marie1nah
New member
How do you compare Sony cameras (Digital / SLR) against other brands such as Nikon, Canon, Olympus in terms of durability, specs and price?
Which camera brand is better?
Which camera brand is better?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SONY versus other BRANDS
- Thread starter marie1nah
- Start date
NicoChina
Leading Member
For durability, it's hard to say but overall Sony products aren't bad as far as i know. I know of many sony digicams that lasted for a very very long time. DSLR are another matter but it seems ok (but not many examples of Sony DSLR submitted to rough treatment anyway).
For Specs & price : the full-frame offer (a850 & a900) looks very appealing, the smaller DSLR aren't better than competition (but i don't know much about the current offering).
Lenses seems to be very good although very expensive, and that's one problem with sony generally speaking : you can get a product with very good quality and good value for money but accessories tend to be super expensives.
No brand is better, it depends on products and range of products and it can change every 6 month. Olympus is very good but too small to compete : they seem to be unable to follow the pace of other brands despite very good lenses and bodies.
Basically, Nikon (and Olympus) had the best bodies (ergonomics, and all), and Canon had the best image quality (iso/colors)... but Nikon catched up with the D3/D300 and Canon catched up with the 7D, so i'll say that nowadays they are nearly identical.
Sony has some cool but too expensive lenses, some good full frame bodies but seems to have failed a bit with the current range of smaller dslr according to critiques, and is badly missing a a700 remplacement.
My current favorites would be the 5DII and the 7D (and probably the 550D), so that's all Canon... unfortunately i personnaly use some Nikon DSLR (for what i do, the nikon high ISO and AF system as well as flash are more important than super high resolution, just waiting for the new generation of nikon fast primes, that is coming).
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
http://nicolasharter.com
[gear in profile]
For Specs & price : the full-frame offer (a850 & a900) looks very appealing, the smaller DSLR aren't better than competition (but i don't know much about the current offering).
Lenses seems to be very good although very expensive, and that's one problem with sony generally speaking : you can get a product with very good quality and good value for money but accessories tend to be super expensives.
No brand is better, it depends on products and range of products and it can change every 6 month. Olympus is very good but too small to compete : they seem to be unable to follow the pace of other brands despite very good lenses and bodies.
Basically, Nikon (and Olympus) had the best bodies (ergonomics, and all), and Canon had the best image quality (iso/colors)... but Nikon catched up with the D3/D300 and Canon catched up with the 7D, so i'll say that nowadays they are nearly identical.
Sony has some cool but too expensive lenses, some good full frame bodies but seems to have failed a bit with the current range of smaller dslr according to critiques, and is badly missing a a700 remplacement.
My current favorites would be the 5DII and the 7D (and probably the 550D), so that's all Canon... unfortunately i personnaly use some Nikon DSLR (for what i do, the nikon high ISO and AF system as well as flash are more important than super high resolution, just waiting for the new generation of nikon fast primes, that is coming).
--
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
http://nicolasharter.com
[gear in profile]
I do not have brands loyalty/sentiments like many others.
I judge each individual item on its merit and decide on price/performance/suitability.
Over the years I have had Pentax, Nikon, Casio, Kodak, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Minolta and Samsung DCs among others (no Canon!).
The most I liked was the Pentax Optio 3x zoom 3MP and the smallest of its class in the world at the time. That was many years ago. It took decent pictures too.
I just took it out from the drawer and put it side by side with sony WX1, and the pentax still beats WX1 in size!
I judge each individual item on its merit and decide on price/performance/suitability.
Over the years I have had Pentax, Nikon, Casio, Kodak, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Minolta and Samsung DCs among others (no Canon!).
The most I liked was the Pentax Optio 3x zoom 3MP and the smallest of its class in the world at the time. That was many years ago. It took decent pictures too.
I just took it out from the drawer and put it side by side with sony WX1, and the pentax still beats WX1 in size!
R2D2
Veteran Member
Funny. I still have my 3MP Pentax Optio 30 (and still use it at work). You're right, it takes Great pics.
R2
--
*
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
afvn72
Well-known member
My first digital camera was a 1.3mp Mavica FD88 . Shortly after purchase it was really chewed up by a puppy. It continued to work and in fact does to this day. I would say Sony's are durable.
jrdu
Veteran Member
What do you mean? What is that?
If somebody else made Sony products they wouldn't be able to do it as well as Sony. There's only Sony. There's nothing else.
--
John Dunn
Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/users/[email protected]/Portraits
If somebody else made Sony products they wouldn't be able to do it as well as Sony. There's only Sony. There's nothing else.
--
John Dunn
Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/users/[email protected]/Portraits
Moti
Veteran Member
Other brands are those who produced great cameras when Sony guys were still living in caves...
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
Moti
Veteran Member
I think Nico gave you a very complete answer considering the fact that without knowing you exact needs and what are you going to use the camera for, it isn't very easy to answer.
There are only two things I'd like to add to it.
As for durability, and I can talk only based on my personal experience. I owned and used more than 25 cameras, among them, 4 made by Sony. Out of these 25 cameras, 3 stopped working because of various reasons. All three were Sony. Maybe I was simply unlucky but that figure speaks for itself. So based on my experience, Sony cameras aren't that reliable. Of course there are exception and my F828 still works as new but this one is really built like a tank.
One more thing that no one usually takes into consideration here and it is very important especially if you need your gear for professional use, is customer support.
As Nico pointed out, almost all cameras these days are very much the same and they all take good photos and work fantastically as long as everything is ok.
However, when you have a problem with your camera and need a quick, reliable and profassional support, I'm affraid Sony isn't among the best in the market for that.
Good muck with your choice,
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
There are only two things I'd like to add to it.
As for durability, and I can talk only based on my personal experience. I owned and used more than 25 cameras, among them, 4 made by Sony. Out of these 25 cameras, 3 stopped working because of various reasons. All three were Sony. Maybe I was simply unlucky but that figure speaks for itself. So based on my experience, Sony cameras aren't that reliable. Of course there are exception and my F828 still works as new but this one is really built like a tank.
One more thing that no one usually takes into consideration here and it is very important especially if you need your gear for professional use, is customer support.
As Nico pointed out, almost all cameras these days are very much the same and they all take good photos and work fantastically as long as everything is ok.
However, when you have a problem with your camera and need a quick, reliable and profassional support, I'm affraid Sony isn't among the best in the market for that.
Good muck with your choice,
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
marie1nah
New member
I agree...I should take into consideration the service that they can provide in case something happens to my camera...I've heard Sony "sucked" in that part though...
is that true?
is that true?
Molan
Leading Member
Brands are less important then models.
I rather have a good high end end model of brand X than a lesser model of brand Y, regardless of what brand Y and X is.
That said overall here it is:
Sony = in body image stabilisation (all models)
Canon = Faster FPS (7D)
Nikon = better noise control (D700)
Olympus = 4/3 with is both good and bad, depending on you needs
Canon and Nikon is the most versatile and widespread systems, therefore better used prices, more renting possibility's etc.
Sony's Carl Zeiss lenses is some of the best of any brand, Sonys in body image stabilisation means primes lenses are IS. Canon has 5x macro NOBODY else has that. Nikon has the best value for money in high ISO, Sony best value for money in high resolution. Canon simply has the best but at a price.
It's complicated.
I rather have a good high end end model of brand X than a lesser model of brand Y, regardless of what brand Y and X is.
That said overall here it is:
Sony = in body image stabilisation (all models)
Canon = Faster FPS (7D)
Nikon = better noise control (D700)
Olympus = 4/3 with is both good and bad, depending on you needs
Canon and Nikon is the most versatile and widespread systems, therefore better used prices, more renting possibility's etc.
Sony's Carl Zeiss lenses is some of the best of any brand, Sonys in body image stabilisation means primes lenses are IS. Canon has 5x macro NOBODY else has that. Nikon has the best value for money in high ISO, Sony best value for money in high resolution. Canon simply has the best but at a price.
It's complicated.
M
Marti58
Guest
i suppose ?
all Pro's have put Canon/Nikon Stickers over the Sony logo on there camera's.
i'm still glad i recieve at least two free cleaning and checkups each year on my Sony's ugh ugh ugh.....
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I can't give an objective view, but IMO Sony have done a bad job APS-C wise, and thrown out a lot of good stuff Minolta had. FF wise, due to price etc, more appealing.
If I were buying right now, all I can tell you is the A230-380 would not even prop open the barn door, awful models and a serious mistake and bad designs.
The A450-550 are better, but compare poorly with Canon and Pentax, Nikon in terms of features, they lack a lot of stuff, that is expected in this price range.
I sure wish I'd stayed away from Sony...they just don't know what photographers want.
zackiedawg
Veteran Member
I'd compare them equally I suppose, though without personal experience as to the long term durability of other brands. I can speak to the durability of Sony by my own experience - I've owned 10 Sony cameras, and I know for sure that 9 of them are still working today - the oldest of them being 13+ years old. The only one I don't know if it still works is my F717, which I sold to a camera company to buy another camera. All of my other past cameras are in the hands of friends, family, or coworkers, and all still in excellent working condition.
Specs are all different dependent on the model you are looking at, with most manufaturers having 'entry-level' models and beefier pro models, and sometimes a few in-between categories. And some cameras are missing features that others have, but may have some features the competition doesn't - so I'd consider that a draw. A person needs to consider the features they want/need, and look to the cameras that have those features...that matters much more than the name on the front.
Price-wise - Again, probably a bit of a draw, with maybe an edge in one area...for entry-level DSLRs I think Pentax has an edge with the KX - bang-for-the-buck wise. Canon and Sony in my opinion were always slightly overpriced up front, but often come down with sale prices and discounts after the initial debut. Nikon and Olympus are middle-grounders to me - not too pricey, not too cheap. In the end, they all end up pretty close.
None. Each has some plusses, some minuses, some areas where they may be incrementally better than the others, and some areas where they lag incrementally behind. But there's not much in it. What makes a brand better or worse for you is entirely up to you - which has the features you want, the design you like, the ergonomics that work best for you, the speed you need, the price you like...even whether or not you care what name is printed on the front of it because of how others will perceive you. Everyone's different.
BTW - as to Sony service - I've had two experiences with them, both related to the same sensor failure on my F717 and U20...it became part of a recall from Sony for a known issue, that affected many cameras from many manufacturers using Sony sensors. In both cases, sending the cameras for repair was a brilliant experience - fast, courteous, free, and the cameras were both returned within 5 days, well under estimates, and were cleaned too. I don't know anything about whether Sony, or any other manufacturer, has been deemed to have 'good' or 'bad' service, only that my two experiences with Sony's service were both as good as can be.
--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
Stephen McDonald
Veteran Member
Sony is head and shoulders above all other brands. In large part, because all the other companies feed off Sony's developments and many of them use Sony components, especially image sensors. You can figure that many components and systems the others produce, are in many ways lifted from Sony's research and development. The best new formats and systems are produced by consortiums, with Sony the key player in most of those groups. The results of consortiums that don't include Sony, have a track record of extinction by the Sony-led competitor. The last exception to this, is the Beta vs. VHS, with underhanded marketing practices by JVC, gaining success over the superior Sony Beta format in pre-recorded movies. The Memory-Stick may be the second Sony system to eventually give way to a card system from other developers.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos
http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos
http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
M
Marti58
Guest
partly true partly not....imo you should make distinction between producing and designing sensors.
if Sony is class leading then why is it that others get more out of image sensors for DSLR´s as example, Sony is having great faclity´s to produce sensors thats true.
but to say they are head and shoulders above others well i beg to differ...
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/
Moti
Veteran Member
Steve,
There is no doubt that Sony makes some very remarkable components that are used by many other brands in their cameras or other electronic devices. It is also true that Sony produces great sensors, but Canon for example, does that too for their cameras and their sensors, in no way were lifted from Sony's research and development as you claim. Sony even produces wonderful TV sets even though when it came to HDTV format for example, they weren't even part of the consortium that have agreed upon this new format and guess what, the world didn't suffer from that.
But lets not forget that here we deal with cameras, so when it comes to combine all these fantastic component into one camera, here is where Sony is far from being head and shoulders above all other brands. Except some few cases such as the F and R series which were unique in their category, Sony doesn't lead much of the competition in the field these days, especially not in the dSLR world. As a matter of fact, there they only try to follow the footsteps of the competition and even this, with not too much of an innovative spirit. Even the legendary A900, their 24mp FF flagship that some worship as it it was god itself, isn't really much of big deal compared to Canon's and Nikon's equivalent models, especially not when it comes to high ISO IQ. True, they have a remarkable line of lenses, among the best money can buy, but these are CZ and not Sony.
So franckly speaking, When it comes to still cameras, I really can't see exactly where Sony is head and shoulders above all other brands. And as stated above, the main reason for that is probably due ti the fact, that unlike Canon or Nikon, Sony still doesn't fully understand what are the real need of a photographer.
Cheers
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.facebook.com/pixpix.photos
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
There is no doubt that Sony makes some very remarkable components that are used by many other brands in their cameras or other electronic devices. It is also true that Sony produces great sensors, but Canon for example, does that too for their cameras and their sensors, in no way were lifted from Sony's research and development as you claim. Sony even produces wonderful TV sets even though when it came to HDTV format for example, they weren't even part of the consortium that have agreed upon this new format and guess what, the world didn't suffer from that.
But lets not forget that here we deal with cameras, so when it comes to combine all these fantastic component into one camera, here is where Sony is far from being head and shoulders above all other brands. Except some few cases such as the F and R series which were unique in their category, Sony doesn't lead much of the competition in the field these days, especially not in the dSLR world. As a matter of fact, there they only try to follow the footsteps of the competition and even this, with not too much of an innovative spirit. Even the legendary A900, their 24mp FF flagship that some worship as it it was god itself, isn't really much of big deal compared to Canon's and Nikon's equivalent models, especially not when it comes to high ISO IQ. True, they have a remarkable line of lenses, among the best money can buy, but these are CZ and not Sony.
So franckly speaking, When it comes to still cameras, I really can't see exactly where Sony is head and shoulders above all other brands. And as stated above, the main reason for that is probably due ti the fact, that unlike Canon or Nikon, Sony still doesn't fully understand what are the real need of a photographer.
Cheers
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.facebook.com/pixpix.photos
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
jmknights
Veteran Member
They're are all great brands. I've had Nikons, Panosonic, Sigma etc. I bought my first Sony fixed lens 707, upgraded 717,828, and R1. The first Sony DSLR A100 because of the Minolta background and all the lenses available at reasonable prices.
Also have in camera stabization was another plus. Never had a Canon but many of my photography friends Canons and Nikons they are great camera manufacturers.
Maybe I stay w/Sony now becuase I have batteries, lenses etc. that are interchangeable. It's expensive to keep switching camera brands so that was foremost when I chose Sony.,...
IMHO
Jim in VT
Also have in camera stabization was another plus. Never had a Canon but many of my photography friends Canons and Nikons they are great camera manufacturers.
Maybe I stay w/Sony now becuase I have batteries, lenses etc. that are interchangeable. It's expensive to keep switching camera brands so that was foremost when I chose Sony.,...
IMHO
Jim in VT
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum