Why did you buy a Sony?

[dash66]

My first Digital camera was a Sony - the Mavica MVC-FD73 which saved the images to 3 1/2" floppies. It was a good camera for me and lasted through some very hard use. I then moved up to a Sony Mavica MVC-CD 500, saving the images to a mini cd. The quality of the pictures that I got from that camera are what interested me in photography, rather than just snapshots. It was a wonderful camera, but It got broken in one of my moves. I then got various cannon and Nikon point and shoot cameras, but was never satisfied with the quality of the product. When I finally decided that I wanted to get a DSLR, I did a lot a research, and while I had wanted to buy a Nikon, as that was what my dad had when I was a kid, the value that Sony offered was too good to resist. I have been very happy with this camera. Eventually, if this photography bug doesn't die down, I'm sure I'll get a newer/more advanced model, but for now, it does almost everything I would want.

 

[DonSchap]

Okay, History lesson. Dial the calendar back to 2005, when I began to seriously look at the film to digital conversion, having really gotten into my photographic education.

I had bought into the Minolta Maxxum camera system back in October of 1985 and it had true AUTOFOCUS. After years and years of having to manually focus the camera, this new autofocus system could do it in the dark (with the 2800AF or 4000AF flash added)! That was pretty novel, back then... and, of course, all the manufacturers went to it, after "The Mind of Minolta" stole the show. Okay, Minolta had something special to continue with and an expectation of greatness to uphold. That 9000 camera was so good and cheap to operate, back then, I was still using it for my schooling in 2005.

Unfortunately, Minolta began playing around with the proprietary hot-shoe, back in 1995, and they lost a lot of interest in their product, as many people did not want to migrate from the standard ISO hot shoe and replace all their flashes to accommodate this new one. In fact, SONY has only just started to go back to the ISO hot-shoe, in the newest cameras. Regardless, in 2005, Minolta was bankrupt and sold itself off in a rather weird fashion to SONY, who had sat to the side and starved out Minolta to get their price. When the transfer finally happened, only about 65% of the Camera Division remained, as Minolta had begun selling off smaller, choice pieces to other interested parties. A lot of spare parts were lost in this and many unsold lenses went to SONY without any spare parts support. If your lens broke, they either replaced it or gave you your money back.

Okay, where I came in, I knew Minolta was "belly-up" in Feb 2005 and I still needed a digital SLR for school. I thought about getting a new Minolta 7D w/ Anti-Shake Technology, but with Minolta bust... getting that camera repaired, if it ever failed, just seemed impossible. Because of that issue, my decision wound up being either Canon's 20D or Nikon's D70s, back then. I actually bought both to look at and went with the Canon, in the end, returning the Nikon. I spent a carload of cash to outfit the Canon-system, with four 580 flashes, stabilized lenses and other Canon exclusive stuff, while all my nice Minolta Maxxum lenses sat idle in their cases. Meanwhile, going on in the background, SONY acquired Minolta's factory remains and they finally released the SONY a100 in July 2006. I bought one the second day is was on the shelf and put it right up against the Canon 20D.

Now, you must consider that the SONY a100 was a temporary camera to appease the disgruntlked Minolta folks. It was a "prototype" to the finalized SONY a700 (which came out a full year later). The a100 was missing a lot of the advanced features, such as studio flash triggering and a vertical grip, but with "Super SteadyShot" inside, it gave me a lot more "keeper" shots than the Canon ever could, handheld, indoors. If you didn't have an expensive stabilized Canon lens on your 20D, you were, indeed, suffering. The SONY a100 gave stabilization to EVERY lens you mounted (zoom, prime, tilt-shift), even manual ones... for no extra cost! Hard to argue with that kind of bargain. In fact, it is because of the SONY a100 that Canon and Nikon had to reduce the cost of their stabilized lenses to something more reasonable. Cause and effect.

So, after having spent thousands in glass for the Canon-system, as soon as the SONY a700 was released (Sept 2007), I began selling the Canon glass and flashes off and replacing it with SONY/Minolta A-mount equivalents. Within a month, I had every lens replaced and even had a couple new types, MACRO and Tilt-Shift. The a700's 12.2MP was more than a match for the Canon 20D/30D 8.1MP images. "Super SteadyShot" had made its point and I was looking forward to SONY finally delivering a stabilized FF-design. In 2008, they did. The SONY a900 was released, but the $2999.99 price point was far more than many APS-C shooters could justify. The price was soon reduced to $2699.99, but still the migration to Full Frame was not happening. SONY then offered the a850 @ $1999.99 and it was, for the most part, a 3-fps a900. That did it and the a700 shooters made the leap. I along with them. Shooting Full Frame was almost "cost-effective." I say that because the cost per picture, in computer storage is a lot higher. Each Full Frame image is 24.6 MP... or about 18-32MB. That's a lot more than 12.2MP images. You had to grow your PC's resources to manage images that large, in speed, memory and storage. Going "Full Frame" is a big step up.

Anyway, in my opinion... SONY seems to still, to this day, be in need of learning still-photography needs from the users. SONY has always seemed to love their movies and little Point&Shoot cameras. They are not Minolta... and fail to understand the legacy shooters who are often incensed by the blatant disregard of requests made to the SLR camera division. Most photographers are not interested in the "latest" release of equipment, like the much younger P&S crowd is. These devotes are looking for the most reliable and flexible solution to their image-taking, especially the hobbyists. Most serious equipment costs thousands of dollars and you do not want to have to replace that, just because some manufacturer wants to try a new gimmick out. Obviously, it would empty a person's wallet out pretty quick and makes you quite humorless doing so.

So, SONY bought the "alpha-mount" and was traipsing along, gradually adding new glass to the roster and retiring that which it could not support, due to the SNAFU that occurred during the Minolta Camera Division debacle. Then comes NEX and the "E"-mount. Panic quickly strikes the heart of all the A-mount crowd, as here comes another unasked for change. No one wants to give up their legacy glass and have to buy it all over, again, just to accommodate a new camera. Whatever boardroom decisions took place, a big sigh of relief was felt when the SLT change was all that we had to tolerate. It was still an Alpha-mount... and life could continue without the heartbreak of involuntarily retired glass sitting in some closet... AGAIN!

So, you ask... why SONY? I often wonder. They don't seem to listen very well.

 

[unpopular]

I agree 150% - I am very dissatisfied with Sony's decisions. I initially went with sony because I liked the Minolta 7D, and I am glad I got a a700 - but in a very short period of time, Sony really made a departure from Minolta in a way that I'm not entirely convinced of. If I continue with Sony, it will be an a900. It's like Sony had a bright future with the a700, a500, a850 and a900, but instead chose to go out into the weeds without any consideration to what most photographers really want.

Is SLT/EVF the future. Probably. Are there advantages in the weeds? Sure, I think so, and most who actually use SLT don't seem to have a problem with it. But the future just isn't 'here' yet, and Sony - nor Minolta - was never in any position to push the envelope and certainly not in the "our way or the Canon/Nikon highway" way that they had. We'll see what the full frame NEX/A-mount thing will look like.

 

[rexbobcat]

But didn't Canon do the same thing and everybody eventually got over it...

 

[skieur]

Some photographers are happy that Sony has pushed the envelope. When Sony first introduced their implementation of Live View, many Canon and Nikon types were calling it a gimmick,..until it began showing up on all new DSLRs. In camera HDR with adjustments, in camera panorama and multishot noise reduction are rather useful options as well. The SLT has the advantages of far less vibration from a flipping mirror and therefore slower handheld shutterspeeds, a quieter shutter for churches and streetphotography, what you see is what you get in the viewfinder in terms of image, all adjustments can also be seen in the viewfinder, fast and continuous autofocus and no blackout when shooting at high speed.

 

[unpopular]

LOL - I remember reading that, that and the articulating screen - how it was such a gimmick. I was kind of scratching my head how anyone could see an articulating screen with live view as not useful.

As for slower shutter speed, idk. Any shutter speed that is so slow to be affected by mirror vibration would require a tripod and isn't going to be moving very fast. No mirror slap on hand-held seems kind of a non-issue provided you have MLU - maybe telephoto lenses on a tripod though? Quietness, I can see, especially for wedding and street photographers.

The EVF though has a lot of advantages, I think, provided that it's really as good as people say. But IDK, SLT still seems a bit like the worst of both worlds, and I am pretty sure sony will switch to mirrorless-only once the AF speed gets hammered out (and it will). Frankly, I think that this would be a good move.

Eventually everything will be mirrorless I think. As sensors get larger, mirror boxes will just be too large for photo journalism and general photography. Eventually we'll see a digital answer to the Mamiya 7. I just hope that these will be hybrid viewfinders.

 

[DiskoJoe]

LOL - I remember reading that, that and the articulating screen - how it was such a gimmick. I was kind of scratching my head how anyone could see an articulating screen with live view as not useful.

As for slower shutter speed, idk. Any shutter speed that is so slow to be affected by mirror vibration would require a tripod and isn't going to be moving very fast. No mirror slap on hand-held seems kind of a non-issue provided you have MLU - maybe telephoto lenses on a tripod though? Quietness, I can see, especially for wedding and street photographers.

The EVF though has a lot of advantages, I think, provided that it's really as good as people say. But IDK, SLT still seems a bit like the worst of both worlds, and I am pretty sure sony will switch to mirrorless-only once the AF speed gets hammered out (and it will). Frankly, I think that this would be a good move.

Eventually everything will be mirrorless I think. As sensors get larger, mirror boxes will just be too large for photo journalism and general photography. Eventually we'll see a digital answer to the Mamiya 7. I just hope that these will be hybrid viewfinders.

They only make mirrorless now. Well all new models are mirrorless at least.

 

[unpopular]

I don't consider SLT to be "mirrorless".

 

[DonSchap]

I don't consider SLT to be "mirrorless".

Semi-translucent technology relies quite heavily on having that 60/40 mirror in place. Without it, the continuous focusing element of the camera would not work.

SONY has departed DSLR camera design, though. That is very true. A lot of people are not convinced that the DSLT is a good change. My self among them, but it is the way that it is... and I still do not own one... and that is what it is. A major change has to occur, before I buy into this new technological approach to photography. If I made movies, that would be one thing, but... yeah, I don't. I am a still-photographer. Any movement in my photos is "supposedly" planned, for effect. You see everything in ONE SHOT.

 

[goodguy]

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

Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was

 

[DiskoJoe]

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

Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was

You could have done like me and picked up a a580 that has the same technology as your d7000 and costs $400 less.

 

[jfrabat]

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

Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology? What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT. What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically? Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...

 

[goodguy]

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

Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology? What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT. What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically? Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...

My one and only problem with Sony's new technology is the 30% of light its loosing for the viewer.
For me low light performance is the most important thing.
I dont care about how its shooting movies or high rate of "Frame Per Second" its all about low light performance and while (from what I read) Sony's a65 low light performance is good it is still suffering from its inherited 30% loss.
I dont wish to anger anyone and dont want to start anything, I have the highest respect and love to Sony and think they make great cameras but the advantages the transparent mirror is not impotant for me and I am stuck with where its most important for me.
I made my choice going with a Nikon D7000 and while I am happy with my new camera I do miss my old a300, I miss it a lot!!!
If Sony in the future will offer a more standard DSLR I will be more then happy to consider it again. After all their sensors are the best and I am well aware the sensor in my D7000 is a Sony sensor.

 

[ConradM]

Sadly I dont own a Sony any more but my first DSLR was a Sony a300 which I loved and enjoyed for 3 wonderful years.
This was the camera that got me into photography, put the sead of love to this wonderful hobby.
I bought it because of the ease of putting Minolta lenses on it, these lenses are good and relatively cheap.
Great camera and I have nothing but good things to say about her and Sony but I was not happy to see Sony's Mirror technology and just before I was ready to upgrade to the a65 I decided I will move on to a more conventional technology camera.
Wish Sony left the mirror the way it was

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to stay with the old technology? What I mean is, I am sure you moved from a CRT TV to an LCD, LED or Plasma, and did not miss your old CRT. What is it about the SLT that puts you off specifically? Just curious, by the way (no sarcasm)...

My one and only problem with Sony's new technology is the 30% of light its loosing for the viewer.
For me low light performance is the most important thing.
I dont care about how its shooting movies or high rate of "Frame Per Second" its all about low light performance and while (from what I read) Sony's a65 low light performance is good it is still suffering from its inherited 30% loss.
I dont wish to anger anyone and dont want to start anything, I have the highest respect and love to Sony and think they make great cameras but the advantages the transparent mirror is not impotant for me and I am stuck with where its most important for me.
I made my choice going with a Nikon D7000 and while I am happy with my new camera I do miss my old a300, I miss it a lot!!!
If Sony in the future will offer a more standard DSLR I will be more then happy to consider it again. After all their sensors are the best and I am well aware the sensor in my D7000 is a Sony sensor.

IIRC that issue has been mostly resolved in the A99 and RX1. Maybe that will trickle down to the mid-level eventually.

 

[unpopular]

The a99 has to loose some light, the RX1 doesn't because it's a mirrorless. But all SLT's use up some light for the EVF. That's how they work, and there is no getting around it. Maybe the a99 has a more transmissive beam splitter, but nonetheless, the problem is absolutely intrinsic to SLT.

Also, it never was 30% of all light, it's 1/3 of one stop of light, so theoretically - 1/3 of 1/2 of the total light at the exit aperture of the lens, closer to 16%.

What bothers me about the SLT isn't so much that some light is lost, but rather that it is compensated post-exposure without option to instead bias the meter. If I could do that, then I'd be much more inclined to accept SLT.