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.
Why no love for Sony?
- Thread starter adamvk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TuffLuffJimmy
macrumors G3
Because they're expensive, they're not as flexible as Canon and Nikon, most professionals have been shooting for years and years and already have a collection of Nikon or Canon glass, etc.
dukebound85
macrumors Core
firestarter
macrumors 603
- They're new to DSLRs (OK, they took over Minolta, but Minolta were always a small player). Are Sony in it for the long term? Who knows?
- Incomplete selection of lenses (tilt/shift and other speciality lenses missing)
- Incomplete selection of bodies (no waterproof/toughened pro bodies)
- They don't have the professional dealers and support network pros expect
- No lens or body hire available in big cities
- They've stuck too much to proprietary formats (hotshoe, memory cards)
- As a corporation, they've done some random and evil things (root kits)
Need any more reasons?
- Incomplete selection of lenses (tilt/shift and other speciality lenses missing)
- Incomplete selection of bodies (no waterproof/toughened pro bodies)
- They don't have the professional dealers and support network pros expect
- No lens or body hire available in big cities
- They've stuck too much to proprietary formats (hotshoe, memory cards)
- As a corporation, they've done some random and evil things (root kits)
Need any more reasons?
No. 🙂
I still they think they make nice cameras though, and I love my Sony A230. However, I'm not gonna lie, I'm considering buying another DSLR, and Canons newly released 18MP-1080P movie shooting shooting DSLR does look freaking awesome.
(http://gizmodo.com/5466616/canon-rebel-t2i-dslr-18mp-and-legit-1080p-video-for-899?skyline=true&s=i)
TuffLuffJimmy
macrumors G3
If you're serious about moving up in photography (upgrading your kit) then Sony is probably not a safe choice. They just like to screw people over too much.
TuffLuffJimmy
macrumors G3
Company in general. From their DRM to the rootkit malware to their general use of proprietary formats. They just suck for the most part.
pdxflint
macrumors 68020
Think of it like this-- Sony is a major movie studio, film distributor, they are a major, major record label, they are a consumer electronics company (tvs, dvd players, stereo equipment, walkmen, laptop/desktop computers, etc.,) they are a major game system manufacturer/seller... and, oh... by the way, they also make cameras, although it's a much more recent venture for them, and their higher end cameras came about by them buying Konica/Minolta. They do have resources, and can invent and make things. They even make sensors, chips and other kinds of things. But, what's their main focus, and corporate culture and identity? Are you, as a photographer, their main concern? Probably not.
Now contrast that with Nikon - much smaller company, primarily optic and photographic oriented. Cameras and pro systems are who they are, and have been for many decades. Canon, while a bigger corporation and making office equipment among other things, is also a long-time major photographic manufacturer, and have been with Nikon, the leaders in most SLR technology for pros.
Pentax is a genuine camera maker, but they're small and losing market share. It shakes out basically as Nikon and Canon if you are professional and are using dSLRs--probably same folks who would have been using their old 35mm pro gear, it's just an evolution of an existing corporate identity and mission. Sony doesn't have that.
Now contrast that with Nikon - much smaller company, primarily optic and photographic oriented. Cameras and pro systems are who they are, and have been for many decades. Canon, while a bigger corporation and making office equipment among other things, is also a long-time major photographic manufacturer, and have been with Nikon, the leaders in most SLR technology for pros.
Pentax is a genuine camera maker, but they're small and losing market share. It shakes out basically as Nikon and Canon if you are professional and are using dSLRs--probably same folks who would have been using their old 35mm pro gear, it's just an evolution of an existing corporate identity and mission. Sony doesn't have that.
dukebound85
macrumors Core
Maybe. But relative to this thread, their problem is they (still) lack credentials and credibility as a serious professional-level still camera company. Maybe someday, if they don't bail on the concept first...
compuwar
macrumors 601
Given the relative growth in market share, at this point, I'd put my money on Sony before Hoya/Pentax or Olympus- because I think in 2 years if we reach contraction either Oly or Pentax won't be in business- Sony will likely still be in business and while they're not making the strides they try to claim, they are gaining share. I think Oly made two mistakes- going small early (they can't go back and the D3s's publishable ISO 12500 isn't going to hit a 4/3rds sensor in the next 5 years,) and bringing a manufacturer (Panasonic) into their format- Panasonic can compete heavily on price in the 4/3rds market.
I also wonder how long Hassy and Leica can hold out. The FF high-res bodies are starting to encroach on Hassy and their margins have to have shrunk significantly.
Sure, Sony has dropped about a dozen product lines in the last three or four years, but I'm getting more and more certain that they're in it for the next decade at least.
Paul
panoz7
macrumors 6502a
In order for Sony to go appeal to the pro market they'd need to have the ability to for pros to rent their gear through out the county, some sort of professional service program like canon and nikon have, and a more extensive lens lineup. I don't see sony being able to compete with canon or nikon on any of those fronts, at least not for a long time. That said, I don't think that sony has any intention of going after that pro market.
In all honesty, if I was starting over again and wasn't stuck with all my canon gear I would likely go with sony. I like the ergonomics of their bodies and they have really good lenses at the focal lengths I use most. The proprietary hotshoe would probably be a pain, but having to use an adaptor isn't the end of the world.
TuffLuffJimmy: why do you think sony is too expensive? I'll admit that I haven't looked extensively at the prices throughout their line up, but from what I've seen they're comparable or even cheaper than the comparable canon or nikon. The A850 in particular seems like a great deal. D3x resolution for $2000 - seems cheap to me.
Also note that while sony may be the new-comer in the digital slr world, they're an established mainstay in the professional video world. They also manufacture many of the sensors used in other brand's cameras. I don't think they're going to drop their dslr line anytime soon.
In all honesty, if I was starting over again and wasn't stuck with all my canon gear I would likely go with sony. I like the ergonomics of their bodies and they have really good lenses at the focal lengths I use most. The proprietary hotshoe would probably be a pain, but having to use an adaptor isn't the end of the world.
TuffLuffJimmy: why do you think sony is too expensive? I'll admit that I haven't looked extensively at the prices throughout their line up, but from what I've seen they're comparable or even cheaper than the comparable canon or nikon. The A850 in particular seems like a great deal. D3x resolution for $2000 - seems cheap to me.
Also note that while sony may be the new-comer in the digital slr world, they're an established mainstay in the professional video world. They also manufacture many of the sensors used in other brand's cameras. I don't think they're going to drop their dslr line anytime soon.
firestarter
macrumors 603
I somewhat agree with you. Sony certainly has the size to survive - and if they have the will to keep pumping money into DSLRs, they will remain in the market.
They also do have some nice products. While their offering for pros is lacking (lenses, support, bodies), the A900 + a few zeiss primes is a fantastic and cost effective combination for either studio or landscape shooting.
I think their problem will be regarding the size of their organisation, bureaucracy and competing manufacturing units. Of all the manufacturers, Sony should be best placed to introduce combined still/video cameras, yet they seem to be holding back. Is there some internal wrangling in the organisation not wishing to undermine their video camera sales?
andiwm2003
macrumors 601
i have several sony cameras and like them. however many of the above comments are true. i have the feeling that sony doesn't really know how to position themselves against canon or nikon.
so they move into a consumer field and produce a lot of DSLR cameras for consumers but no real leading product line. the next few years will show if sony can build a consumer base with that strategy. as a consumer i don't mind.there are enough options for me. as a pro i would be confused as to what to expect. they have good cameras but you never know what their long term plan is.
aside of that i like many sony products (vaio, dslr's, point&shoot) but i dislike the company because of malware, rootkit, drm, memory stick and such.
so they move into a consumer field and produce a lot of DSLR cameras for consumers but no real leading product line. the next few years will show if sony can build a consumer base with that strategy. as a consumer i don't mind.there are enough options for me. as a pro i would be confused as to what to expect. they have good cameras but you never know what their long term plan is.
aside of that i like many sony products (vaio, dslr's, point&shoot) but i dislike the company because of malware, rootkit, drm, memory stick and such.
Phrasikleia
macrumors 601
If there's one company that seems universally scorned even more than Canon, it's Sony. I think that's a real pity because I would like to see Sony (and Pentax for that matter) put more pressure on Canon and Nikon. It's also a bit ironic that most Nikon sensors (if I'm not mistaken) are manufactured by Sony.
It is curious, as someone pointed out above, that a company with such incredible resources failed to take the lead in V-SLR development, but they have put forth some innovation that bodes well for the future, notably the first ever stabilized full-frame body. Perhaps they just need some time to develop a deeper catalog of lenses and accessories in order to lure more people to the brand. I really hope they do it.
It is curious, as someone pointed out above, that a company with such incredible resources failed to take the lead in V-SLR development, but they have put forth some innovation that bodes well for the future, notably the first ever stabilized full-frame body. Perhaps they just need some time to develop a deeper catalog of lenses and accessories in order to lure more people to the brand. I really hope they do it.
Sony does make good cameras, just not good enough. There are a number of reasons why pros don't typically use them.
1. Most pros stick with either Canon or Nikon. Most of them have thousands of dollars invested in lenses and would not make the move to Sony without a compelling reason.
2. Sony's cameras are good, but not great. They still lag behind Canon/Nikon when it comes to high ISO performance, video and image stabilization(most pros prefer optical over sensor stabilization)
3. Sony's lens selection isn't as large or of the same quality as Nikon and Canon.
1. Most pros stick with either Canon or Nikon. Most of them have thousands of dollars invested in lenses and would not make the move to Sony without a compelling reason.
2. Sony's cameras are good, but not great. They still lag behind Canon/Nikon when it comes to high ISO performance, video and image stabilization(most pros prefer optical over sensor stabilization)
3. Sony's lens selection isn't as large or of the same quality as Nikon and Canon.
Yeah, it really depends on what type of photography you do. 99% of photojournalists use either Canon, Nikon or Leica.
The FF Sony could be a very nice camera for a fashion or wedding photographer though...
The small savings that the Sony FF provides really won't make much of a difference to a full time professional photographer. If they have a collection of Canon or Nikon lenses, it would take a whole lot more than that to make them switch.
Phrasikleia
macrumors 601
I don't think Sony's future lies with switchers. They need to bring in younger photographers and get them invested in the brand so that when they become established pros, they'll stick with Sony. And that's probably Sony's strategy, since they've been putting out relatively inexpensive camera bodies.
A little bit misleading... some of the Nikon dSLR sensors are based on Sony's but the ultimate design is Nikon. I know you wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that Nikon is just pulling plain old Sony sensors off the shelf for their upper end cameras.
Phrasikleia
macrumors 601
I don't know if it's the case for all Nikon sensors (probably not), but apparently the Pentax K-x and the Nikon D5000 contain the same Sony sensor (and the Sony a500 possibly has that same sensor too). So at least in this one case, there is some sort of "off-the-shelf" sensor going around--and what a remarkable sensor it is, showing the best results of any APS-C sensor on the market for dynamic range.
I agree for the most part but their SLR range uses Compact Flash and has good backward compatibility with Minolta kit. It does seem like Sony are "playing the game" with their SLR range. Maybe they feel they need to get a good foot in the door. Although who knows what they'll do in the future.
Their cameras are generally well reviewed and they're pretty good value compared to the competition. Just my 2 cents.