OK here we go.........DSLR's Sony?

Question

Yes I own Canons, Minoltas and Sonys.......yes I hire Nikons sometimes (for a particular lens), yes I hire medium formats sometimes.

Yes I do Camera Operate for TV. - - using the best HD Sonys available.

So here we go, the sony A100 or Alpha to some.

Why when it was the Minolta D7 did people rate it, now it says Sony thet dont? Practical Photography rate it the best DSLR one month and 7th the next? (thanks Dr Sam)

Those that write Sony off have you ever considered Sony are the leaders in Pro TV/video cams. Sony are a serious company, they are in bed with Zeiss - who make the best TV cam lenses.

Being in the know, I know Sony have serious plans for still cams. If you have heard of Zeiss then you will know the top lenses in the range are sharp as.

Do people really think Sony are going to stop at the A100, are they content being ignorant as to the future of DSLR?

So lets see who gets what I'm saying and lets see who keeps the "blinkers" on?

Answer 1

I definitely think there's room in the market for more than a "Two party system"

The in camera image stabilization sounds great (not having to buy IS on each lens....), but I'm made to understand its not quite as effective as in-lens IS (yet?). Also: the fact that the Sony system utilizes all of those great old Minolta/Zeiss lenses of yore is a huge benefit.

Pentax has also been doing interesting things lately.

I'll stick to Canon for now, as it an Nikon are more mature SLR systems with a greater variety of professional-grade options. However, I don't think any sensible person would discount the ability of a company with Sony's resources from becoming a force in the DSLR market, professional and consumer.

Answer 2

When I made the jumpto DSLR, I was giving serious thought to the Konica Minolta 5D/7D. I liked everything about it.

Then I heard Sony was buying all that technology. I didn't want to be stuck with an unsupported camera, and I didn't know the direction that Sony was going to take(did they just ant some of the technology, the lens mount?). They often times have a bad problem of over pricing their products because of the "Sony name".

Instead of waiting, I went with the Nikon system, and have not regreted it.

Knowing now what I know, getting the KM 5D/7D may not have been a bad choice. I see that Sony is actually taking the DSLR market seriously and not just staying in the P&S market. That's good for everyone as the more competition there is, the more features, better quality products the other camera makers will have to provide.

Like Nikon - they finally have a camera with the sensor anti-dust technology(I personally don't care because I know how to take cre of my equipment and have never had a problem with dirty sensors), FX - full frame chipsets, CMOS sensors. All these things are good advancements.

Now if we can just get a digital hassalblad resolution and image quality onto a DSLR without hte $37,000 price tag...that would be about perfect. I say give it another 20 years.

Answer 3

Isn't Sony about to or didn't they already introduce a 700 model or something? It's way up the line from the A-100.

As far as the Sony being the Camera of the Year, see in my answer PopPhoto's rebuttal to that question:

"In a follow-up to this seeming error, Pop Photo published the explanation that only the D80 and the Sony had been tested by the end-of-year deadline for choosing the Camera of the Year. Sony won on the strength of low price and built-in image stabilization. The other 3 that beat Sony in shoot-out were not tested until after the Camera of the Year was selected, because they were not yet available."

Answer 4

Sony is coming out with a new Alpha. I forget what it is called at the moment.
Sony is a good company, but judging by their noise tests, the picture quality is not that good. Colors are over-saturated, and should be, I guess, due to the target audience: soccer moms, dads-stuff like that.
I never really liked the Sony alpha just by the way it felt, and the fact that the major selling point, shake reduction, does not work too well. Another selling point is the use of Zeiss lenses. Zeiss is probably the best and most well known lens company, and for this reason, most of the lenses are expensive and hard to get a hold of.

Answer 5

I think Sony will improve on and expand the technology they bought from Minolta. Minolta developed an extensive lens line for the MAXXUM series and no doubt Sony will keep the lens mount to take advantage of those lenses. And don't forget that with a simple adapter the older Minolta ROKKOR-X series of lenses can play in the digital world too.

Another consideration is Minolta's history with Leica back in the '70's and '80's. A lot of people bought the Leica R-3, R-4 and R-5 which were the Minolta XE-7 (R-3) and XD-11 (R-4 & 5). Those same people bought the Vario-Elmar 35-70mm f3.5 and 70-210mm f4 constant aprture zooms which were designed and manufaactured by Minolta.

Answer 6

Are we talking Pro or consumer?

I don't see Sony seriously going after the pro market anytime soon. I certainly am not thinking I have to keep an eye out on Sony's products because they may have something that will compete with the Canon 1D Mk IIIs I'm buying next year (tain't that far off).

Optical stabilization in the lens is going to be better for the time being and into the future for a good bit. Much of the physics of the situation dictate that. Yes, it makes the lenses more expensive, but aren't we always harping on quality?

Also, there is build quality. I don't know about anyone else, but my stuff gets whacked about. I need a camera that will keep working the same way after getting banged on door frames as it did before. I have also dropped them from a fair height. I have no use for delicate quality. That's expensive.

As far a lenses go, everybody makes good lenses and bad. Some of Canon's aren't anything to write about, nor are some of Nikons. Take it lens by lens. Ziess makes some mediocre lenses, too.

If Sony comes up with something in the future that is better overall than Nikon or Canon for pro work, cool, I'll look at it. It won't be for awhile yet.

What will be interesting is what Sony, as a manufacturer of sensors, will do in competing with Canon, who makes their own sensors. What happens to Nikon? I believe they use Sony sensors. Will Sony improve their sensors, but not make them available to Nikon in order to capture more of the prosumer market?

I personally don't see any relevancy to Sony's position in the video market to their position in the high end still market. The best video lenses would make crap still lenses.

Anyway, in the pro arena, which is the only one I am concerned about, I don't see Sony as being a real player in the near term. Who knows what the future may bring? I am looking forward to it, as long as it is an improvement.