Is Sony a good brand for DSLR's?

I had a ton of old Minolta MF glass from my 35mm days and looked at the Sony for that reason. Looks good, but decided to invest in new glass and camera so I bought my Canon. I think if I had had a bunch of Minolta AF glass, I probably would have bought a Sony, but am happy with my decision. My local camera stores always seem to have lots of old Minolta glass for sale.
 
I once worked for Minolta Corp. repairing SLR's, but always owned Pentax equipment. However, I always admired the Minolta stuff and would have bought a K-Minolta dSLR... except that Evil Sony bought them out!! So I got the Pentax K10.
That said, the Sony's are great cameras and get great reviews. The new A700 looks like it knocks out all comers in terms of bang for the buck! So I am conflicted.
 
Much as I despise Sony in general for the above mentioned reasons, they replaced the CCD in my old Minolta A-1 out of warranty for free (although there was a class-action suit, as I later found out...).
 
Much as I despise Sony in general for the above mentioned reasons, they replaced the CCD in my old Minolta A-1 out of warranty for free (although there was a class-action suit, as I later found out...).

Well, these things might be regional, but my parents were close to go to court when a service repair for a Minolta was messed up seriously and worse follow up actions ...
 
I look at it this way Sony makes all types of products, Nikon and Canon specialize in Cameras and optics. In 50 years I would be amazed if Canon and Nikon are not making Cameras, however after this DLSR craze ends will sony stay in the market, will they continue to develop there brand and create better and higher end lenses? maybe maybe not. Considering a DSLR is an investment and a quite expensive one (its nto just the first purchase but all the stuff you are goint o want as you get ino it) why not go with a solid brand that will stand the test of time rather than a company that sees a market segment they can be profitable in right now. Who know maybe Sony will become the next leader in DLSR high end cameras but I doubt it.
 
My local camera stores always seem to have lots of old Minolta glass for sale.

The pawn shops around here tend to have a good bit of Minolta AF glass. Of course, sometimes it's attached to a film body, but that's hardly an issue since I still use film too. With pawnshop prices, you're usually buying the lens cheap and getting the body free.

Until I needed something lighter than my 8000i for a hike, my StSi was more or less just a back cap for one of my lenses. Now I use it for color while the 8000 stays with B&W. Next time I run into a deal like that, the extra body will probably be used for B&W 100 since the 8000 always seems to have 400, and usually pushed 2-3 stops at that...not exactly ideal for bright sunlight.
 
Sony sure pack a lot of features for a lower price then Nikon or Canon.
Not sure you even need or care about those features though.
Nothing wrong with Sony, Nikon or Canon.

BUT ... if you look at all the camera/lens on sidelines of Olympics, I bet most (all?) of them are Canon or Nikon.
 
Sony sure pack a lot of features for a lower price then Nikon or Canon.
Not sure you even need or care about those features though.
Nothing wrong with Sony, Nikon or Canon.

BUT ... if you look at all the camera/lens on sidelines of Olympics, I bet most (all?) of them are Canon or Nikon.
I bet you see a ton of "Coca-Cola" shirts, cups, cans, etc. as well. However, I'm a pepsi man myself. :lol:
 
even with minolta backing some simple searching will show the sony/minolta combination has less than half of the raw availability of either canon or nikon lenses in the used market....

for example a crude search on ebay

canon lenses = 170

nikon lenses = 164

sony lenses = 25

minolta lenses = 42


not scientific by any point... but you see what i mean...

Not to mention that 1st party minolta lenses are rarely compareable to a 1st party nikon or canon lens.

Sony makes excellent cameras (heck they make most of the guts of the nikons as well), however the lens issue would be a deal breaker for me.
 
Sony = evil.
 
Not sure you even need or care about those features though.

Sometimes I just like to sit back and push the button. I've tested the "preset" modes, and often they're pretty close to what I would have done for normal situations.

It's also handy if I want to hand my wife a camera to use while I'm using a different one; I just tell her which little icon to turn the dial to, and when we go looking through the pics later, she's got at least some usable ones.
 
Ugh I hate when people say see how it feels in your hands. Well vertical shooting is VERY useful and if you have a grip for the camera, its much easier to grip, feels better, and the grip for my camera (XTi) is geared toward vertical shooting...

Everytime I take the grip off, it feels weird, once the grip it on, ooh baby....

I dont care what the camera feels like as long as its not horrible...
 
A200 is a good camera. I have 2 friends who bought them 2 months ago (both starting to learn) and both of them are selling them right now. It is just difficult to find lenses and if you do, most of them are more expensive than the Canons or Nikkors (at least where I come from) and not to many choices too.

Good thing is I have the Minolta 50 1.4 which they can use as portrait lens. But again, these are rare.

Personally, I like the A200 as an entry level camera (I have Canon system). And it is the cheapest kit you can find here.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top