would you ever buy a Sony?

[fretsch]

Hi everybody.

This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.

I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.

My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?

Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.

I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.

Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?


Best regards
Niels

Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.

[dchew]

You're in the range of individual opinions.  So here's mine:

Nikon benefits:
Extensive lenses and accessories
Probably better at high ISO

Sony benefits:
Some rave about the "look" of the files esp. low ISO
Feature set @ a given price (?)

All the above is trumped by picking up each camera and seeing which one feels better, seems more intuitive to you and has the functions you want readily available when you are shooting.  I would find a good, pro camera shop near you and check out both.  You might pay more for the first purchase vs. buying on-line, but I believe it is well worth it when you are just starting with a new system.  Another option is to find friends who have the cameras and go shooting with them to try them out.

First decide what you want to do with the camera:  Family shots, landscapes, sports, wild animals, street, etc...  That will help you figure out what feature set is important to you.

Dave

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The Alpha 900 lacks "live view" and the lens line is both limited and expensive. I'm not really sure that the Zeiss lenses are any better than the lenses of the competition. I have the Alpha 900 myself and I am pretty satisfied. Live view is a godsend for accurate focus, have it my Sony Alpha 55. So Live View on the Alpha 900 I miss.

Best regards
Erik

Hi everybody.

This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.

I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.

My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?

Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.

I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.

Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?


Best regards
Niels

Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.

[alain]

Hi everybody.

This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.

I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.

My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?

Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.

I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.

Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?


Best regards
Niels

Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.

The A900 (or A850) has twice the pixel count than the D700, it's essentially a quite different camera.  Something like choosing between a D700 and a D3x.
 

[fretsch]

Hi everybody.

Thank you for your replies!

I have a little add on question.

Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.

I'm thinking built and image quality?

[dmerger]

Check out the Sony product reviews on this site.

[fretsch]

I've read it, and as I can see nothing really talk against buying it, except that it's a SONY

It's a tough decision.

[dmerger]

 

I've read it ...

??  What do you mean by you've read "it"?  There are more than one.  You may want to do a little homework.  There is a ton of info on this site about the Sony cameras.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

The price!

Other than that, no difference.

Best regards
Erik

Hi everybody.

Thank you for your replies!

I have a little add on question.

Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.

I'm thinking built and image quality?

[Peter_DL]

My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?

But then I noticed that for example my notebook is already a Sony (Vaio).

Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?

Isn't the Nikon D700 waiting for a successor ?
Whereas Nikon's newer D7000 may see some competition from Sony's successor of the A700.

Peter

--

[alain]

Hi everybody.

Thank you for your replies!

I have a little add on question.

Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.

I'm thinking built and image quality?

Up until now I haven't found any other difference, well except the 850 <-> 900 number itself, but that's obvious.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...except that it's a SONY ...

Nothing wrong with it.

Back in the late '90s, when pro-digital cameras were, like, 1-2 Mpx, I told Kodak's management that the only way forward is to partner with an electronics company, as cameras moved from being almost exclusively mechanical devices, to sophisticated electronic toys (for better or worse). The response was that film still has many years of bright future in front of it. The rest is history. Should I mention that I was probably the only (serious amateur) photographer among them at the time?

Smarter companies, like Leica, saw the writing on the wall and went to Panasonic. Sony acquired Konica/Minolta and added "legendary" Zeiss lenses (I put it it quotation marks as I do not believe they are so much better than Canon/Nikon etc. today, but legends die hard  )

EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.

[ErikKaffehr]

+1

... added "legendary" Zeiss lenses (I put it it quotation marks as I do not believe they are so much better than Canon/Nikon etc. today, but legends die hard  )

[fretsch]

??  What do you mean by you've read "it"?  There are more than one.  You may want to do a little homework.  There is a ton of info on this site about the Sony cameras.

Sorry. English is not my first language. I have probably expressed me wrong.

I have indeed done my homework. Have have searched the internet thin for the past week. I have read every single review and comparison I could find.

I'm not asking questions here to be yelled at. I'm asking my question here because I know that most of the readers and writers in here know what they are talking about, and have tried lots of different equipment.

I have received a lot of good answers, thank you! It really is a hard choice. As I understand the A850 is very good camera. I was just curious how it would work for every day use, if it would break or simply just work as good as a Nikon or a Canon.

Thank you once again. Any input is appreciated.

[5thElefant]

No it won't break. Have a look at what lenses are available new  and/or used (including Minolta). If you can get everything you want then buy one. Dyxum is a good place to look for Alpha lens reviews.

[Craig Murphy]

I have an Alpha 850.  900 price seemed like a waste of money to me.  I don't need a 100% viewfinder and don't care about 3 vs 5 fps.    My reason for buying the Sony was for studio table top that needed a bigger file than my previous camera and it has been just fantastic for that.  Downside for me is no tilt-shift lenses.  Had to purchase a Mirex adapter.  Now I can put some Mamiya 645 lens's on.  Sony has their own proprietary flash shoe connection also.  If you need to put a radio slave transmitter on you'll have to buy their adapter.  Well made but $90.  Not many auto focus points in the viewfinder.  I don't see this camera as a particularly good one for action shooting. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'd agree on that. Actually I have the impression that the many of the Zeiss lenses are very good. Also, it may be that Zeiss has tighter tolerances on lenses than other makers, we actually don't know. Putting a Zeiss label on a lens doesn't make it a star performer. Sony's Zeiss lenses have dual serial numbers and are personally signed by a quality control engineer.

I have two of the Zeiss lenses, the 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and the 24-70/2.8 ZA. They certainly work well in the field at medium aperture, both are pretty ugly in the corners at the shortest focal length unless stopped down. The 28-75/2.8 may outperform the 24-70/2.8 at large apertures. The 28-75/2.8 is a Tamron design. Oddly enough there is no "Tamron" label on the Sony lens, that's life.

Best regards
Erik

EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.

[JimU]

I'll repeat what others have said and add a bit more:

There's four differences between a900 & a850
1) a900 VF has 100% coverage, a850 VF has 98% coverage
2) a900 has 5fps, a850 has 3
3) a900 has remote control, a850 has none
4) a900 is a few hundred $ more than a850


in terms of a900 vs d700:

a900 benefits
lotsa minolta lens
autofocus zeiss lenses (+ supposedly 85ZA is better than 85ZF)
supposedly nicer low ISO quality
in body image stabliziation
higher resolution
body is less expensive than d700
sony lenses are generally less expensive than nikon lenses
marginally more options for adapting/converting lenses

d700
lotsa nikon lenses and supposedly more options
great AF
ZF lenses
clean high ISO
standard hot shoe
higher certainty of nikon committing to FF DSLRs
more liquid market for used lenses

[John Camp]

And I would add that Nikon has the most sophisticated flash system on the planet.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'd think the proper comparison for the Alpha 900 is the Nikon D3X. Both use similar, Sony made, sensors. It seems that the Nikon utilizes it better, albeit at three times the price. The D700 has another sensor that excels at high ISO but has half of the megapixels of the Alpha 900. Nikon doesn't have a >20 MP camera below 3000 USD, unfortunately.

Best regards
Erik

I'll repeat what others have said and add a bit more:

There's four differences between a900 & a850
1) a900 VF has 100% coverage, a850 VF has 98% coverage
2) a900 has 5fps, a850 has 3
3) a900 has remote control, a850 has none
4) a900 is a few hundred $ more than a850


in terms of a900 vs d700:

a900 benefits
lotsa minolta lens
autofocus zeiss lenses (+ supposedly 85ZA is better than 85ZF)
supposedly nicer low ISO quality
in body image stabliziation
higher resolution
body is less expensive than d700
sony lenses are generally less expensive than nikon lenses
marginally more options for adapting/converting lenses

d700
lotsa nikon lenses and supposedly more options
great AF
ZF lenses
clean high ISO
standard hot shoe
higher certainty of nikon committing to FF DSLRs
more liquid market for used lenses