sony cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gt, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. gt

    gt Guest

    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
     
    gt, Dec 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. gt

    Bowser Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:1MWFb.44100$...
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    Bowser, Dec 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > 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.
     
    Thomas Winter, Dec 23, 2003
    #3
  4. gt

    Matti Vuori Guest

    "Thomas Winter" <> wrote in
    news:3fe83b0c$0$265$:

    > 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>
     
    Matti Vuori, Dec 23, 2003
    #4
  5. gt

    Bryan Bellis Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:43:41 GMT, "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..


    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
     
    Bryan Bellis, Dec 23, 2003
    #5
  6. gt

    JK Guest

    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
     
    JK, Dec 23, 2003
    #6
  7. gt

    Bryan Bellis Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:27:25 -0500, JK <> 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
     
    Bryan Bellis, Dec 23, 2003
    #7
  8. gt

    JK Guest

    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 <> 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
     
    JK, Dec 23, 2003
    #8
  9. 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
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Dec 23, 2003
    #9
  10. gt

    Max Burke Guest

    > 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/
     
    Max Burke, Dec 23, 2003
    #10
  11. gt

    Max Burke Guest

    > gt scribbled:
    > 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..


    It's just a variation of 'mines bigger/better than yours' argument; It's
    what keeps RPD as active as it is; I mean if we all discussed the merits of
    the 'end product' of the cameras we own, what would we have to argue about?
    But hey a lot of participant here believe that this isn't the right forum
    for that sort of thing.... ;-)

    I'm holding off any judgement of the '828 until I see the results of the
    'ordinary person' who buys and uses one....

    Testing and review sites are all very well for finding out about a camera,
    but not for RW useage....

    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/
     
    Max Burke, Dec 23, 2003
    #11
  12. gt writes:

    > I read posts here from time to time and it seems that Sony's are
    > hardly ever considered as camera of choice.


    On the contrary, I have owned various brands, and eventually discovered
    that the proprietary memory and batteries for the Sony cameras were a good
    thing, and worth the price premium.
     
    Richard J Kinch, Dec 23, 2003
    #12
  13. "Bryan Bellis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    I think the biggest downside of the CyberShot DSC-V1 is the fact it does use
    the proprietary-design Memory Stick and Memory Stick Pro flash memory cards.
    However, most of the better electronics stores carry them, and you can use
    good old www.froogle.com to find a decent online dealer to get Memory Stick
    Pro flash memory cards for a good price. :)

    The DSC-V1 has been highly-rated by many reviewers--both www.dpreview.com
    and www.steves-digicams.com highly recommend this camera, especially since
    it can do what the Canon PowerShot G5 could do at a much lower price.

    --
    Raymond Chuang
    Sacramento, CA USA
     
    Raymond Chuang, Dec 24, 2003
    #13
  14. gt

    CriticalMass Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

    > Thomas Winter wrote in part:


    >> they want to become one with their tool

    >
    >
    > You may keep this phrase for yourself, thanky.



    Good humor.
     
    CriticalMass, Dec 25, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    915
    (Pete Cresswell)
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. CBM

    Cameras Cameras decisions.

    CBM, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    410
    Gordon Moat
    Jan 22, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,121
    Comfortably Numb
    Jan 12, 2005
  4. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    448
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    430
    Ken Lucke
    Apr 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page