Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > sony cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

sony cameras

 
 
gt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
I read posts here from time to time and it seems that Sony's are hardly ever
considered as camera of choice.

What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is overgeneralizing, but
there really seems to be a bias against them.

Just curious..

thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Sonys are hardly "undesireable!" While they may not suit some user's needs,
some of their cams, such as the 707 and 717 are excellent. I believe what
you're seeing is some sort of holy war/brand war where the combatants
abandon logic in favor of their God of Choice.

The jury is still out on the 828, however.

"gt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1MWFb.44100$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> I read posts here from time to time and it seems that Sony's are hardly

ever
> considered as camera of choice.
>
> What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is overgeneralizing, but
> there really seems to be a bias against them.
>
> Just curious..
>
> thanks
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas Winter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
> What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is overgeneralizing, but
> there really seems to be a bias against them.


Sony offers great technique, great high-tec. But to make a good and
convenient camera means much more. Traditional manufacturers like Minolta or
Canon are providing great photographic tools since decades und you will feel
these experiences it every time you take the camera in your hands. Many
features came out of working close to photographers. Sony's experince in
photography? They built tv screens and hifi components in the past.

For a photographer a camera needs to have a soul - I know this sounds
phatetic -, they want to become one with their tool and you will never get
this feeling with a Sony. A Sony will remain a piece of high tec with
propriatary accessories.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Matti Vuori
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
"Thomas Winter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:3fe83b0c$0$265$(E-Mail Removed):

> Sony's experince in photography? They built tv screens
> and hifi components in the past.


You seem to conveniently forget Sony's tremendous experience with
professional and consumer video cameras - a heritage that clearly shows in
their still cameras, in good and in bad...

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Bellis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:43:41 GMT, "gt" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I read posts here from time to time and it seems that Sony's are hardly ever
>considered as camera of choice.
>
>What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is overgeneralizing, but
>there really seems to be a bias against them.
>
>Just curious..


I've noticed that too. Almost despite some comments here that were
generally negative re Sony I got myself a Sony DSC-V1 based on several
reviews I'd read on the internet and in magazines, where it almost
always scores highly. Had it two months now, and I'm still mightily
impressed.

The negative thoughts are in part about the proprietary memory stick.
I got two * 256 megs pro sticks from a guy on ebay in USA, and all is
fine. Price was OK. Would I buy again? Oh yes, without doubt. The
movie mode is excellent, it's difficult to take a still image out of
focus, it's compact, and always works.


--
Bryan Bellis.
Don't hit REPLY to email me, my spam trap will
kill it. Use the link below instead please.

To email me, go to this web page link:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bryan.bellis/antispam.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Many dislike the use of memory sticks rather than compact flash, and the
proprietary battery on many models. Many also dislike the slow lenses
(let little light through) on many of the smaller models. Some Sony models
are also quite expensive when compared to competing brands, as it
also seems that the other brands often tend to be discounted much more
from the list prices. One of my friends was interested in the Sony DSCV1,
which seems like a decent camera, although the Canon G5 imo seems
much better, and the best discounted price I could find for each was very
close. If the DSCV1 was discounted to $150 or so below the discount price
of the G5 I might be more inclined to recommend it. At very close to the same
price, the G5 seems like a much better deal.

gt wrote:

> I read posts here from time to time and it seems that Sony's are hardly ever
> considered as camera of choice.
>
> What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is overgeneralizing, but
> there really seems to be a bias against them.
>
> Just curious..
>
> thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Bellis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:27:25 -0500, JK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Many dislike the use of memory sticks rather than compact flash, and the
>proprietary battery on many models. Many also dislike the slow lenses
>(let little light through) on many of the smaller models. Some Sony models
>are also quite expensive when compared to competing brands, as it
>also seems that the other brands often tend to be discounted much more
>from the list prices. One of my friends was interested in the Sony DSCV1,
>which seems like a decent camera, although the Canon G5 imo seems
>much better, and the best discounted price I could find for each was very
>close. If the DSCV1 was discounted to $150 or so below the discount price
>of the G5 I might be more inclined to recommend it. At very close to the same
>price, the G5 seems like a much better deal.


Except it's bigger than the compact DSC-V1 (which matters to some) and
it can't do 640*480 movies (which mattered a lot to me). of a length
only limited by the memory stick size, which the DSC-V1 can.

I pondered the G5 versus DSC-V1 endlessly when building up to buying,
and in the end decided the Sony had a better specification. for still
image quality, take your pick. They're both very good indeed.

--
Bryan Bellis.
Don't hit REPLY to email me, my spam trap will
kill it. Use the link below instead please.

To email me, go to this web page link:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bryan.bellis/antispam.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
The lens on the DSCV1 is f2.8-4 while the lens on the G5 is f2-3, so the
lens on the G5 is basically a stop faster. The G5 also has a rotating
display. The G5 also uses Compact Flash, vs the much more expensive
memory sticks used by the DSCV1. Both unfortunately use proprietary
batteries though.

Bryan Bellis wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:27:25 -0500, JK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Many dislike the use of memory sticks rather than compact flash, and the
> >proprietary battery on many models. Many also dislike the slow lenses
> >(let little light through) on many of the smaller models. Some Sony models
> >are also quite expensive when compared to competing brands, as it
> >also seems that the other brands often tend to be discounted much more
> >from the list prices. One of my friends was interested in the Sony DSCV1,
> >which seems like a decent camera, although the Canon G5 imo seems
> >much better, and the best discounted price I could find for each was very
> >close. If the DSCV1 was discounted to $150 or so below the discount price
> >of the G5 I might be more inclined to recommend it. At very close to the same
> >price, the G5 seems like a much better deal.

>
> Except it's bigger than the compact DSC-V1 (which matters to some) and
> it can't do 640*480 movies (which mattered a lot to me). of a length
> only limited by the memory stick size, which the DSC-V1 can.
>
> I pondered the G5 versus DSC-V1 endlessly when building up to buying,
> and in the end decided the Sony had a better specification. for still
> image quality, take your pick. They're both very good indeed.
>
> --
> Bryan Bellis.
> Don't hit REPLY to email me, my spam trap will
> kill it. Use the link below instead please.
>
> To email me, go to this web page link:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bryan.bellis/antispam.htm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Unclaimed Mysteries
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Thomas Winter wrote in part:

> For a photographer a camera needs to have a soul - I know this sounds


> phatetic -,



I disagree with you, but I like that word. You'd better register that
schtick before I, uh appropriate it.


> they want to become one with their tool


You may keep this phrase for yourself, thanky.

> and you will never get
> this feeling with a Sony. A Sony will remain a piece of high tec with
> propriatary accessories.
>


I do not discount the importance of ergonomics nor the experience other
camera makers have in camera design. But I think you overstate a Sony
product's quirks (or those of any other non-traditional maker) as an
obstacle to making good pictures.

Having said that, the F717 will probably be my first and only Sony
camera. My problem with ditching the 717 is my IR fetish. I was told it
was just a phase, but I'm not sure now.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Max Burke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
> Thomas Winter scribbled:

>> What makes Sony's undesirable? I know that that is
>> overgeneralizing, but there really seems to be a bias against them.


> Sony offers great technique, great high-tec. But to make a good and
> convenient camera means much more. Traditional manufacturers like
> Minolta or Canon are providing great photographic tools since decades
> und you will feel these experiences it every time you take the camera
> in your hands. Many features came out of working close to
> photographers. Sony's experince in photography? They built tv screens
> and hifi components in the past.
> For a photographer a camera needs to have a soul - I know this sounds
> phatetic -, they want to become one with their tool and you will
> never get this feeling with a Sony. A Sony will remain a piece of
> high tec with propriatary accessories.


IOW the typical belief of RPD; The name on the camera you have is more
important that use you make of that camera.....

It is not altogether wrong to say that there is no such thing as a bad
photograph;
Only less interesting, less relevant, less mysterious ones.
Susan Sontag (b. 1933), U.S. essayist.
On Photography, The Heroism of Vision. (1977)


--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 1 04-01-2007 07:55 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 0 03-31-2007 11:38 AM
Get FREE Sony Cameras, Portable DVD Player or Sony Vaio K35 ! ! ! chichibote@yahoo.com.mx DVD Video 1 01-12-2005 07:59 AM
People with both pocket digital cameras & bigger digital cameras zxcvar Digital Photography 12 01-04-2004 02:38 AM



Advertisments