I don't get how people can say there's a better camera than the a33/a35 below $700...

It's not even true.
Yes it is.

Sony has been very successful with consumers and enthusiasts
I'm still waiting for them to go out of business. They make too many things!

Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class
I can say that with just about any other entry-level DSLR.
 
Come on, people this Sony thread was going along so well. :(
 
rexbobcat said:
ಠ_ಠ

It does work better in low light. Granted it gets noisy when the signal is boosted but it is still brighter than the naked eye.

Another benefit is when focusing manually. The AF will switch to the old contrast based focus measurement and will highlight in focus areas in the EVF. This works over the whole image area, not just the usual AF zones.

You can also zoom in areas (going 1:1 pixel from the sensor to the EVF I believe) to further make a fine focus.

One might not like the Sony brand but these are definite pluses IMO.
 
Arguably, the a900 and a700 are among some of the best cameras of their generation and class

Uh. No.

If you take price in as a factor then this statement could very well be true. Sony has price points that are hard to beat. The a700 was a really good camera and the a900 is a formidable weapon when strapped with high quality glass. The specs continue to get better. We are not speaking about entry level cameras such as your past a200 here. I know a few local pros that use A900's with Zeiss glass and get great results. I have also seen them use the new a77's and get great results. The nex-7 that Sony makes is great too. I read on the rumors site recently that it tied scores with the review of the new Canon rd mark iii. If that isn't enough to convince someone that Sony is really trying to up their game I don't what else to say.

Plus check out this awesome lens they have coming out designed for the Nex.

sonyalpharumors | Blog | New "Shenyang Zhongyi" 35mm f/0.95 for NEX is coming

They make a 50mm f0.95 too.
 
I don't mean to start a war here. By most accounts the a900 was a decent solid body, and I don't mean to say they were THE BEST - because you can't really say that. These two bodies were good, they just were ... of course, it's worth pointing out that the a700 was really nothing more than the Maxxum 8D. The a700 has more in common with Minolta than it does with Sony.

But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)
 
But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)

Oh that's right. I forgot I was supposed to be appealing to anti-sub-non-conformists like yourself. In that case, SONY R00LZ!@!@@!!!

If the A700, and the A900 were so revolutionary and yards ahead of the competition, why did the sales not reflect as so?
 
I did not say that at all. I didn't say that they were better or even the best, or revolutionary. Though, I think Tyler, you're a better example of why they didn't sell than anything these cameras did or did not offer. They tried to jump in on a semi-professional level in a market known for inane brand loyalty.... I'm not stuck with Sony, I use Sony for a number of reasons including price. What attracted me to Sony/Minolta was the built-in IS which I haven't used that much because it relies on the a-mount.... But I'd use anything. I don't care enough about the brands or bells and whistles to be loyal to any one brand. Sony nor Nikon not Contax-Kyocera nor Wista nor Bronica nor any other camera brand I've used and enjoyed have given me anything worth serving as Ashton Kutcher for. I mean, i did... When I was like 15, and I thought Nikon rocked for no other reason than because that's what I happened to own.
 
I happen to have a lot of issues with Sony's implementation proprietary peripherals, as well as their track record on customer service.

Hence why I will never buy another Sony camera, or product. Ever.

With the A700 going for $100 more than the 30D upon its release, there's plenty of reasons to go with the 30D.
 
I don't mean to start a war here. By most accounts the a900 was a decent solid body, and I don't mean to say they were THE BEST - because you can't really say that. These two bodies were good, they just were ... of course, it's worth pointing out that the a700 was really nothing more than the Maxxum 8D. The a700 has more in common with Minolta than it does with Sony.

But seriously Tyler, you're kind of a man child when it comes to branding.... No offense or anything of course (when I say that I can say anything, right?)

Sony's camera line is basically Minolta with the Sony brand. I like Minolta though.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top