on the fence and go have a hands-on experience @ your local camera shop.note: sony A200's grip is shallower than A100's. if you have long fingers you'll find that slightly annoying.
I don't even like Nikon and I've read many reviews about the D3 in particular just to know about it at a technical level. My fellow Canon using buddies are confused when I read the specs off by heart when they know I really dislike Nikon.
It is a great camera and it ups the ante between them and Canon which is good for the rest of us.
Oh Hi,
I just the A300 with the included "kit" lens 18-70. I am buying the Sony DT 16-80mm (Ziess lens).
See here for review http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Carl_Zeiss_16-80mm/index.shtml
iPhoto does not currently read the Raw files (Apple released an update for the A200 and A350, but not the A300...weird as A300 is going to be a very popular model), but the Sony included software for the Mac seems pretty good and can export raw to iPhoto as a jpg. However not much need to use Raw mode, as the fine mode works very well.
Wow, people sure do have long memories bringing up the betamax argument. Go to the Sony website... they are pretty committed to imaging.
I like the camera, I also have the DSC-T70 point and shoot, I'll be taking both on my nine day trip in italy
-rollingstone
I just the A300 with the included "kit" lens 18-70. I am buying the Sony DT 16-80mm (Ziess lens).
See here for review http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Carl_Zeiss_16-80mm/index.shtml
iPhoto does not currently read the Raw files (Apple released an update for the A200 and A350, but not the A300...weird as A300 is going to be a very popular model), but the Sony included software for the Mac seems pretty good and can export raw to iPhoto as a jpg. However not much need to use Raw mode, as the fine mode works very well.
Wow, people sure do have long memories bringing up the betamax argument. Go to the Sony website... they are pretty committed to imaging.
I like the camera, I also have the DSC-T70 point and shoot, I'll be taking both on my nine day trip in italy
-rollingstone
hi rollingstone
I also have the T-70! (yes, we're all sony and apple freaks) I bought it along my A100 for point and shoot while the alpha is for more handling/pro shots. The T-70 is nice and small, fits nicely in my pocket along with my iphone.
I have a A100 with 18-70 and 75-300 lens, they're quite good, although Im thinking of getting the 18-200 and sell the two (or not).
here's a few pics... the alphas are A100/A200, the A200 is not mine. I'd really like to get a newer sony when the upgrade of the A700 comes out (with live view of course)... I'll wait a while for the price to dip a little first.
btw, the A100 grips better than the A200 - where you place your thumb, and the A200's finger grip is shallower than the A100... not that comfortable.
Attachments
When we had a choice of Sony A100, Canon Rebel xti and Nikon D (I think 50 at that time or 70? CAn't remember) I went for Canon Rebel xti, even I had some minolta lenses and a flash. Nikon was cheapest at that time (without a lens, in some kits with good lens 18-135mm it was most expensive), but if was very fast to focus. Sony felt good in hand, but it was 1'st digital slr for them and they didn't offered new lenses besides rebranded Minolta. Besides I hated menus. Canon felt good in hand, had familiar menus from point and shoot, had a lot of dedicated buttons, so I went for Canon. After some time I see that even currently Canon Rebel xti stack up very well against competition. Sony has new models. I tried some minolta lenses with my friends Sony A100. Menus were killing me, but when i figured them out I made some pictures. I can say that Minolta glass is good, but antishake features on A100 wasn't working all the time and I felt better with Canon. Yesterday I tried new Sony models in a store. They are better. There are more dedicated buttons, menu is a little bit better, they have some good features.
Wow factor? Who cares, you use camera to get pictures and not to get your buddies drooling. Fast focus (A100)? I think Nikon was faster. It was dead on every time (I took some memory cards to the store to test cameras).
I think Sony has a good future if they will continue to innovate. But don't forget Canon and Nikon who will not let their positions in SLR market so easy. Overall I would take Sony if I had a choice Sony and something else (no Nikon or Canon).
Wow factor? Who cares, you use camera to get pictures and not to get your buddies drooling. Fast focus (A100)? I think Nikon was faster. It was dead on every time (I took some memory cards to the store to test cameras).
I think Sony has a good future if they will continue to innovate. But don't forget Canon and Nikon who will not let their positions in SLR market so easy. Overall I would take Sony if I had a choice Sony and something else (no Nikon or Canon).
Also regarding lenses. It is much easier to find a deal on a used nikon or canon lens instead of sony, olympus, etc.
I have a nikon and an olympus dSlr. The olympus collects dust just because the extra gear/lenses have been more affordable for my nikon. The majority of pros are Canon and Nikon, as a result there is more stuff by them on the market, and available used, as the pros upgrade.
I have a nikon and an olympus dSlr. The olympus collects dust just because the extra gear/lenses have been more affordable for my nikon. The majority of pros are Canon and Nikon, as a result there is more stuff by them on the market, and available used, as the pros upgrade.
imagine an Apple iDSLR. gosh... in glossy white! o___o I'd love to have one
This is closest you're likely to get (Apple QuickTake - 1995)
Nikon also makes microscopes, for instance (not just the regular ones, also near-field microscopes). I'd say Nikon is an optics company, not a company that makes cameras.
And both Canon and Nikon also operate in the Wafer stepper market. (ok, they're number 2 and 3, behind ASML.
Cool cam! Happy to hear you enjoy it.
I hope Sony does very well. I'm sure they will. That grip on the A200 does look like a step back from the A100. Bad move, I think. There's also one less wheel "thing" (forgot the name), although it looks as though they added a few buttons up top.
that wheel thing is a "dial".
and yeah, the A100's shortcut to the dial is removed and the settings can then be adjusted more "software-ish". I actually like the rotating dial because I change the settings very often, like the flash selection, wirless sync, flash intensity, ISO etc.
and the quality has gone down. plastic feels "cheaper", that silver button is now black and the strap feels bad compared to the A100, although it is priced slightly cheaper thant the A100 when it came out.
Oh hi,
A recent post commented on the availability of lenses... There are a lot for the Sony due to it's Minolta heritage..check out this website...I love that the standard zoom lens for comparison is called the "beer can"
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=3&offset=40
And this seems to be the Sony Fan Boy website
http://www.alphamountworld.com/
I have done a lot of research on the Sony and I'm happy. I did get the Ziess lens today (that mentioned in a post a while back). Basically I agree with the plethora of reviews. I agonized because the 18-250 is getting excellent reviews also. I'm old school, so that just seems like too much spread... but maybe I wish I could be young again
Here is an ISO 1600 shot on the Kit lens (DT18-70). Some famous rapper that played at the party I was at. Given I was drinking, I'm pretty impressed...I used the live view feature while holding the camera above my head.
So I guess you all might as well consider me a Sony fan boy now...
-rollingstone
A recent post commented on the availability of lenses... There are a lot for the Sony due to it's Minolta heritage..check out this website...I love that the standard zoom lens for comparison is called the "beer can"
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=3&offset=40
And this seems to be the Sony Fan Boy website
http://www.alphamountworld.com/
I have done a lot of research on the Sony and I'm happy. I did get the Ziess lens today (that mentioned in a post a while back). Basically I agree with the plethora of reviews. I agonized because the 18-250 is getting excellent reviews also. I'm old school, so that just seems like too much spread... but maybe I wish I could be young again
Here is an ISO 1600 shot on the Kit lens (DT18-70). Some famous rapper that played at the party I was at. Given I was drinking, I'm pretty impressed...I used the live view feature while holding the camera above my head.
So I guess you all might as well consider me a Sony fan boy now...
-rollingstone
Attachments
Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi
You may be surprised to learn that Nikon is a subsidiary company of Mitsubishi corporation.
Sony, Nikon, and Canon are all Japanese corporations. The difference between Mitsubishi and Sony DSLRs is merely one of branding in this regard; Mitsubishi chooses to retain the Nikon branding on their camera products, while Sony chose to drop the Konica/Minolta brandings and use Sony branding.
What's the real difference? None. All three companies are Japanese imaging, technology and manufacturing giants, and will probably remain committed to the DSLR industry until "the next big thing" renders DSLR obsolete.
You may be surprised to learn that Nikon is a subsidiary company of Mitsubishi corporation.
Sony, Nikon, and Canon are all Japanese corporations. The difference between Mitsubishi and Sony DSLRs is merely one of branding in this regard; Mitsubishi chooses to retain the Nikon branding on their camera products, while Sony chose to drop the Konica/Minolta brandings and use Sony branding.
What's the real difference? None. All three companies are Japanese imaging, technology and manufacturing giants, and will probably remain committed to the DSLR industry until "the next big thing" renders DSLR obsolete.