Why did you buy a Sony?

The a99 has to loose some light, the RX1 doesn't because it's a mirrorless. But all SLT's use up some light for the EVF. That's how they work, and there is no getting around it. Maybe the a99 has a more transmissive beam splitter, but nonetheless, the problem is absolutely intrinsic to SLT.

Also, it never was 30% of all light, it's 1/3 of one stop of light, so theoretically - 1/3 of 1/2 of the total light at the exit aperture of the lens, closer to 16%.

What bothers me about the SLT isn't so much that some light is lost, but rather that it is compensated post-exposure without option to instead bias the meter. If I could do that, then I'd be much more inclined to accept SLT.
I think Sony should also sell more traditional technology DSLR, they should continue making the transparet mirror and also have regular mirror cameras this will give Sony fans the chance to choose what they want and not be forced to choose wether to go with Sony or other company like I had to choose.
I was really sad to sell all my lenses that I already aquired in the 3 years I had my a300 and it took me a while to get used to my new Nikon.
I was so used to Sony and was comfortable with this brand I was not happy on moving to a new brand.
 
We bought our Sony because of an issue with a Canon Powershot we bought for my wife. Seems the Canon was missing the battery charger and as the salesman went to try and find it I spotted the A35 kit for $299. An interchangeable lens camera for under $300 seemed like a pretty sweet deal! It wasn't until I joined this forum that I learned Minolta AF lenses fit the SLT which just made it better for us! Now that we have had it a few weeks and I've gotten used to it I see myself ditching the Nikon idea and picking up an SLT-A65 since the wife wants to turn some of the shots into posters.
 
I bought my Sony a350 due to getting an extremely good deal, but also because my friend shoots with a Sony and I figured he'd help me learn the controls. I also like the fact that you can use Minolta lenses, which have proven to be more cost effective during my learning stages. Why spend top dollar on high quality glass just to learn?? :) I'm happy with my purchase.
 
The minolta G series lens are actually really nice. But you cant beat the price of a good maxxum lens.
 
Well i can tell you i got my sony because of what it gives. I am a young filmmaker/Photographer. I only have a summer job and i don't make a lot of money. I went shopping for cameras last summer and when i was searching it was only for cannon and nikon. Then one day i was watching a movie and i watched to the end of the credits. At the end it said "Filmed with a Sony Camera". I was intrigued, so i looked into it. I though, "Well if they make professional cameras there other cameras must be good as well. SO i did a little more research and i bought the A65 sony instead of the T4i or the d5100. Best desition of my life. In my camera club i am in with a lot of older people they mocked me the first time i came out with them. After i showed them the Raw 24.3 megapixel photos they where amazed that there High-End Cannons and Nikons are not even coming close the the quality. I am able to take 10 pictures a second at 24.3 megapixels as well as buy old minot a lenses for cheap off craigslist and ebay. i have a set of 5 lenses from primes to zooms, as well as a amazingly fast minolta kit lenses that allows me to uses my cameras mirror focus tech to focus in faster then u could ever imagine. Wen i do sports at 10PPS, it auto focuses between each shot every time, perfection. Oh and the HDR, amazing as well. The camera can take a HDR handheld with no tripod. I have got a vertical grip, shotgun mic, and well as a minolta flash. Now if i had the money i would get a 5D but i don't. Maybe one day. But for anyone in the consumer and getting into the professional moneymaking photography world, Sony is the way to go. P.S:I only mention a few of the amazing features it has, go on there website and take a look.

-Sam Burton
Rehoboth Beach Delaware
 
My reasoning was this:
Products Canon makes: cameras, lenses, printers, scanners, copy machines, etc.
Produces Sony makes: cameras, lenses, tvs, receivers, mp3 players, etc.
Products Nikon makes: cameras, lenses.

My thought was to stick with the company that put 100% of their R&D money into the one product class they do.
I'm not sure my reasoning made sense, but there you go.

Plus, the Canon body just felt plastic-y.
 
It would only make sense if we knew how much R&D money is being put by each company.

100% of 20$ vs 20% of 100$ ...
 
Last edited:
The Sony rep was at Best Buy and talked me into it :) Either way, I am a beginner and Sony seems more instructive than the others. Or at least I personally understand the menus and settings. It also has a built in Stabilizer I believe and that seems to help me since I am usually moving around more than the subject trying to get the right shot. As I learn more, I don't know if I will stick with Sony or go to Nikon or Canon....stay tuned
 
The Sony rep was at Best Buy and talked me into it :) Either way, I am a beginner and Sony seems more instructive than the others. Or at least I personally understand the menus and settings. It also has a built in Stabilizer I believe and that seems to help me since I am usually moving around more than the subject trying to get the right shot. As I learn more, I don't know if I will stick with Sony or go to Nikon or Canon....stay tuned

Using a Nikon or Canon is weird after using a Sony Alpha when you realized you're kind of guessing how the picture will come out.

Funny story about BB. I was there looking at all 3 brands before I got a DSLR and the Cannon rep was there. We were chatting for a bit when I picked up the A33. The thing that caught my eye was the live view and tilting screen. Then I looked through the eye piece and noticed the level. I asked the Canon rep why the more expensive T3i didn't have those features and she got mad. :lmao: It was a legitimate question too as I knew nothing about DSLR's.
 
Why by Sony.. because I have several Minolta and Tamron lenes that work just fine on the Sony
 
My wife bought me a Sony a200 for my 40th 3 years ago. It was my first DSLR. While out shopping yesterday she bought my a Sony a37, my first DSLT.
We have been talking about upgrading my camera for a while.
 
After researching camera's for a few weeks I decided on the A55 as an entry level into photography. With no vision of what I wanted to take photo's of I have continually played with different styles.

I was going to upgrade to the A77 however will wait to see what comes of the A78 in the next few months.

Only downside for me is the lowlight but I can live with that.

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum
 
I wanted to get away from the bulky dslrs. At the same point i wanted a apc sized sensor and the ability to add lenses. I also wanted a viewfinder in the camera. These 4 wishes led me to the sony nex7. I kept my dslr for away but found that i was never using the nikon and when i did, i spent more times in the settings trying to get the same foto as i was so easily getting with the nex7. I was such a crazy difference in how easy and fast i got good shots with the nex7. I sold my nikon gear. When i wanted full frame, i bought the RX1.
 
I used a friend's Minolta 7D and then found out that Sony had acquired the camera line from Minolta. I purchased a Sony A350 back in 2008, then sold it a couple year later in favor of the A300's sensor. Shortly after, I picked up a used Minolta 7D after finding that the lenses are interchangeable. Some years later, I purchased a second A300 as a backup. A secondary reason I chose the Sony Alpha is that I like the menus and control placement a bit better than the entry-level Nikons or Canons.
 
I didn't, I bought Nikon. But I think Sony makes the sensor... if that counts...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top