Sony's Downfall

Tamron 300mm f2.8 (with the matching 1.4x & 2x TC) Adaptall II Used

Tamron 400mm f4 Adaptall II Used (takes the same TC as above and same
filters)
Well I'm normally quick to brag about older mf lenses and the quality one can get from them. But just for fun last Saturday I shot my older boys soccer match with my Leica 180/3.4. The images were awesome when I hit focus and seemed to have a more vibrant look when compared to my AF 70-200 shots. But there were a lot of missed shots due to my my poor performance (expected and known) manually focusing. No way I'd seriously consider a manual focus lens for this kind of work.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
 
I've encountered since switching to Canon is the ability to get
whatever I want/need with no problem. The hardest decision I have to
make now is do I pay more locally to have it today or can I wait a
week and just order it for cheaper from B&H. The level of system
support is so much better than I saw at any point in my 20 years with
Minolta.

Maybe Sony will fix that problem.
--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
There are more McDonalds than healthy resturants too.. doesn't mean I want to make a diet of that ;)
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
 
I switched from Pentax for the faster focus of the a700.
I got that, but now I'm not sure it was a smart move.

Pentax had what some consider a shortage of lenses. Turns out things
are worse, much worse, on the Sony side. The equivalent lens either
doesn't exist or is nearly twice the price.
The reason its twice the price is because it has image stabalization on every lens.
Dont forget that!!!!!!!
I left Pentax to avoid the craziness of the used market. Turns out
it's the same or worse on the Sony side.
I upgraded a few months ago from my 7D to the A700. Now I'm sorry I
did. I looked at the D40 but thought that since I had used Minolta
for years, I'd stay with the A mount. Having some old Minolta lenses
didn't hurt.

Now I'm sorry I did.

Not that there's anything wrong with the A700, its a fine camera.

But I decided I needed to upgrade my telephoto lens. I don't want a
beercan as I've had a couple and, I'm sorry, they aren't as sharp as
I'd like. Same with the old Minolta APO's.

OK, I'll buy the the new 70-300. Uh, no I won't. Out of stock and no
one knows when it will be back in stock.

No problem, I'll buy the Sigma. Nope, out of stock no one knows when
it will be back.

Tamron - Nope.

There's always the 70- 200 f2.8. Not at that price and that bulk.

OK, I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8. nice lens, I'll get the Sigma 50
to 150. Great reviews, but nope, not available.

See, I don't think the dozen guys you see on the NFL sidelines are
the ones who drive business. Its the working pros who shoot weddings
on the weekends, product pics for ad agencies, graphic design shops,
etc.

Sony wants to sell millions of A100's, 300s, 350s and superzooms to
go with them. Perhaps the A900 will rival the top Canons and Nikons
but that's not going to drive the advanced amateur, semi-pro, and
working pro who the A700 is aimed at. But I don't think Sony cares. I
think they want a Halo product that will drive point and shoot crowd
to them. Us poor schnooks in the middle? Not Sony's target market.

Without the lenses in the $1000 range they'll sell lots of point and
shoot upgrades and maybe they'll lure a few top pros with free
equipment but all of us in the middle will be left with our tongues
hanging out. Unable to afford or need the $2-3k lenses and not
wanting the super zooms.

At this point I'm sorry I didn't sell off my old Minolta equipment
and make the switch to Canon.

Perhaps after the dust settles on the best buy fiasco I'll get enough
for the A700 to bail. If not, I guess I'll hope that perhaps next
year there will be a telephoto lens I can afford and actually want to
use. Almost two years after the A700's release.
--
http://www.pbase.com/shhe

 
I switched from Pentax for the faster focus of the a700.
I got that, but now I'm not sure it was a smart move.

Pentax had what some consider a shortage of lenses. Turns out things
are worse, much worse, on the Sony side. The equivalent lens either
doesn't exist or is nearly twice the price.
The reason its twice the price is because it has image stabalization
on every lens.
Dont forget that!!!!!!!
Nope, same with Pentax. Now what?
 
Many of you have missed my point. I'll try again.

I don't see the committment on Sony's part to photography. Only to making money.

One of the things I liked amout Minolta was their committment to advance the state of the art by developing innovative products. Sometimes it was a hit - autofocus. Sometimes it was a miss - xi lenses.

The only committment I see from Sony is making more money. 14 megapixel cameras with too much noise because 14 mp sounds better to the point and shoot crowd.

What I see are Zeiss lenses made in China that don't have any of the Zeiss brand qualty in materials. Anyone can design a great lens with todays CAD. The quality of materials and assembly distinguishes todays best products

For what its worth. I think the A700 is an aberration for Sony. They had the chip in development for Nikon and the engineers from Minolta could upgrade the 7d so they got a fill in until the full frame is ready to provide the halo product.

As i've already stated, I see a committment to provide cameras and low cost lenses to a multitude of point and shoot upgraders and a halo product for publicity. I don't see a committment to the advanced amateur, semi-pro and local pro.

And I don't think the marketplace has responded strongly to the A700 at all. When new A700s are still selling with V 1.0 software it says a lot. Would the situation be helped by having a solid lineup of mid priced ($700-1200) lenses and slightly lower priced 3rd party support? Ylou tell me.

So I'll stand by what I said. Sony will never be the force in photography that Canon and Nikon are. They will, however, sell lots of cameras to snapshooters all over the world and make lots of money.
 
The point of all the cams still with v 1.0 says a lot and that point hits home.

FWIW the a700 is an awesome cam, I'm just having trouble with the lenses: finding them or justifying the high price.

BTW, What does halo product mean?
For what its worth. I think the A700 is an aberration for Sony. They
had the chip in development for Nikon and the engineers from Minolta
could upgrade the 7d so they got a fill in until the full frame is
ready to provide the halo product.

And I don't think the marketplace has responded strongly to the A700
at all. When new A700s are still selling with V 1.0 software it says
a lot.

So I'll stand by what I said. Sony will never be the force in
photography that Canon and Nikon are. They will, however, sell lots
of cameras to snapshooters all over the world and make lots of money.
 
I switched from Pentax for the faster focus of the a700.
I got that, but now I'm not sure it was a smart move.

Pentax had what some consider a shortage of lenses. Turns out things
are worse, much worse, on the Sony side. The equivalent lens either
doesn't exist or is nearly twice the price.
The reason its twice the price is because it has image stabalization
on every lens.
Dont forget that!!!!!!!
Sorry I don't follow. How does a function implemented in a camera body affect the price of a lens? And as was stated by others Pentax also has an in-body stabilization feature.

--
fjbyrne
 
just want the money (everybody does) per your argument, they will be dead within 4 years; thus, visit us again after 2 years : ). I am not a fan boy and I have complained the lack of affordable lenses just once but after that, I just pursued how to improve further my skills on what I have and so far, looking good even on $14 manual lenses. Of course, only as expected since I am just an amateur (with lower expectations, lol).
may you have your equilibrium in another platform,
gil
--
**************
The Image Warrior
Still 100% jpg and hand held,
No baits, calls and tricks but will use luck with the A700
 
Many of you have missed my point. I'll try again.

I don't see the committment on Sony's part to photography. Only to
making money.

One of the things I liked amout Minolta was their committment to
advance the state of the art by developing innovative products.
Sometimes it was a hit - autofocus. Sometimes it was a miss - xi
lenses.

The only committment I see from Sony is making more money. 14
megapixel cameras with too much noise because 14 mp sounds better to
the point and shoot crowd.

What I see are Zeiss lenses made in China that don't have any of the
Zeiss brand qualty in materials. Anyone can design a great lens with
todays CAD. The quality of materials and assembly distinguishes
todays best products

For what its worth. I think the A700 is an aberration for Sony. They
had the chip in development for Nikon and the engineers from Minolta
could upgrade the 7d so they got a fill in until the full frame is
ready to provide the halo product.

As i've already stated, I see a committment to provide cameras and
low cost lenses to a multitude of point and shoot upgraders and a
halo product for publicity. I don't see a committment to the advanced
amateur, semi-pro and local pro.

And I don't think the marketplace has responded strongly to the A700
at all. When new A700s are still selling with V 1.0 software it says
a lot. Would the situation be helped by having a solid lineup of mid
priced ($700-1200) lenses and slightly lower priced 3rd party
support? Ylou tell me.

So I'll stand by what I said. Sony will never be the force in
photography that Canon and Nikon are. They will, however, sell lots
of cameras to snapshooters all over the world and make lots of money.
Yeah, you're right. Canon and Nikon are non-profit organizations providing a great photographic experience to the rest of the world. Gimme a break.

Sony is the leader of the most advanced cameras out their right now. It's called HD video. People have a strange, mystic feeling that DSLRs have some kind of magic that Sony can't possibly understand. The fact is, once digital took over, there is no better company in the world to deal with cameras, in which Sony has the most experience and resources. Having Zeiss on board helps. For film, I shoot Hasselblad, but for digital, Sony makes sense to me.

The high end Zeiss lenses aren't made in China. Don't confuse the APS-C Zeiss lens with the other professional Zeiss lenses.
 
Many of you have missed my point. I'll try again.

I don't see the committment on Sony's part to photography. Only to
making money.

One of the things I liked amout Minolta was their committment to
advance the state of the art by developing innovative products.
Sometimes it was a hit - autofocus. Sometimes it was a miss - xi
lenses.

The only committment I see from Sony is making more money. 14
megapixel cameras with too much noise because 14 mp sounds better to
the point and shoot crowd.

What I see are Zeiss lenses made in China that don't have any of the
Zeiss brand qualty in materials. Anyone can design a great lens with
todays CAD. The quality of materials and assembly distinguishes
todays best products

For what its worth. I think the A700 is an aberration for Sony. They
had the chip in development for Nikon and the engineers from Minolta
could upgrade the 7d so they got a fill in until the full frame is
ready to provide the halo product.

As i've already stated, I see a committment to provide cameras and
low cost lenses to a multitude of point and shoot upgraders and a
halo product for publicity. I don't see a committment to the advanced
amateur, semi-pro and local pro.

And I don't think the marketplace has responded strongly to the A700
at all. When new A700s are still selling with V 1.0 software it says
a lot. Would the situation be helped by having a solid lineup of mid
priced ($700-1200) lenses and slightly lower priced 3rd party
support? Ylou tell me.

So I'll stand by what I said. Sony will never be the force in
photography that Canon and Nikon are. They will, however, sell lots
of cameras to snapshooters all over the world and make lots of money.
Jim, Undah,

All I'm saying is give it time... Sony just literally dropped themselves into the dSLR areana a SCANT two years ago, and already, they have gotten out 5 different bodies. You say flooding the market with lots of cameras to snapshooters, others will say that SONY is exhibiting remarkable strides with the introduction of 5 bodies.

Glass half full or half empty?

Sony will EVENTUALLY get their lenses into the $700~$1200 range witness the 70-300mm G that was just introduced?!?? Yeah, it's in LIMITED quantities BUT the point is it has been introduced, or did you already miss my point and the three online places to order it from?!??!!!!

Time is what is needed for SONY to grow into the dSLR market, apparently this might not be an option for you "despite" being a long time Minolta user?

You have ignored ALL of the posts that basically suggests that SONY will be addressing the lens lineup issue. As you'll recall from the first few SONY press releases from about 2 years ago, SONY promised that they will be creating the bodies first A100 & A700 (A200/A300/A350 BONUS), and then concentrate on the lens lineup AFTER the release of the bodies and FINALLY to have a PRO network in place to support the ALPHA line away from the P&S digital cameras.

Note worthy points:

1. Sony has introduced 5 new bodies to the dSLR world
2. Sony will be introducing a FF Pro level body this year

3. Sony HAS already started producing new glass 24-70mm Ziess & 70-300 G and others WILL be following suit

4. Sony will be introducing a PRO oriented service centers shortly, possibly global (see David K. thread on this subject)

Most journalists both ONLINE and in PRINT have been impressed with SONY level of commitment to the dSLR market and can see that SONY is in it for the long term and not short term. Based on the four points I've listed, I do NOT think that they are wrong with their impression.

YES, as of RIGHT now 5/22/2008, there is a HOLE/GAP in the lens line up, but as you can clearly SEE, Sony is attempting to make amends to this and I'm sure it will be EVENTUALLY addressed. It seems, however, that you have already decided that SONY's timeline to FILL the gap, is WAY too SLOW for you and YOU have every right to your opinion.

Look at how the very PRESENCE of SONY going into the dSLR have turned around 3rd party support???! Tamron and Sigma have "officially" announce return support now for the A-MOUNT system. Do they have any NEW lenses out right now?
NO!

We know this, but the important thing is they have announced support and are now committed.

Bottom line is you can simply choose to IGNORE EVERYTHING that I have cited but hopefully others can see that the A-mount system is making a come back and hopefully soon will be recognized by all as a legitimage contender in the dSLR arena.

As long as they have the patience to wait...! :)

Jim, I've laid it all bare for you, I sincerely believe that I have shown you that I understand your point entirely and have offered a sound and reasonable counter point and rebuttal to your original post. I look forward to your DIRECT reply.

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69
 
"The only committment I see from Sony is making more money. 14 megapixel cameras with too much noise because 14 mp sounds better to the point and shoot crowd."

Really, what about the photography contest they sponsored in France this year, you know the one that normally only Nikon sponsors, the largest of its kind?

Digital Days sponsorship as well.

All I see is certain people expecting Sony to perform miracles right away. It will take them time to completely rebuild an entire division. You must know they are looking to the future with more than just cameras and lenses etc.

Sony is smart enough to know this.

I think there is just a tad of impatience in your tone really, thats all I see. I can sypathize with that. But Sony won't fail at this, they keep proving this over and over.

First build a foundation of product then support the product. It's easy for me to understand.

Carl
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Get out there and paint some light.
 
I don't see the committment on Sony's part to photography. Only to
making money.
....
The only committment I see from Sony is making more money.
....
So I'll stand by what I said. Sony will never be the force in
photography that Canon and Nikon are.
Come back in five years, but enjoy Canon while you're away. You'll be singing a different tune. As for the money aspect, Canon & Nikon are in it too. They just have a lot more SLR experience - to date.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!
 
4. Sony will be introducing a PRO oriented service centers shortly,
possibly global (see David K. thread on this subject)
They're already doing so all over Singapore. Most major camera retailers here now have a dedicated "Sony Pro Digital" showroom area, and the sonystyles here have the SDW courses at varying experience levels.
 
Well I'm normally quick to brag about older mf lenses and the quality
one can get from them. But just for fun last Saturday I shot my
older boys soccer match with my Leica 180/3.4. The images were
awesome when I hit focus and seemed to have a more vibrant look when
compared to my AF 70-200 shots. But there were a lot of missed shots
due to my my poor performance (expected and known) manually focusing.
No way I'd seriously consider a manual focus lens for this kind of
work.
All depends, on critical work even with the a700 I'm often having to move the focus from it's subject to my subject after AF locks. That takes time too.

And, the two I got have some of the best silky smooth focus it's been my pleasure to use in a long time. Very fast manual focus with lenses designed for manual focus by pros. Single finger on the focus is often all you need. You won't get near that sort of quality of movement from AF lenses.

No, it's not for everyone, but even new folks can learn fast MF . For me it's just a joy.

And compare $6000 to $750. At the same high IQ. It was this or no tele in this class.

Virtually the same optics in the Tamron AF 300mm 2.8 and it's half the price of the Sony. Still more than I can justify. The Tamron 400mm f4 was not continued into AF.

Walt
 
Its true that Sony needs to do it I don't deny that. And they are working on it Aarif.

But what I find continuously unbelievable is the fact that people think they know when Sony should do things and on what time line they should do it in, and everyone want Sony to do everything now.

Thats simple common sense, they cannot. Its going to take years to build this up for it's clients and they have to build with money first. Sorry... thats just how economics work.

All of these arguments were present when Sony started out mid 06'. Look how far they have come already.

The arguments usually come from those who were deep in the Minolta lineup and are just impatient and chomping at the bit for Sony to give them what Minolta couldn't give. I understand the impatience, but I understand common sense more.

I have plenty of things to argue about Sony needing to do, and that are frustrating. Trust me.

Carl

--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Get out there and paint some light.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top