sony a77

[ConradM]

Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.

 

[ConradM]

Show me a $550 DSLR that can do this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqpg-NX9lYs

Here's your best bet and it's not even close -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTpsI8g7f8

Even the guy that posted that video said the AF is terrible. :lmao:

 

[unpopular]

The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.

As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder.

Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. They offer no significant advantage.

 

[Crollo]

Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.

Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.

 

[belial]

It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's just no good models.

 

[ConradM]

Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.

Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.

Context perhaps? I never said anything about switching brands.

 

[ConradM]

It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's just no good models.

What do you mean?

 

[ConradM]

The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.

As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder.

Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. They offer no significant advantage.

Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?

 

[kassad]

It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's just no good models.

What areas are they missing?

 

[belial]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in my dabbling into Sony lenses I haven't found a normal zoom range for a crop camera with a 2.8 aperture. There's lots of other small areas that aren't there. And the point is with both canon and Nikon there are many more options.

 

[belial]

Another example is the 70-200. Through say canon you have four pro options at different price ranges versus only one pro option at this focal length for Sony. The different price ranges allow someone to get good results cheaper and it also means that pros have lighter weight options too. Little things like that mean more to me than a body that has features that while convenient aren't really necessary

 

[kassad]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in my dabbling into Sony lenses I haven't found a normal zoom range for a crop camera with a 2.8 aperture. There's lots of other small areas that aren't there. And the point is with both canon and Nikon there are many more options.

They just released a 17-50 f2.8 if that's what you mean. Plus sigma and tamron produce almost all of there line in the A mount. The non stabilized version are more inexpensive. My point is that it's not a valid argument against Sony. The only area I have found them lacking is in the long telephoto range 400mm and longer. If a photog can afford a Nikon or canon 400 f2.8 then they should get one.

Don't get me wrong i'll never claim Sony are better than Nikon or Canon. Sony is certainly lacking several areas. Though I think they are a great choice for the more casual users. Those who will never spend $1000 on a lens or shoot with off camera flash. They have some great cameras a700 and a850/a900 in the pro range. Their current development is aimed towards beginners where are doing a great job. I will probably drop Sony in the next year or two. The a77 isn't for me. Though I'm curious what the a99 has to offer.

 

[belial]

Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?

But the question is, are they really needed?

 

[kassad]

Another example is the 70-200. Through say canon you have four pro options at different price ranges versus only one pro option at this focal length for Sony. The different price ranges allow someone to get good results cheaper and it also means that pros have lighter weight options too. Little things like that mean more to me than a body that has features that while convenient aren't really necessary

I'll concede that point. Though I will say they the market Sony is trying to capture will never buy pro level lenses.

 

[belial]

Oh. Just to give a little background. I don't hate Sony. I came up from Sony point and shoots. I went with a canon rebel taking pros advice. Don't think ill ever be sure it was the right choice though which is why I read the sony threads