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

[Alex_B]

very bad experience here with sony customer service in Europe ... for decades. That is why I would never buy a Sony. But that is just me and some people I know.With Canon and other brands this was a totally different world ( repairs, focus adjustments of lenses, and whatever ... always been treated very fair and professionally)

 

[kassad]

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.

Man, Tyler. Nobody likes the Maxxum hot shoe, but you must REALLY hate it! I wouldn't buy a new Sony DSLR either. They depreciate very rapidly and just don't make investment sense. I'm not really supporting Sony, at least not financially, by buying a used Sony camera. There really isn't anything proprietary on my a350 other than the hot shoe, which is more of an annoyance than a hindrance - and adapters cost like nine bucks domestic. The NEX series, aside from the 7, is another story.

Actually I like the Maxxum mount. I use it for radio triggers easy on easy off. Slide the trigger on, it locks into place automatically no thumb wheel to try to tighten or loosen up on you. Push a button and it slides right off.

 

[jfrabat]

Proprietary everything is stupid.

Just a thought, but doesn't apple do the same and everyone thinks is the bee's knees?

I DO work for Sony, so I am probably a bad example, but even my brother, who is an avid Nikon fan, admitted that the A77 was a pretty slick camera. I think the reason a lot of people buy Canon or Nikon (as their first camera) is because they ask someone they know is a photographer (amateur or pro) what camera to buy, and the natural choice for that person is recommend the brand he uses. Ussually he uses that brand because (1) it is a good brand (seriously, all of the main brands producing DSLR are making good products), (2) they already ave an investment in lenses, which would require additional investment if they changed to a different lens mount, and (3) they are used to the controls. But in all honesty, saying that one BRAND is better than the other, at least to me, is like saying what color is prettier (which, by the way, everyone knows it's green!). You can argue that X model is better than Y model, but it's hard to make the point that brand A is better than brand B. You can probably argue that brand A is better for XY purpuse, but not in everything.

Having said all of the above, I can tell you Sony is competing rather well (at least in my market, Central America) with Nikon and Canon, and I also can tell you that I found it curious that in the report WHATS NEXT on Digital Photographer (or was it Shutterbug?), many of the new technologies they see as standard for the future are already in production with Sony, such as the EVF. I think EVF will eventually become the norm and OVF the exception as time goes by, we will see more and more cameras implementing this. Of course, I think the EVF will also improve drastically to overcome most of the things people complain about it... Another typical comment on Sony is that the glass is not as good as Nikon or Canon, but if you compare the G series or Zeiss glass, they more than hold their own (not to mention all the other third parties that make glass for Nikon or Canon that are lass now making glass for Sony as well, such as Sigma, Tamron, etc.). Oh, and yes, there is a reason why nikon is using Sony's chips in their camera; if Sony's sensors were all that bad, I doubt such a well known, prestigius brand as nikon would risk using it.

Now, to the OP, I do think that Sony's entry level cameras are pretty good. I compared my niece's Canon (dont remember the model, but it was also an entry level DSLR) to the A37, and the A37 stood its ground rather well. I think the problem is that a lot of people make their opinion BEFORE they have personally tested the product, and base their opinions on what others have to say about it.

 

[ConradM]

Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.

That was basically my point.

I have a friend that is replacing her dropped D3000 and she asked my opinion. She has a budget of about $1000 for a body and 2 lenses. I told her to get an A55, a prime and a zoom. The only thing that comes close is the D5100, but IMO the A55 is going to be better for stuff she likes to shoot like sports and video. It'll also be easier to use.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Honestly...the entry-level Canon and Nikon cameras are NOTHING to brag about...small, horrible pentamirror viewfinders...average (to worse) AF in video mode...simplified controls and more menu-mining just to adjust basic stuff...Sony can compete with low-end Canon and Nikon cameras.

That was basically my point.

I have a friend that is replacing her dropped D3000 and she asked my opinion. She has a budget of about $1000 for a body and 2 lenses. I told her to get an A55, a prime and a zoom. The only thing that comes close is the D5100, but IMO the A55 is going to be better for stuff she likes to shoot like sports and video. It'll also be easier to use.

the a55, a580, d5100, and d7000 all have the same sensor in them. Some recent test shots with my a580 came out looking almost identical to those my gets from his d5100 except my camera cost less and had a internal focusing motor. jfrabat makes a good point about sony quality glass as well. G series or Zeiss are pretty hard to beat. The sigma and tamron offering as just as good as the ones made for other makers too.

 

[bunny99123]

I practiced for years with P&S, and with Photoshop was able to create some very good photos. I did research and had a budget of $700 cash to buy a camera. I went to a photography store and tried out Nikon, Canon and Sony. I look up the specifications along with using the cameras. There was not alot of difference in the specs or the pics that was taken for the same level of cameras...just price. I picked the Sony A35, because I got the basic kit (included lens) with bag for $550. I like the A35, because the pictures are very good for a beginner or someone that refuses to go into debt. I have very small hands and the camera fit perfect for me. I can see that it would be a little small for a man with large hands. I was able to trade in my A35 and up grade for an A55 when the A57 came out for a very affordable difference. In the past, I had always owned Canon 35 mm cameras in the old days. The A33 and A35 is a good deal for a beginner, and affordable. I will upgrade in about a year or so to another camera, and I will purchase from whom produces the best camera for the best price. Technology is changing so fast, who knows who will have the better camera even in a year or two from now.

 

[MTVision]

I practiced for years with P&S, and with Photoshop was able to create some very good photos. I did research and had a budget of $700 cash to buy a camera. I went to a photography store and tried out Nikon, Canon and Sony. I look up the specifications along with using the cameras. There was not alot of difference in the specs or the pics that was taken for the same level of cameras...just price. I picked the Sony A35, because I got the basic kit (included lens) with bag for $550. I like the A35, because the pictures are very good for a beginner or someone that refuses to go into debt. I have very small hands and the camera fit perfect for me. I can see that it would be a little small for a man with large hands. I was able to trade in my A35 and up grade for an A55 when the A57 came out for a very affordable difference. In the past, I had always owned Canon 35 mm cameras in the old days. The A33 and A35 is a good deal for a beginner, and affordable. I will upgrade in about a year or so to another camera, and I will purchase from whom produces the best camera for the best price. Technology is changing so fast, who knows who will have the better camera even in a year or two from now.

Would you switch brands if Nikon came out with a cheaper better camera down the road?
Just curious because it seems like that could be expensive in the long run. I have a little over 5,000 invested in photography - which isn't a lot compared to most. Probably 4,000 or more is brand specific gear. If canon came out with a better camera for less money and I decided to switch I would lose out. I would never recoup what I've spent on Nikon gear plus I would have to start all over.

If you aren't really invested in your brand and only have 1 lens then I can see switching down the road without a huge loss. But then again that's just my opinion.

 

[unpopular]

Megan - as for me, someone who isn't 100% sold by Sony just yet, I don't think people would be into this kind of investment unless they're pretty happy with the brand they have. In such a case where Nikon made a better system, I think you'd have to weigh out the benefits. What if Nikon made a medium format system for less than $3,000? At that point I'd think that it'd be worth the jump, especially considering that you'll need new lenses anyway. But I think looking at all the money you had spent is kind of a bad way to look at it. The time you've used the equiptment should be worth something, and if it offsets any future benefit it was a good investment.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

When it comes to Ford vs. Chevy, or Canon vs. Nikon - Sony is like a "Dodge" but can hang with the low-bottom end of the Nikons and Canons anyways....

 

[unpopular]

People keep saying stuff like this, but never succeed in explaining what exactly Sony lacks.

 

[jake337]

Proprietary everything is stupid.

Just a thought, but doesn't apple do the same and everyone thinks is the bee's knees?

I DO work for Sony, so I am probably a bad example, but even my brother, who is an avid Nikon fan, admitted that the A77 was a pretty slick camera. I think the reason a lot of people buy Canon or Nikon (as their first camera) is because they ask someone they know is a photographer (amateur or pro) what camera to buy, and the natural choice for that person is recommend the brand he uses. Ussually he uses that brand because (1) it is a good brand (seriously, all of the main brands producing DSLR are making good products), (2) they already ave an investment in lenses, which would require additional investment if they changed to a different lens mount, and (3) they are used to the controls. But in all honesty, saying that one BRAND is better than the other, at least to me, is like saying what color is prettier (which, by the way, everyone knows it's green!). You can argue that X model is better than Y model, but it's hard to make the point that brand A is better than brand B. You can probably argue that brand A is better for XY purpuse, but not in everything.

Having said all of the above, I can tell you Sony is competing rather well (at least in my market, Central America) with Nikon and Canon, and I also can tell you that I found it curious that in the report WHATS NEXT on Digital Photographer (or was it Shutterbug?), many of the new technologies they see as standard for the future are already in production with Sony, such as the EVF. I think EVF will eventually become the norm and OVF the exception as time goes by, we will see more and more cameras implementing this. Of course, I think the EVF will also improve drastically to overcome most of the things people complain about it... Another typical comment on Sony is that the glass is not as good as Nikon or Canon, but if you compare the G series or Zeiss glass, they more than hold their own (not to mention all the other third parties that make glass for Nikon or Canon that are lass now making glass for Sony as well, such as Sigma, Tamron, etc.). Oh, and yes, there is a reason why nikon is using Sony's chips in their camera; if Sony's sensors were all that bad, I doubt such a well known, prestigius brand as nikon would risk using it.

Now, to the OP, I do think that Sony's entry level cameras are pretty good. I compared my niece's Canon (dont remember the model, but it was also an entry level DSLR) to the A37, and the A37 stood its ground rather well. I think the problem is that a lot of people make their opinion BEFORE they have personally tested the product, and base their opinions on what others have to say about it.

Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).

All these bodies having the same sensors means what? The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.


I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......

 

[jake337]

People keep saying stuff like this, but never succeed in explaining what exactly Sony lacks.

It must just lack a historical fan-base........

 

[bunny99123]

Yes, I would write off money spent on lens, because all technology depreciates as time advances. If it meant I would be able to keep up with other photographers, and that is how I make my living. It comes a time in a business to cut your loss and advance. We have paid over a couple of $1000 for computer and software and then repurchased again a few years later to keep up with graphic designs.

 

[gsgary]

Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).

All these bodies having the same sensors means what? The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.

I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......

No Phase One IQ is what you want

 

[jake337]

Lens last forever, bodies are disposable(over time).

All these bodies having the same sensors means what? The sensor isn't the only part of the equation.

I'm dreaming of a complete sinar P3 system right now......

No Phase One IQ is what you want

Both? The Phase One should mount to the P3 system as it accepts 3rd party backs!