Is sony good?

[Mooxinator]

x

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

It sounds like you have just been unlucky. Sony and Canon both make pretty good cameras and any camera had a chance of being broken or of just being a dud.

Sony is a well know name (for a lot of things) and as far as DSLR cameras, it bought the technology from Minolta, which had been big in the photographic industry for many decades. So no worries there.

There probably isn't much (or anything) that you could do with a Canon Rebel, that you can't do with a Sony A300. So you need to figure out what, if anything, you would gain by getting the Canon. It might just be that you gain peace of mind and trust in your gear, which could be an important point.

 

[dEARlEADER]

how were you comparing sony pictures to canon?

 

[benhasajeep]

Sony is the Old Minolta. When they decided to get into the market they bought out Minolta's assets. Thats why you can use Minolta accessories and lenses on your camera.

I can't say one way or the other for what you need to do. But if you stay with Sony I am sure they are in it for the long haul. Canon will give you more choices, and they seem to have more models available. And they will definately be around for the long haul.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Why just Sony or Canon? You should also consider Nikon and maybe Pentax.

This is my very biased, very subjective view of each of the companies:

Sony: Newcomers, after having bought the Minolta technology, Sony now is trying their hand at DSLRs. They're untested and their future in DSLRs is unsure. In my highly subjective opinion, the light plastic lenses (and the swivel screen live view on the A350) make the Sonys feel like cheap toys. Their screens are often very high res and very sharp though. But reverse-compatibility with old Minolta glass is a great perk.

Canon: In a constant melee battle with Nikon. Right now they're slightly behind in new-camera midrange lineup, but will likely release a few models soon to gain the upper hand again. They have excellent telephotos, but almost all of their lenses tend to be a bit soft, from all of the tests I've done. And yes, I've done quite a few tests. The 5d MkII has a ton of megapixels, but I wonder how many of the Canon lenses are sharp enough to work with that kind of resolution. I used to really like the ruggedness and low-light capabilities of their bodies, but Nikon has recently gained the upper hand in both of those departments. See below:

Nikon: With the new D3, D700, D90 bodies, Nikon is arguably "in the lead" in this race right now. Their lenses are sharp, but expensive. Their low-end bodies, like the d60 are very popular and quite capable of letting a newbie take great shots. The D3 and D700 can cut through infinite darkness and the D90 is the first SLR able to capture movies, which is quite a big deal to alot of folks. One thing I've always, always disliked about Nikon is the unintuitive, silly button layout and design. Try operating one of the high end Nikons with even a light pair of gloves on. Or nevermind that, try using one normally. Every so often, when I'm demoing a Nikon to a customer, the stupid thing just won't take a picture or just won't cooperate in some way. It won't tell you why it's not responding; it will just stubbornly do nothing. User-friendliness is definately one of Nikon's weak points.

Pentax: Only weirdos shoot that.


Guys, if you see anything I missed, please bat me over the head. I'm all about learning and expanding my knowledge with this stuff. Maybe you could change my bias?

 

[tsaraleksi]

If you think that Canon lenses are soft, you're either using the wrong lenses or you're not doing something right. Nikon makes sharp lenses, Canon makes sharp lenses. If this wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be market parity. At this point, it's arguable that Nikon is in the lead, but it's not much of a lead if there is one. As usual, the two systems are different but fairly equitable (though there was a break in this before the D3 IMO-- the D1/D2 lines really did not compare to their Canon counterparts).

That's coming from experience with both Canon and Nikon professional lenses. What lenses were you testing?

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Remember, I don't want to cause any trouble. I'm basing my opinions on my personal experiences while shooting all of these brands. As for which lenses; I've tried nearly all of the current midrange telephotos and a handful of the L series 2.8 telephotos. These include:

70-200 f2.8 L
70-200 f4 L
70-300 f4-5.6
75-300 f4-5.6 MKIIIU

All shots were taken at each lens' peak aperture and focal range, tripodded with mirror lockup, and with multiple bodies (Tried each lens with the 40D and the XSi) I did the exact same procedure with the other brands. Those are the results I got.

But this thread isn't really about Canon's IQ, and I don't want to hijack this thread. Mooxinator, my honest opinion of Sony is this: With the A350 and above, they've got some good equipment. But because they are so new and their future is so unsure, I wouldn't invest too much money in their glass quite yet.

 

[benhasajeep]

Guys, if you see anything I missed, please bat me over the head. I'm all about learning and expanding my knowledge with this stuff. Maybe you could change my bias?

Have to remember there are quite a few Nikons with Sony parts inside of them.

I think Sony's intentions are to be in it for the long haul. Never even seen one in person so can't give any first hand knowledge on them.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Have to remember there are quite a few Nikons with Sony parts inside of them.

Oh yeah. I forgot that I knew that. That's just got to increase Sony's staying power in the market, eh?

 

[anubis404]

If it doesn't cost too much, I would go Nikon or Pentax. I personally don't care for Cannon or Sony. Nikon gives you the most room to grow, and the biggest and best selection of lenses. Pentax gives you In-body VR and cheaper glass, plus durability on some of their later bodies. If its going to cost too much, then stick with Sony. However Sony is more for the snapshooter and not the serious photographer, with a smaller selection of lenses (although compatibility with older Minolta lenses is a huge plus), less durable bodies, live view, and no Pro level bodies (although Pentax is guilty of this too), it is geared more toward the soccer mom than the serious photographer. I would also choose Nikon because of handling. Especially on their lower end bodies, they have great grips and button layouts (in my honest opinion). The lower end Canon's grips hurt my hands, and I'm a puny guy with tiny hands. Canon makes good telephotos and macros, however Nikon has some great primes and wide angles. They might be slightly more expensive, but IMO they're worth it. Their lenses are also, as Drewski said, very sharp.

Nikon, Canon, and even Pentax are much better IMO. If you have the cash, go Nikon. If you don't, go Pentax. And if you really don't, stay with Sony. It may not be top of the line but it works.

 

[stsinner]

I'll just say this-I've never seen a professional photographer with anything but a Nikon, Canon or Pentax..

I love Sony audio, but they just don't seem to be taken seriously when it comes to photography. I'd expect them to sell off their photography line.

 

[jong]

been a alpha 350 user never had any problem with it, its very user friendly, and i think its a pretty good camera. I'll say keep it.

 

[benhasajeep]

Sony is just now trying to break into the pro market. Going to be hard to do with all the older generations steadfastily hanging on to their first system of choice. But as they get more and more to start with their systems. You will start seeing more and more of them out there.

Kinda like Nascar. It's been Chevy (Canon), and Ford (Nikon) for long time. Dodge (Pentax) came back in. Now Toyota is giving it a go (Sony). :lmao:

 

[tsaraleksi]

Nikon has some great primes.

Actually if you look at it on a lens by lens basis, Canon has a major lead in the area of normal-length fast primes, with the fastest AF lenses on the market and a wide range of other high-end ultra-fast prime lenses that are just not matched by Nikon-- 14L, 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L, 135 2L 200 2L. To get similar lenses from Nikon in many cases you need to hunt down hard to find manual focus lenses from the '80s.

I am not usually one to be a big time brand fanboy but it's frustrating to see people possibly messing with how people pick their camera with misinformation and stuff that is just flat wrong.

 

[anubis404]

Actually if you look at it on a lens by lens basis, Canon has a major lead in the area of normal-length fast primes, with the fastest AF lenses on the market and a wide range of other high-end ultra-fast prime lenses that are just not matched by Nikon-- 14L, 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L, 135 2L 200 2L. To get similar lenses from Nikon in many cases you need to hunt down hard to find manual focus lenses from the '80s.

I am not usually one to be a big time brand fanboy but it's frustrating to see people possibly messing with how people pick their camera with misinformation and stuff that is just flat wrong.

I was more referring to Nikon's prime sharpness, not aperture width. You get access to the Nikkor line of primes, which include many good wide angles, macros, and telephotos. This has been from personal experience and word of mouth, but I was talking about quality, not quantity.