Why did you buy a Sony?

[unpopular]

No. I know. And the a900 competes with the 5D and the a700 with the D300. This market is exactly in line with Sony's target market, and I don't mean to say you "can't do professional work with anything less than a D4".

The 1D and D4 are mostly symbolic products, hence the phrase "flagship". Most people, professional or otherwise, don't use a $6,000 camera.

 

[skieur]

I have to agree with skieur.

Sony was pretty early in the digital camera market, and actually had many mid-level fixed lens units throughout the early 2000's. However, they lacked the infrastructure to offer a DSLR until the minolta aquisition.

I get tired of this kind of attitude people have reagarding Sony camera equipment. The cameras are cheaper then most on the market and have the same sensors as other brands. The glass offered is great quality and to par with most other brands. I think its about time that Fan boys figure out what Nikon, Zeiss and hasselblad already have.

It has been very clear though that Sony is not interested in the professional market. But I am not sure what this has to do with everyone else. I can think of only one or two people here who actually shoot a "no question about it pro level body", or ever would. For the rest of us Sony is an option that can be considered. Sony cameras reflect what sony has always excelled at: consumer goods.

Sony certainly COULD make a pro-level camera, and they do sell a lot of pro-level video equipment, and some might say that the a900 was there, though I am not sure it really compared to a D4 or 1D. Sony's cinema cameras also seem to be pretty well received, so I don't think it's a matter of Sony's abilities to produce "pro level" gear, but rather the photographic market's willingness to accept it.

What nonsense! You don't read much, eh? The Sony A700 was directed at the semi-professional market and it has been used a lot in the real estate market. The A77V replacement is directed at the same market. The A900 was the flagship unit directed at the professional market and the A99 is the replacement directed at the same market.

skieur

 

[skieur]

". Most people, professional or otherwise, don't use a $6,000 camera.

Too many people, professional or otherwise, buy a camera and only use 20% of its capability.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them.

seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them.

seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.

Youre lucky if a realtor has a decent p&s.

 

[unpopular]

and you're unlucky if they don't have a bottle of scotch.

 

[CP1]

I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.

as for "most people" not using flagship cameras...I think that varies from city to city. Most of the professionals I know are running top models OR medium format cameras (super jealous of Hasselblads, I've only got to handle them, never take them home). I would say the consumer wouldn't be getting a D4, but the professional should consider it depending upon their market and needs. Also, most people don't use their camera's to the full potential...I agree, I see many of "professionals" using nice gear and getting junk results. The camera is only as good as the person behind it.

 

[unpopular]

I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.

Do you have any minolta glass you'll be getting rid of? I'm looking for the 24-50mm.

 

[CP1]

I bought my Sony as a transition from Minolta film to Digital. But I will be likely to leave Sony for Nikon for numerous reasons.

Do you have any minolta glass you'll be getting rid of? I'm looking for the 24-50mm.

Haven't decided what to do with my glass, I'll be likely passing it to family who is still using Sony. I don't have the 24-50. I have the 50mm f1.7, 28mm f2.8, 80-210, 50mm f2.8 macro is whats left

 

[unpopular]

That 50/2.8 looks really nice. Would you suggest it to others? What are your thoughts?

 

[Surrogate]

Because it has never failed me I have a sony DSLR and its just simply amazing and I just love it. Never bought other brands when it came to buying a camera

 

[skieur]

I've worked with plenty of realtors. "professional" isn't one of the many adjectives I'd use to describe them.

seriously though, skieur, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Surprise, Surprise.

Youre lucky if a realtor has a decent p&s.

The realtor in this area uses a Hasselblad and virtual tour software which is perhaps why he sells lots of expensive homes.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Yes skieur. Everything is better in Canada. We know.

 

[panblue]

I can't recall ever being "swayed" to buy a Sony over a Nikon or Canon. I bought a Sony DSLR which got replaced with a Canon, which got replaced with two Nikons, one of which was concurrently used with another Canon What I dislike about the Sony cameras (digitals; 3 or 4, at the last count) is the colour is too saturated and the kit lenses are dire. The worst kit lenses I've ever used for CA, distortion and build quality. Years ago, I had a 707? or 717? with a "Carl Zeiss" lens. The lens was quite good optically but the imaging/sensor was rubbish. The 828 was better; the S85 was better also though IMO.

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

 

[skieur]

Yes skieur. Everything is better in Canada. We know.

Why don't you stop with the stupid posts! Grow up.

skieur