Why did you buy a Sony?

[EDL]

What swayed you to get a Sony over a Nikon, or Canon, or...?

 

[Audible_Chocolate]

Cricket...

 

[Josh66]

I needed another blu-ray player and didn't want to spend over $100 on it. Sony was pretty much the only thing left...

 

[EDL]

Ok, I was talking DSLR....maybe I should have been more specific.

 

[Dagwood56]

a generous Christmas gift from my Uncle a few years ago gave me a one time only chance to get a DSLR, but there would not have been enough money left to buy even one lens, so since I had a minolta film camera and several minolta lenses, it was kind of a no brainer to go with Sony.

 

[Derrel]

My very first Sony was a Hi-8 camcorder that lasted about 18 months and cost $1299, 20 years ago. The eyepiece broke, then six months later it stopped working after very limited and gentle use. Fast forward 10 years, and I found myself in need of a portable CD player, so I bought a Sony Discman. The first one was marked Made in Japan, and was quite costly ($159 as I recall--this was before they were cheap!), and lasted for literally years, until it met its demise in a near car accident and was hurtled through the air for six feet and smashed into a hard surface inside the van, and broke. Subsequent Sony Discman players, made in Malaysia, lasted as little as three days, three months, and about five months. There was the red one, the yellow onem, and the gray one...all went teats up within a very,very short period of time, and all were bought when they were $49.99 at Fry's. So, basically, three POS Sony products, with $150 spent on utter junk.

The Sony portable DVD player I bought for my son lasted about four months, when it just crapped out. That was when he was 5 years old, so that was 2008. That crappy DVD player is the last Sony product I think I will ever buy.

 

[Crollo]

somebody held a gun to my head and told me to

 

[Designer]

I almost went with Sony, considering I still have my Minolta and two lenses, but then I thought that since the lenses are over two decades old, I decided against it, and chose Nikon.

 

[Josh66]

Really, I don't think I have ever owned a Sony camera (I knew what you were asking, lol). Maybe a camcorder, years ago. But that might have been Panasonic - I can't remember now.

My main problem with Sony is that they insist on making you use proprietary everything, just to squeeze a few more bucks out of you. All you are to them is a cash cow.

Granted, they wouldn't stay in business long if they didn't make money - but most companies try to do that without alienating their customers.

Sony is also the only camera manufacturer I can think of that wasn't making cameras in the film days (not counting video). Maybe they were and I just didn't know (what does that say it that's true?) That's not really a big deal, but it makes me question how much experience they have designing cameras and lenses. When they acquired Minolta, did they also acquire all of their engineers (I don't know), or just the patents/drawings?

 

[usayit]

When I read the details of the acquisition of Konica-Minolta, they did acquire the entire division not just the IP. Of course that could just be a marketing spin. If so, they have a lot more past photographic experience then Panasonic. A company that managed to create a strong presence in Micro 4 3 which is doing quite well in foreign markets.... beating out the NEX.

I think Sony is messing up elsewhere..... A company of that many R&D resources and a leader in the manufacturing of imaging hardware including sensors should be doing better... much better.

 

[Josh66]

Of course that could just be a marketing spin.

I wonder how many lens/camera engineers were still employed by Minolta in 2006? I mean, they were pretty much just making copy machines by then... Would the 'talent' have stuck around that long with nothing to do, or gone elsewhere...?

 

[dblaknaz]

My first consideration is the company's quality systems track record. I am working in a company that supplies parts to Sony. I know Sony is very strict on quality and reliability control. So I trust the quality of their products. For DSLR I started with A200. The price is very affordable compared to other brands of the same specification. I like the concept "In Body Vibration Control" (Super Steady Shot). I was able to use my old Minolta lenses. I enjoyed using A200, I upgraded to A580 and A900 in combination with old reliable Minolta lenses.

 

[MustangNic]

Honestly? I found a new Sony A390 on sale for $250. Did a very quick bit of online research and thought it would suit me down to the ground for my first camera. Really enjoying it so far.

 

[trojancast]

Excellent sensors and flawless glass. 'nuff said.

 

[ConradM]

When I was shopping for my first DSLR with a budget of $500 I looked at the a33, the T3 and the D3100. I was initially going to go with the canon. While waiting for the canon rep at BB I spotted the sony and decided to handle it a little.

Instantly the a33 felt great in hand. Much less bulky then the canon or nikon. Then just playing with it in the store it seemed easier to use. The flip-out LCD won me over as well. So I decided to hold off on the canon so I could go home and do more research.

I quickly found out that for my budget, the sony just blew everything else away. The only thing negative that people could say about was the lack of an OVF. So I ordered the a33 that night and have been in love ever since.