Is sony good?

[IamART]

Hey everyone,
i read a lot of these reviews but i still guess i need the question answered in simplest form lol, i have an old Minolta MAXXUM 400Si, i have a macro lens, Telephoto (400MM) lens, all sorts of lenses, and i discovered just recently that they are compatible with SOny equipment. So i was going to purchase the A350 and begin my professional photograpghy career but now i am second guessin this, what should i do? SHouldi purchase the A350, or move up to a Nikon and but all new lenses and everything?

 

[skieur]

Hey everyone,
i read a lot of these reviews but i still guess i need the question answered in simplest form lol, i have an old Minolta MAXXUM 400Si, i have a macro lens, Telephoto (400MM) lens, all sorts of lenses, and i discovered just recently that they are compatible with SOny equipment. So i was going to purchase the A350 and begin my professional photograpghy career but now i am second guessin this, what should i do? SHouldi purchase the A350, or move up to a Nikon and but all new lenses and everything?

Boy, some really out-to-lunch views of Sony. Having been in video for an extremely long time, they are certainly not new. With the Minolta staff working for them, they are certainly NOT inexperienced in photography or camera design either. With the Sony A100, A200,A300, A350, A700 and now the A900 all produced in a very short time, as well as being more than competitive on price, they have sent the message to their competition that they are in digital cameras for the long term and have every intention of stealing market share from Canon and Nikon. They also have the money to do it.

So frankly why buy all new lenses. The A350 with the right lenses can take just as good a photo as any other camera at the same level including Canon and Nikon.

skieur

 

[tsaraleksi]

The real way to figure out what to use is to go to the camera store and try out the cameras there. If you really like your Sony the best, then stick with it. But for goodness sake don't buy a camera based on what some self appointed expert on a message board tells you without doing some research for yourself. So someone thinks that camera X has an uncomfortable grip and camera Y is the way to go. Someone else will tell you that camera X has a great grip and camera Y is horrible. You have to figure it out for yourself.

 

[NateWagner]

Agreed with skieur, I would personally look at these as newer minolta's in which case they have a tradition, they aren't new, and they have a large selection of quality lenses.

Besides where else can you find a beer can to put on your camera?

 

[Steph]

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?

You missed Olympus but only brainless people buy and use those.

 

[Dionysus]

plus do you really want to take canon bashing from someone who has hands and fingers so little, and fragile that they hurt while holding a certain battery grip? LOL j/k.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

Nikon has the biggest and best selection of lenses? So if I want a 70-200 made by Nikon, I have the option of the $1700 70-200 f/2.8 VR? Doesn't Canon make 4 70-200 lenses in different configurations and price points, with the cheapest one having some of the best IQ?

And how does Nikon give you the most room to grow? Their camera lineup almost matches Canon's.

Sony also is releasing/has released a 24mp FF camera. That's not a soccer mom's camera.

Canon has great primes and wide angles. 16-35 f/2.8L, 50mm f/1.2L, 17-40 f/4L, 200 f/2.

If you're really shooting with a D70, a cheap prime, and two variable aperture zooms that aren't considered the sharpest lenses known to man, you should probably be using all these great primes and other Nikon lenses before making assumptions about the sharpness and quality of them.

 

[benhasajeep49 47]

Sony also is releasing/has released a 24mp FF camera. That's not a soccer mom's camera.

Agreed.

I just read a user review on it A900 going head to head with Canon's 1Dsmk3 "current" top dog. I actually liked the Sony sample shot better than the Canon for contrast. And at 1/2 the price of the Canon. I am sure it will draw more than a few people to it. And add the fact that Zeiss is making some lenses for them. I don't think you can just automatically discount them away from the pro field.

 

[third_shift|studios]

I just bought an A300 myself-it was a great deal and i feel it's the best choice for getting into DSLR

 

[Steph]

And add the fact that Zeiss is making some lenses for them. I don't think you can just automatically discount them away from the pro field.

That is irrelevant. Zeiss like Canon, Nikon or any other lens manufacturer have different grades of lenses and some of them are not that good. I wonder if the lenses are actually manufactured by Zeiss or if they just get paid so that Sony can use the Zeiss name on their lenses.

 

[benhasajeep49 47]

That is irrelevant. Zeiss like Canon, Nikon or any other lens manufacturer have different grades of lenses and some of them are not that good. I wonder if the lenses are actually manufactured by Zeiss or if they just get paid so that Sony can use the Zeiss name on their lenses.

They are actually made by Zeiss and I don't know if you trust lens test results but the 24-70 scored higher than the same in Canon and Nikon! I did not check the other 2 made for Sony (Pop Photo). They are considered premium lenses. Not saying I personally know. Just what I read.

 

[TBAM]

You missed Olympus but only brainless people buy and use those.

Oi!

Just because the majority use Nikon and Canon doesn't mean that people who buy an Olympus are brainless.

Aside from only 3 focus points and a lens upgrade being rather pricey, I would argue that my E-420 is better than the majority of it's competitors.

But that's when an OM adapter and some old Zuiko glass starts to kick some serious ass!

I would gladly recommend an Olympus to anyone. Especially beginners, they have some of the best quality kit-lenses available.

Not to mention, once 4/3 finds its footing and more lenses become available, I think Olympus will be a lot more successful.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Yeah, micro 4/3rds will be neat. But I am really unimpressed by all of the current Olympus bodies. I try to remain fair and unbiased when talking about all brands, but from my personal experience with Olympus DSLRs(And feedback from customers!), they deserve very little respect. Maybe they'll improve in the future. And if they do, my opinion will change to reflect that, but right now, they're truly not that great.

 

[Steph]

Oi!

Just because the majority use Nikon and Canon doesn't mean that people who buy an Olympus are brainless.

Aside from only 3 focus points and a lens upgrade being rather pricey, I would argue that my E-420 is better than the majority of it's competitors.

But that's when an OM adapter and some old Zuiko glass starts to kick some serious ass!

I would gladly recommend an Olympus to anyone. Especially beginners, they have some of the best quality kit-lenses available.

Not to mention, once 4/3 finds its footing and more lenses become available, I think Olympus will be a lot more successful.

This was a joke on the same line as Dubious Drewski's: 'Pentax cameras are for weirdos'. I use a E-420 myself! Read this post!

 

[debvath]

I just got a sony a100 and I LOVE it! I mainly got it because I had a Minolta 35mm. I already had lenses and a flash. I got a really good deal. I did however have to buy a flash adapter.

I did have to send mine in to have a minor fix done so in the mean time I borrowed a Nikon D70 from the camera shop. Needless to say I did not like it and it just confirmed I made the right choice. Now don't get me wrong the nikon was a nice camera but I preferred mine.