Sony myth buster
by Vlad
There are a lot of opinions about Sony cameras floating on the net, some good, some bad and many wrong. Given that Sony is clueless as to how to address that, I might do it instead.
Myth I : Sony is overpriced
That is the most common myth and is generally followed by a lone example. The thing is, overall, Sony isn’t overpriced whatsoever. It is easy to make it look so, when you cherry-pick, though. Here are a few examples of gear that is pretty much in line with competing equivalents (of either Canon or Nikon) Zeiss 16-35, Zeiss 24-70, Zeiss 24mm f2, Zeiss 85mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2.8, 100mm macro, 16-50 DT, 16-105 DT, 35mm DT, 50mm DT and I am getting bored already. Then, looking at the E-mount, except maybe the 24mm Zeiss, nothing is really overpriced when comparing to competing systems such as m43 and Fuji. And don’t get me started on the bodies.
An example of a typical discussion:
- – Sony is overpriced, just look at the 50mm f1.4 Zeiss.
- – Sony does have a 50 f1.4, which costs roughly the same as Canikon equivalents. TheZeiss is just a bonus.
- – The Sony 50 f1.4 is an old design from thousands of years ago.
- – It was updated and who cares how old the design is?
- – I care, because it’s crap.
As you can see, you can’t win here. It doesn’t matter that the 50 f1.4 performs perfectly well and that, on top of it, you have the Zeiss option.Another discussion:
– Sony is overpriced, the A99 should cost same like the D600.
– Why?
– It has the same sensor!
– So, what about the 5D markIII then?
– The D800 is much better! The A99 must be cheaper!
– So, sensor is everything, features do not matter?
– Absolutely! It’s all about IQ!
– So why does the D7100 cost more than a D5200?
– Because it’s a better camera, duh!
Again, no way to win here. It doesn’t matter that the A99 has plenty of features over the D600 and even the D800. And if you manage to get to those, the SLT will be a horrible light sucker, but the fact that the D800 has a terrible live view and no swivel screen (quite useful for precise tripod work and precise manual focus) won’t matter. Gimmicks, you know.Conclusion: Every brand has overpriced products and, depending on how you decide to cherry-pick, you can make each of them look bad.
Advice: I strongly suggest that people interested in the Sony system make the price comparison by themselves, rather than listen to unsubstantiated claims. Depending on your specific needs one system might be more or less expensive than another, but most of the time there won’t be much of a difference in terms of price.
Myth II : Sony’s lens range is lacking
Not exactly a myth, but an over-exaggerated issue. Yes, Canon and Nikon have arguably wider selections. But, for most uses, Sony can cover your needs, not to mention that there are some unique lenses in the lineup. The thing is, the wider selection from other companies means absolutely nothing in itself. It all depends on your needs.
And don’t forget you can use Minolta lenses. Conclusion: Depends on your needs. Advice: Know your needs.
Myth III : Sony’s NEX lens range is lacking and the lenses are crap and expensive
Some of it myth, some not, a lot is exaggerated.
It is lacking, but let’s be clear – there are two real competitors here – m43 and Fuji. m43 is a system that had more time to develop and is supported by two companies and is pretty much the exclusive mount for said companies (not much development on the 43 front). It is easy to see how they might end up having a more complete offering. Fuji has been amazing, and while it does have excellent lenses, the lens range isn’t much wider than NEX’s one.
As to the lens performance, currently there are 4 lenses performing very very well (24mm Zeiss, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8, 10-18mm). Of those, only the 24mm can be seen as being overpriced. Then, we have the usual suspects (16-50, 18-55, 18-200, 55-210). These lenses are perfectly good performers for what they are (helpful hint: they are kit zoom lenses and a travel zoom, all priced accordingly).
This leaves only 3 lenses to be crappy: 16mm (tried it, crappy it is), 20mm (no experience, but judging by samples, it is a perfectly capable lens, hardly crappy), 30mm macro (no experience here).
Conclusion: as I see it, there are at best 2 crappy lenses in the whole NEX lineup. I invite you to compare the prices to Fuji’s or to those of the m43 system and you’ll see that they are not that far off overall.
Advice: when someone tells you that NEX lenses are crappy and gives you as an example the weak optical performance (duh!) of the 16-50, stop listening.
Myth IV : most people prefer OVFs
This appears everywhere, but when you ask people where did they get the information, you generally receive one of two possible answers. Either “many of their friends” don’t like EVFs or this can be “logically concluded” by Canon and Nikon selling more.
Conclusion: …
Advice: take statistically irrelevant data and flawed logic with a grain of salt.
Myth V : OVFs are better
That’s a half-myth. And in a few years it will probably be an almost complete one. They are better for some things. But certainly not for chimping (sidenote: there is nothing wrong with chimping) or manual focus, or displaying plenty of useful information, or… you get the idea.
Conclusion: It is subjective. Advice: Try both and choose.
Sony is a great system. It does have its shortcomings, like all the others, but it also has some unique features.
169 Responses
+1!
Lets not forget the IS arguement shall we?
For years Canon people have been telling me how much better optical IS is than in body – Except there are still piss-all IS lenses that I would actually want to own and I should know, I recently set myself up with a Canon 6D kit – Not because they are ‘better’, but its what my budget could afford at the time. Still have and love my A850 kit, but needed a second (and quite specific) set of gear. Anyway, long story short – not one of my lenses has IS. Wow – optical IS might be great, but in body is better than none! But then most people think ‘real photographers’ have big telephotos *sigh*.
Also don’t forget that Sony also have third party lenses and with Sigma producing some of the best lenses on the market right now there really isn’t any holes for most to be worried about.
Need T/S lenses – There’s the Samyang for that.
Want a 135mm STF for a 6D though… Erm next!
Ok, some of the big fast tele primes are a bit of a downside for Sony compared to the bigger two, but most of the people shouting about the lack of those lenses don’t own the Canon or Nikon counterparts anyway. They just like to act big.
True. I didn’t think that IS was that effective, until I forgot to turn on the IS in my A850. For a moment, I was puzzled by the blurry pictures, until I saw the IS button.
One more point. With in-body IS, when there is an improvement in existing technology, all you need to replace is the body. Not the whole range of lenses.
+1
And the possibility to 5-axis image stabilization with in body IS!
And the rotational axis along the lens is easy to get a light rotation about when pressing the button taking a photo at free hand, and there is no way to handle that with optical in lens IS.
_”Ok, some of the big fast tele primes are a bit of a downside for Sony compared to the bigger two, but most of the people shouting about the lack of those lenses don’t own the Canon or Nikon counterparts anyway. They just like to act big.”_
I not only own a Canon f/1.8 85mm (=135 FF), it’s my most used lens on an APS-C camera. Neither Sony or Fuji has a 90mm (=135 FF) lens. On the other hand there are two M4/3 lenses in that range, the Sigma f/2.8 60mm (=120mm FF) and the Olympus f/1.8 75mm (=150mm FF).
If I switch to M4/3 I’ll be able to buy BIG lenses, BTW the Panasonic f/2.8 150mm (=300mm FF) will be available next year.
Check again, Sony has 85mm f/1.4. The only downside is that there is no ‘cheap’ f1.8 lens available. On a FF, there is no lens on the market, that is suited better for portrait photography, than Sony 135mm STF.
@Stan, I just checked the online Sony Store (USA) and they show NO f1.4 85mm lenses in E-Mount 😎 I have no interest in using an A-mount lens with an adapter 😎
But thats the whole point of an article, how can you compare Canon EF-S system lens to an e-mount. Apples to apples would be EF-M system, which has what, 2 lenses? And neither is 85mm
@Stan a Zeiss f/1.8 135mm is a great lens, I don’t like the size/weight of a Full Frame camera. That’s why I switched from Canon to Sony NEX.
@Stan says: _”But thats the whole point of an article …”_
Vlad said: _”Myth II : Sony’s lens range is lacking
Not exactly a myth, but an over-exaggerated issue. Yes, Canon and Nikon have arguably wider selections …”_
Sorry, but from my reading the point of the article is how many lenses are (or are NOT available) in BOTH A-mount and E-mount. There are two 85mm lenses available in A-mount the SAL85F28 and SAL85F14Z. But NONE in E-mount.
Sure, but neither is available for EF-M system or Nikon 1 system either. Yes, Canon has 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, Nikon has 85/1.4 and 85/1.8, Sony has 85/1.4 and 85/2.8(Personally wish it was 1.8), and in general the system is lacking quite a few “good to have” lenses, but when you are comparing NEX to Nikon 1 or EF-M system, NEX is on top, hands down. Then you have Olympus and Fuji, with each having a selection of awesome lenses, that again, neither one of the big two have.
Point being, you can compare E-Mount only to Nikon 1(with its horribly small sensor), Canon EF-M, Fuji XF, Olympus M.Zuiko and Samsung NX.
Canon EF-S and EF ranges, Nikons AF-S range is directly comparable to Sony A-Mount, which yes, compared to the big two, is lacking quite a few good lenses.
+10×10
Sony weakness IS lenses, not the cameras! – Well, cameras tend to be a bit computer-like, but that is a personal thing.
I evaluated Sony FF and Nex systems:
Like the A99. But looking at lenses a selection of HQ lenses are much more expensive than Nikon. One of the reasons being Nikon has the 1.8G series that outperform the best and very expensive options on the Sony side.
Like the Nex-7as well. But then looking at lenses, the lenses I prefer are not there, or very expensive. Comparing with Fuji, they have the right lenses. Sony has old shit lenses, sorry kit lenses and odd designs.
Sony are looking at non-enthusiasts as customers.
Luckily we now, on this side, see signs that Sony at last starts to understand the photo business. Hopefully I can in a year or so change my evaluation of Sony as producer of photo machinery. Until then it is not my choise. Sorry VLAD, but your bias is too strong.
Per K, may be I am mistaken, but it looks like Vlad wrote his article describing you.
Can you be at list more spesific when you are declaring something?
bas076: I agree with VLAD opinion about Sony cameras; they are great and I was very interested in the A99. But when I started to look for great lenses it simply became too expensive compared to a D800 system with excellent primes – and the primes I need. See for yourself at f.i. Photozone and check prices.
Let’s hope that rumors indicating Sony has learned the lesson and now will issue great lenses at sensible prices. Personally I will look very closely at FFNex.
I am monitoring all known systems at list 5 years. I can’t see much difference between in price Sony and Nikon on comparable level of lenses. Exception only Sony 300 and 500mm. Because of that I asked for specific example.
Per K, I totally agree with you. That’s the exact reason I switched from Sony nex-7 to Nikon six months ago. For example, the 35mm f1.8 lens I wanted for the Sony e-mount cost about $450 new or no less than $420 used at the time. After I switched to Nikon, I can get a well received and widely used 35mm f1.8g for less than $200 new or $150 for a like new one for about $150. As for portrait lens, the Nikonw 85mm f1.8g is exceptional, well as for Sony Nex, there is nothing available, yet. Lens choice is definitely a huge issue for Sony, regardless of the mount. Vlad, you can argue all you want, facts are facts however.
BillW – how is it possible for you to make such entirely false arguments??
Nikon doesn’t have any APS-C mirrorless system so there is exactly zero -0- “NEX-type” lenses available from Nikon.
VLAD really seems to be very accurate in his description 😉
For Sony A-mount there are plenty of alternatives for 35mm and 85mm lenses. And you can use them with an adapter on a NEX-camera and retain all functions if you want. (Also Canon EF with a Metabone.)
You conveniently omitted the A-mount here. There is a well received 35F18, which is around 200 US. There is also a 85F28, which, while slower, is also significantly cheaper than the Nikon 85mm F1.8. As you said, facts are facts.
Like and use the 85mm 2.8, but envy the nikon users 1.8!
make yourself feel better, get the 85 f1.4 ZA planar 😀
Nikon 35/1.8 and E-mount 35/1.8 is not comparable lenses in term of price level but it is clearly justified. E-mount better opticaly and have OSS.
OVF is better?
A year ago most people start arguing with me when I was telling him EVF is better. Now, they are agree at least EVF is better for some applications 🙂
Weddings on EVF both good photo and video. XAVC please! 4K please! For Alpha and NEX. Lets make good videos with sony and zeiss!
“Old School” photographers think OVFs are best. As they are replaced by new photographers, that perception will change and you will see fewer complaints.
You are very right. As the newer generation of photogs come up and are not as resistant to new technology, they will have a more open mind and more open views on things like EVF.
For a fact, EVF are better than OVF for lower light shooting (can actually let you see in the dark) and for WYSIWYG shooting in ambient/constant light.
Brian
I owned a 5D2 which uses a OVF and well I hated it. I am use to seeing what is on the screen as what ends up on the card, an OVF does not offer this. I shot lots of manual lenses wide open, OVF, at least the 5D2, is a poor match for this style. It is an analog experience in a digital world.
Popcorn…
If you want that kind of show, you should copy paste this post into a CaNikon forum 😀
They don’t care, to be fair.
True. But you’ll still get an awesome show.
ha! as usual people forget/do not see samsung as a competitor!
and personally i really LOVE the 16mm, mainly due to the fact that its really half a lens and you complete it by adding the VCL-ECF1 fisheye lens and VCL-ECU1 ultrawide converter, thats when the real fun starts!! 😀 its more of a fun lens and not a pixel peep lens
i quite like the 30 macro also, its pretty nice and sharp even if i don’t use mine all that much
Agree, I had ten nex lenses… I personally think the 16mm is one of the most amazing lenses that Emount has produced till date.
I think the 16mm is more complained about than is needed. I mostly use the 24 and 50mm primes for my everyday shooting needs, and those lenses can really spoil you. When I do use the 16mm (often with the wide angle converter) sure, I am usually hit with the glaring fact that it is indeed much softer than the other two, but I also appreciate how small it is. Many times I will leave the house for errands and other things and will stick that lens on, without the converter, and voila, I now have a compact APSC camera. I have the 5n too so the overall package is very small indeed. I agree though, I almost never use this lens if I want to get that shot I know I’m going to want to print and blow up to at least full size, but especially with that wide angle converter attached, it opens the world to whimsical and fun perspectives. I often exaggerate the angles in my shots too making the lens at time almost appear as a fish eye.
“I think the 16mm is more complained about than is needed.”
Agreed. But if I wrote that all NEX lenses are good, it would’ve been too much of a shock for some people 🙂
That’s for sure! It is a soft lens indeed, but for its purpose as a consumer level, fast-ish pancake prime, it serves its purpose. I’m really hoping Sony or Zeiss has a high quality 14/16mm prime somewhere on the roadmap for those moments when my 24mm Zeiss isn’t wide enough for the situation.
I love my nex6 and all my lenses.
I once loved the 16mm too. Then I met and bought the Rokinon 8mm f2.8. Great price, great built and way better on IQ. And I am not talking about pixel peeping here. Photoshop used to fail stitching images coming out of the 16mm. because the corners are unacceptably soft and dark. with adapter, even worse. I had to use it on f8 and still…
It was certainly fun before knowing the Rokinon.
If such company called Rokinon made a much better lens about the same price ($274 vs. $249 BandH price), I wont be changing my opinion on how crappy SEL16mm lens is. I would understand if it was Sigma making much better lens. But it is Rokinon/Samyang… almost no name company.
aha, im quite tempted to get the 8 fisheye, but it seems a bit more fisheye-y than the 16+fisheye adapter. i’m also planning on getting FF NEX so i’m gonna see if theres a small sized fisheye in FF before i commit to buying a 8 fisheye
+1
About the lack in the lens range:
i am only mussing 1 lens… an 24-105 for FullFrame…
but canikon has like 10 times more lenses… yes, but look at the lenses:
70-200 mm F2.8
70-200 mm F4
70-200 mm IS F2.8
70-200 mm IS F4
…
so its like 4 times the same lens, the F4 option is nice but the IS option is just a “canikon-illness” ^^ sony-users dont need IS, because the have IBIS 😉
ahh and i did forgot about the manual focus lenses ^^… so its more than 4 times the same lenses…
@tiger-europe
That is true about the variety of choice from Canon, the difference is if you are not suffering from Parkinson’s or Epilepsy and shooting at focal length recipricols shutter speeds which are often needed for tele subjects who dare to move . The Canon 70-200mm F2.8l non IS can be picked up for around £900 compared to the £1500 of the Sony 70-200mm, The high quality 70-200mm F4 non IS is available new from around £400.That is a lot of quality for that price, surprisingly folk have been taking images without IS for many many decades in a time when high ISO was painful to the eyes
alert! we have common sense here, well said sir
I did’nt know about this 5 Myths. What I know that I own a A77 and a RX100. Price was ok, lens range was ok.
But….myth 6: the firmware….. A semi-professional camera without tethering, come on! It’s only about new camera’s, new features for new customers.
Lack of tethering is not a myth, it’s a real and annoying issue.
Ok, let’s take A99 as an example. Yes, there is no competition, as far as the some important (for me, at least) features are concerned (moveable screen, fast liveview). And the lower price could not be justified.
But compare to A57.
It has all the important (for me) features of A99.
Some important (for me) features are beter in A57. It has longer series: 19 RAW vs 13 RAW,
it has faster serie: 10 fps vs 6.
It is smaller and lighter, and required less expensive and lighter lens.
It has less sensitivity compare to A57 by approx. one stop, when the equal aperture is concerned.
Fair quality quality ratio increase in case A99 vs A57 is about 1.5
So, if it would be a double price for the camera – it would be also about fair price.
But it is about four-five times more expensive. Which means “no go” for me.
I would tend to agree in most areas. Let’s be blunt the A99 isn’t worth the asking price, Sony make it a compelling to want to stick with APS-C.
One could argue the FF price premium isn’t worth paying (be it Sony or other makers)
On price Sony could do better on some bodies and lenses that’s for sure.
The article is a bit of a mixed bag it’s subjective. Let me just say if there we “no” s/h Minolta lenses around, A mount would be a lot less appealing to many people.
You can try to compare the 70D and the 5d3 and you’ll get roughly the same result. We all know that it is diminishing returns with more expensive cameras.
Well done Vlad 🙂
As far as I disagree with some arguments (eg. lenses for NEX – I still don’t get why you compare it only to the mirrorless cameras – it’s pointless. Compare it to all of the systems, not just mirrorless. People complain in general for all of the mirrorless systems how poor choice of the lenses is.) – in general: well done. Great argumentation, many of very valid points raised, seems like you tried very much to be objective – which is a great thing to start with, something that few people do in articles like that.
Thank you. The reason why I am comparing with other mirrorless is that these systems are generally more expensive. So people compare, say Canon DSLR lenses, to NEX and decide it is horribly overpriced, when there is an Alpha DSLR system too.
You make a great point that gets overlooked SO much: The NEX system is NOT a direct comparison with Canon and Nikon DSLRs! Just because it has an APS-C sensor does not make it the same. It is mirrorless! So pointing out lens selection between the NEX vs Canikon is not apples to apples.
In fact, the ONLY direct apples to apples comparison with NEX vs Canikon is the EOS M, Nikon doesn’t have a mirrorless APS-C choice. So you are comparing the M with the NEX system, and when it comes to lenses in that sense, the discussion changes completely.
I think most people forget or don’t realize that the Alpha and NEX systems are actually different systems.
Did you leave out all third party lenses in the NEX lens lacking myth intentionally? Because there’s the awesome series of Zeiss Touit lenses (12mm, 32mm, 50mm). Oh, and don’t forget the 16-70mm Zeiss zoom. And also: In the text it states “… the lens range isn’t much wider …’ when it comes to the NEX-Fuji-comparison. Actually, there are far MORE E-Mount lenses than X-Mount ones.
And calling the 24mm Sonnar overpriced without any note seems unfair. I don’t know of any other fast 24mm lens with such close focus capabilities and optical quality for less money.
I am avoiding third party lenses in these comparisons as it complicates things. As an example, the Touit lenses are also available for Fuji X mount. As to the 16-70, it was still a nascent rumor when I wrote the above.
“And calling the 24mm Sonnar overpriced without any note seems unfair.”
Simply speaking, there are cheaper 35mm equivalents in competing brands (better or not) and the Zeiss is an expensive lens, so imho it shouldn’t be the only option available to NEX users. As an example, a 24mm f2.8 with OSS would be nice to have in the lineup.
If one’s mind was deviant enough to consider it…the Canon EOS M 23mm is comparable to the Zeiss sharpness wise. Character wise, I am not sure, but it costs a great deal less.
Olympus has its own 17mm 1.8 and while not the same depth of field capability, it is still a 1.8 35mm equivalent lens. Doesn’t cost much less, but less nonetheless.
Well, Fuji already announced their 23mm 1.4 at $899. It appears to be a good lens and it is in the range of the Zeiss. Better than the Sonnar? We don’t know yet. Good enough to make me consider Fuji X instead of Sony? I need to see those results firsts.
The truth is, the Zeiss Sonnar is an expensive lens and it is not the most Zeiss-y of all Zeiss lenses. I had it and gave it a great run for 18 months. I worked for many magazines (GEO, The Times, Figaro) with it and my clients were very happy. I mean, the lens delivers but not in spades like the 35mm Sonnar for the RX1 (which is super unique and the basis by which all other 35mm lenses should be measured)
My longer comment has been lost in moderation limbo.
In case it doesn’t appear: thanks Vlad for this very thoughtful post.
For some reason I am not particularly impressed by any of the NEX Zeiss lenses (24mm or Touits). Admittedly, I am judging mostly based on samples, but still. Makes me wonder about that 16-70 zoom.
The 24mm is very overpriced. I had it and sold it after comparing it to the 35mm and the sigma 30mm plus I already had the sigma 19mm. I had the 50mm 35mm sigma 30mm &19mm for less than the price of the 24mm. Paid a total of about 750 through ebay & B&H for all those lenses in like new or brand new condition all with box & papers. With the left over money I got a rokinon 8mm 2.8 and still the total was not as much as the 24mm. The 24mm is a awesome lens but when you make a real honest comparison of the sigma 30 & sony 35 its just not worth it. I let some of my friends see the same pics taken with these lenses and none of them could tell which one cost over a grand. You have to pixel peep for minor improvement.
Sony is overpriced, however, I have Sony a77, and a99 and I love them. But when we go to lenses, I have just a few, and I have more Tamron and Sigma. E.g. if I had to choose a 50 f1.4 for Sony now, I would have gone for a Sigma, if I had to choose a 50 f1.4 for Nikon I would have gone for a Nikon 50 f1.4 G and not the Sigma. Sony loose a lot of sales of lenses to tamron and sigma because of their prices.
And when we go to NEX, lenses are expensive. There some lenses in good price, like the 18-200, but most are very expensive. The same goes to Olympus – Panasonic also. That’s why, even I have sony flashguns, I chose Samsung NX as my small system. All the lenses I got was at very low price, half the price of equivalent Sony and m4/3 lens. Here in Europe at least.
+1 For a Sony shooter, Sigma and Tamron fill some important gaps in the lineup (Sigma more so these days). Price wasn’t the main factor when I bought my Sigmas (34/1.4 and 70/2.8), it was more the absence of anything comparable in Sony’s lineup.
Sony can definitely deliver good glass – the 70-400 and 16-50 leap to mind, but we need more of it! It’d be nice to see a competitive flash lineup too…
All,
We have Sony and Nikon cameras that use the same sensor and as it stands now, each system has it’s own benefits. Both were picked up at nearly the same time with zoom lenses at or under $1000, more expensive lenses were purchased later.
Nikon
D7000 & 80-400G + Sigma 120-400(current version)
Sony
A55 & 70-400G (silver version) + SAL500F8(mirror)
Off hand the biggest handling difference is EVF, indoors the EVF is better as it is shooting under a bridge, shooting outdoors and in bright sunlight the OVF is a clear winner. The Nikon 80-400G is much more costly than the 70-400 (older version) and the difference I would say is that the SONY may be slightly better wide open, but the Nikon focuses faster, faster focusing may be partly due to the camera.
The A55 was significantly less expensive than the D700 and the battery life of the A55 is shorter. The A55 is also powering a GPS. Each one provides enough stability to shoot from a monopod, I can’t say there is enough of a difference to matter in real world shots.
Several shots are posted here, look at the groups each picture is in to see which lens was used:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65854329@N05/
If the price was the same I’d pick the Nikon due to the shooting features and focus speed, if I had to go out and buy them again, I’d save $1000 and pick the Sony camera and lens, waiting to get the new Sony 70-400G2 which should focus faster than the one we have.
Oddly enough the A55 focuses with that F8 mirror based lens, however the D7000 is not recommended to focus with the 80-400(f5.6) plus a 1.4x adapter (making f8).
Tony
Hurray to Vlad Tepes!!!!!
Thanks for your interesting post it will be a good advice for my further purchases
Well done Vlad! Well-written too; something of a rarity. Yours are comments I never skip over.
Very successful as what seems like it could be the first of Andrea’s “reader posts.” It sets a very high standard of performance.
Thank you.
‘choke
Great article. Want to add a few more things, based on my own observation:
1. Sony’s cameras are actually cheaper. The cheapest FF(launching price)? Sony A850. The cheapest APS-C mirrorless interchangeable? Sony A3000. The cheapest FF compact? Sony RX-1. Being an electronic company, Sony could make camera(which is an electronic gadget) much cheaper.
2. Lenses, OTOH, are (a bit) overpriced. Especially in low end market. Compare 50mm f1.8 of Canon, Nikon and Sony. Canikon’s clearly cheaper. Production volume plays a big role here. There are more than 70 millions EOS lenses out there. When you produce that many, production cost per lens is significantly lower. As for mirrorless lenses, I think Sony lenses are priced reasonably. Fuji lenses are even more expensive.
That’s all for today. Again, great article.
That is true!
Sony did launch the most consumer friendly FF DSLR way before the D600/6D…where were the trolls then?
This all sounds a lot like Fan-Boy justifications.
Sony has IBIS which CaNikon users often wish…
Well if you are going to preach your own particular gospel its always wise to preach to the true believers , you can’t have those pesky non-believers butting in , ignorance is bliss after all 🙂
I think that much of Sony’s problem at the serious end of cameras at least is down to the way that their service , aftercare and shall we say dedication to a certain user base are perceived. In this vital area Sony is often considered wanting.The rather unpredictable jumps in camera ethos are an issue to many potential movers from other systems. Then we have Sony’s interest in having unique interfaces to critical areas notably flash thus restricting its utility.
You cant wax lyrical about all the “special features” the bottom line is that it is easy and cheaper to buy better image quality from other systems notably Nikon,thanks to the SLT tech the A99 barely outperforms the D7100 at high ISO.I use the D800e currently for landscape work and mFT for a small lightweight alternative.I am very interested in the next generation of NEX FF cameras to replace my mFT gear with a couple of choice primes to give me a relatively lightweight old school 3 lens kit of a wide { I have my 21mm distagon for this role} MAYBE the Zeiss 55mm for a fast standard and a suitable 135mm lens I can get a lot of utility out of this range
General theory that falls flat in several areas. To get most or all primes stabilized with Nikon, you either pay more but more likely will be out of luck altogether. I don’t shoot sports but I do shoot with primes a lot and can get away with slower shuttersspeeds with my Sony. Also helped by the fact that there is never a mirror movement and there is the option of an electronic first curtain. Thus for me the best performance for the price paid. Not to mention some of my cheap legacy primes being stabilized too (135mm pocket rocket for example).
Image quality in practise is influenced by more than what graphs or studio shots at a given camera ISO tell you. Something easily overlooked by measure batons.
There are a few lenses I wish Sony produced for e mount, though, with rumors saying they are now focusing on introducing higher end optics, I may not have to wait too much longer. But the issue that so many Canikon fans bring up about Sony’s lack of lenses makes me laugh because most times, they seem to be the people that tend to stick with the kit lens anyway or have no intention in getting more than the basic lens setup, which Sony has equivalents. Basically the types of people that buy the cameras to pet their ego, and not for photography. The gaps in Sony’s lineup only really appear if you specifically require certain lenses that maybe Canon or Nikon can provide.
Indeed. Vlad said it right. Thank you, Vlad, for this. It should, hopefully, shed context on how Sony’s system is greatly undervalued and misunderstood.
What appears to be a common pandemic, however, is that people undervalue the brand’s offerings based on individual needs. This is the most stupid way of approaching any product offering.
The a99 vs D600 example is by far the most abused here because:
1) Individual A (the most common comparometer here) shoot stills only and to me 24mp, SLT and lenses are the only things I care about. Therefore, the comparison takes me to the price of each offering and I can easily sway my way to the D600 on this basis alone.
But what about the one who cares about both video and stills? That person would consider SLT AF and Live View from the viewfinder (and not through a loupe attached to the LCD) a major plus vs any other SLR design. Even worse if its video alone comparison? Before the 5D3 hack, Canon’s video was not much better and Nikon’s was about on par. But that’s just IQ…what about the rest of the features like reliable AF whilst recording video, the silent multi assign wheel, the flip screen?
There are too many opinions based on individual needs here that do not see the broader offering made to a wider community.
The RX100 was initially slammed for its pricing when it came out. Now, not one individual calls it overpriced because there is simply not one camera of its size that can have the IQ and lens IQ that the RX100 has.
Same thing for the RX1.
And these are just the beginning. They are proven hits with innovative tech.
If we were to constantly bash products like these, Sony would believe they are not doing it right and abandon the most innovative camera roadmap since the digital revolution.
People ought to be more constructive with a broader understanding of the context of the products at hand before they defecate through the keyboard.
Thanks, Hendrick.
Message to Andreas: Fill your blog with such crap and lose your audience!
Please do not make me regret for sending a contribution for your server upgrade.
Biased rant….Boring….
All the myths…right or wrong they may be…. will always be open to discussion but until Sony gets it’s act together and starts writing GOOD firmware, like a half decent Jpeg engine, and gives it to their existing A65/77 etc users as proof that they intend to actually start to support their existing users, then they will always be on the back foot. A camera is only as good as the firmware in it.
Useless article…. And mine is also a useless post.
Article written for photographers with low confidence, need to justify why they shoot with a Sony.
We don’t need to justify what we’re shooting with…
Now, if your pics suck, please say you’re shooting with a M9 and move on.
The actual reason why I wrote this is that I’ve seen on many occasions people being swayed with ridiculous arguments towards Canikon by sellers or so-called opinion leaders on the Web. (and it is not only about Sony, but Pentax, Olympus…) Rather than informing people properly, they close the door to viable options.
So, it is written for budding photographers, who are searching for a system that will answer their needs.
You said it: your comment is useless.
Too bad you can’t think straight.
Myth 1 to 3 are sort of all related.
With regards to the range of lenses, it hasn’t always been like that, you miss the fact that a lot have only appeared over the past year alone (good now but crummy then). When I bought my NEX in Nov 2012 the line-up was this:
24mm Zeiss
50mm f1.8
18-55
18-200
55-210
16mm – ‘crappy’
30mm macro
35mm f1.8 – didn’t exist
20mm – didn’t exist
10-18mm – didn’t exist
16-50 – didn’t exist
The new Zeiss lenses coming soon also don’t yet exist
Back then, if I wanted a ‘quality’ or fast lens it would be either a choice of the restrictive 50mm or the ‘overpriced’ 24mm Zeiss. The more coveted focal length happened to be the more expensive one so you can see where the complaints came from.
Having said that, the line up has improved significantly within the span of the last year and will only improve over time. Zeiss lenses will undoubtedly cover the premium range of lenses making sure there won’t be ‘crappy’ lenses… but that leaves speculation as to whether there will be conflicts with Sony not competing with similar lenses in a more affordable style(24mm Zeiss anyone?).
NEX lenses are not expensive in general but I’ve never heard of people complaining about that – maybe just about the Zeiss one. And yes, NEX lenses are lacking and they are not great, some are good and some are bad, but not great. Sony NEX is 3 years whereas Fuji’s X-mount is only half that age, is it really ok to say “oh, but it’s almost the same range”?? Seriously??
Isn’t there a reason why PRO Photographers switch system to micro4/3 or Fuji – which, again, it’s only 1 and half year old – but you don’t hear them doing that with NEX? Sure there are plenty of them that have a NEX and love to be able to pair it with legacy lenses and maybe one or another E-mount lenses, but I don’t really hear about PRO Photographers switching and living with only NEX cameras. And I’m not saying that NEX cameras are not PRO, because the cameras are good enough, but I’m talking about lenses!
People that live with photography can’t afford to not have great lenses and with a good range of focal length. Sony doesn’t have that, it’s not a myth nor an exaggeration.
So let’s compare just the lens selection and see is it’s relly a myth and exaggeration or there are some people that are delusional and conformist.
*I’m not counting kit lenses, even though those 2 zooms from Fuji are not really “kit” lenses, both optically and aperture wise. Only the 16-50mm f/3.5~5.6 could be a kit lens and even though it is, reviews say it’s well above the typical optical quality of a kit zoom lens.
E-mount:
10~18 f/4
16mm f/2.8
20mm f/2.8
24mm f/1.8
30mm f/3.5 Macro
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.8
NX-mount:
10mm f/3.5
12~24mm f/4~5.6
16mm f/2.4
20mm f/2.8
30mm f/2
45mm f/1.8
60mm f/2.8 Macro
85mm f/1.4
X-mount:
10~24mm f/4
14mm f/2.8
18mm f/2
23mm f/1.4
27mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.4
56mm f/1.2 (announced)
60mm f/2.4 Macro
30mm f/3.5 for Macro whereas Fuji and Samsung has a proper focal length of 60mm – and brighter? Sony range goes from 10mm to 50mm basically and with only 3 fast lenses, 3 years old system without a proper portrait lens, is that really ok to think that it’s an exaggeration to be frustrated at that?
NX lenses goes from 10mm to 85mm, a good range, you won’t be lacking portrait lens here. Fuji is only half the age and it has a 10mm to 60mm range with a 56mm f/1.2 to come, a great lens for portrait and f/1.2!!! Fuji’s lenses are all great optically and they are overall fast, if not super fast.
This is not just about optical performance or range but focal length selection and aperture as well. Samsung didn’t go for the classic focal length but there is a clearly separation so you can choose from. Fuji went for the classics maybe except for the 14mm which is a bit wider but the 28/35/50/85 are there.
So I ask, is it really a myth and exaggeration or some people are really delusional and conformist? It’s not being or not a PRO system, it’s about commitment towards consumers, it’s about respect. Sony will bring the FF NEX so I can only imagine what’s gonna happen to APS-X NEX.
“Sony NEX is 3 years whereas Fuji’s X-mount is only half that age, is it really ok to say “oh, but it’s almost the same range”??”
Of course, when they have roughly the same number of lenses.
“Isn’t there a reason why PRO Photographers switch system to micro4/3 or Fuji – which, again, it’s only 1 and half year old – but you don’t hear them doing that with NEX?”
Care to back that up? Looks like another myth.
“So let’s compare just the lens selection and see is it’s relly a myth and exaggeration or there are some people that are delusional and conformist.”
Result? Roughly the same number of lenses.
“Sony range goes from 10mm to 50mm basically and with only 3 fast lenses, 3 years old system without a proper portrait lens, is that really ok to think that it’s an exaggeration to be frustrated at that?”
(note: I do not count the lens range in focal lengths, but in number of lenses) Of course, you can be frustrated at that, but you are entirely missing the point of the article.
“Fuji’s lenses are all great optically and they are overall fast, if not super fast.”
And they are also expensive.
“So I ask, is it really a myth and exaggeration or some people are really delusional and conformist? It’s not being or not a PRO system, it’s about commitment towards consumers, it’s about respect. ”
Here, I admit, I am completely confused as to what your point is.
Here is the point of what I wrote above (and it is actually the last sentence):
“It does have its shortcomings, like all the others, but it also has some unique features.”
Don’t get me wrong nor take this pesonally but with your questions I hardly think this discussion will be productive. Most of your question were already addressed in the comment I wrote and if you just care about the number of lenses with no regard towards to focal length availability, the aperture or the optical quality along the whole range, by definition it becomes impossible or pointless to discuss anything lens related.
For me it’s pretty clear that the commitment from Sony is not there as it should but more likely that Sony has more mounts and sensor sizes that they can properly handle and deliver. In this case they set priorities and the FF is clearly their priority now and before that A-mount was a priority, the current NEX line up was never a priority, photographic wise. I say that because from the marketing view, they did what they need to sell, not surprisingly NEX cameras sell fairly well. If your hobby is to buy a new camera body every year instead of buying one or two lenses every year, well, complains about lack os lenses is really an exaggeration and a myth.
Jokes aside, everybody knows that lenses are as important – if not more – than just bodies and with a very short effective focal length range to work with and not even a roadmap to know what we can expect for, you got to question how much Sony is really caring about the photographic side instead of just wanting to address the market. I’m not saying to ignore the market, not at all, they have to sell, after all, that’s a big part of the business but make no mistake here, there are plenty of ways to address the market AND consumers.
Knowing how Fuji has been working or how micro4/3 are maturing more and more, I find it very difficult to sanely say that Sony is very committed towards it’s APS-C E-Mount consumers, that they respect their desire for photography and that they are working towards providing the tools for them. That’s simply not true, it’s not a myth nor an exaggeration and yes, not wanting to recognize that, not wanting to see that, denying that it actually accurs, for me, it is pretty much the definition of delusion and/or conformism.
I’m not a hater at all, but I can’t be ok with the lack of lenses options, more problematic than the availability of them right now is the lack of the roadmap so I can at least know if they are coming or not. As a consumer, I feel very disrespected by that. You commit yourself to a system, you buy lenses just to find out, some years later that you still have no clue if the lenses you want and you thought it would be out by then will come or not.
Jumping system for lack of lenses is a bad thing no matter how you look at that, you have to sell your gear, your lenses and get less value for something that should be there for a long time. I’d rather pay a better and more expensive lens knowing that unless there is a second version with a lot of improvements, that lens will hold its value and I’ll be able to use it for a long time.
Saying simply that Fuji is expensive is kind of contradictory. They are MORE expensive, sure, but for what they offer in terms of quality and aperture, they are very well priced. You can compare as much as you want, anything with the same quality has, in general, double the price, just one or another with the same quality has the same value.
The majority of Fuji XF lenses are better optically than even the 24mm Zeiss/Sony and if you think about how much the Zeiss cost and if you think that to have the Zeiss quality on the E-mount you’ll have to pay $1000 or more, Fuji’s are not expensive, just more expensive than the average NEX lens. If you say simply say that they are expensive you are acting just like the people that you talked about when it came to Sony, just saying it’s expensive without relativization between quality, aperture and other similar lenses price tags is pointless, it’s too simplistic. I think that a lot of serious NEX users would be VERY pleased if the NEX had the Fuji lenses for the price they are, offering what they offer.
“if you just care about the number of lenses with no regard towards to focal length availability, the aperture or the optical quality along the whole range, by definition it becomes impossible or pointless to discuss anything lens related.”
> I am simply looking at it from a very global perspective. Good lenses are great to have for you and me, but there are users who would favor cheaper ones. Where is the 18-200 for Fuji? I am simply going against generalizations, nothing more. When I was buying my NEX-7, I was also looking at the XE1, but crappy movie, fixed LCD, issues with RAW, histogram issues, etc, turned me away. Would it be fair to say that Fuji’s system is crap? Of course, not.
“For me it’s pretty clear that the commitment from Sony is not there as it should but more likely that Sony has more mounts and sensor sizes that they can properly handle and deliver.”
> I can only agree here. And that is the actual problem for Sony, not lenses or prices. But Canon did sack FD mount and look where they are now.
“Knowing how Fuji has been working or how micro4/3 are maturing more and more, I find it very difficult to sanely say that Sony is very committed towards it’s APS-C E-Mount consumers, that they respect their desire for photography and that they are working towards providing the tools for them. That’s simply not true, it’s not a myth nor an exaggeration and yes, not wanting to recognize that, not wanting to see that, denying that it actually accurs, for me, it is pretty much the definition of delusion and/or conformism.”
> Ok, now that is clearer. Well, I simply see it differently. Sony is going all over the place, but lenses are coming to the e-mount, albeit slowly. The newly announced 16-70 Zeiss confirms that for me. Also, if someone is happy with the available lenses in e-mount for their needs, why wouldn’t it be a good investment? Bodies are cheaper than Olympus, lenses are roughly the same price, less issues and more features than Fuji. Certainly a valid choice.
“I’m not a hater at all, but I can’t be ok with the lack of lenses options”
I understand. But others will be ok with it.
“Jumping system for lack of lenses is a bad thing no matter how you look at that, you have to sell your gear, your lenses and get less value for something that should be there for a long time.”
> Here we have a big argument. Why invest into a system that doesn’t answer your needs to begin with? Unless your needs changed over time, but then every system can be a handicap.
“Saying simply that Fuji is expensive is kind of contradictory. They are MORE expensive, sure, but for what they offer in terms of quality and aperture, they are very well priced.”
> That is precisely what I meant. You said that Fuji has better lenses, I said that you need to pay more for them. That’s it, no more, no less. Can you say Fuji is better, then? No. Fuji is better optically, Sony is better price-wise.
“NEX users would be VERY pleased if the NEX had the Fuji lenses for the price they are, offering what they offer.”
> I would be very pleased to have the 36MP sensor in an A99 with proper tethering. Or a D800 with good LV, live time and a swivel screen. Or Canon’s TS lenses in Nikon and Alpha mount. Or AF Zeiss in Canon and Nikon mount. Or a NEX-7 with 5-axis IBIS and Fuji lenses 🙂
“Fuji is better optically, Sony is better price-wise” – so the choice is clear then
@Hexx Well, I oversimplified to make my point 🙂 I currently own the 10-18, 35 and 50 with a NEX-7. All good optics, not sure what I am missing from Fuji, except their colors. But yes, the better you know your needs, the clearer the choice.
Renato is correct. that’s why i chose Fuji instead of NEX-7 (nex also felt a bit computery to my taste). Fuji nailed it when they introduced X-Pro1 and first 3 lenses:
18 f/2
35 f/1.4
60 f/2.4
that’s tried and tested golden trio of primes 27-50-90 – that’s what you need to get you going.
same here. the 18-55/14mm/35/60. then i am done. may get the 56 f1.2 to replace the 60 in the future. don’t even try compare the optical quality of the fuji lens with the nex.
Yes, and that’s my worry that the ones who claim that they compared both are talking BS. If they did, they wouldn’t claim such a thing that they’re comparable – THEY ARE NOT.
Go to stuckincustoms.com to see a PRO who switched from Nikon to NEX.
Nailed it, as expected.
The day Vlad and Hendrick are off this blog would be the day to look forward to.
Andrea, any rumors with SR5 marking on that front?!
Whats your problem?
do you wish people would stop arguing with logic and common sense and just leave the bandwagoners in a blog together?
I totally agree with you. I don’t have anything against these two guys, but their fanboysim shows so much i can not believe if anyone take them seriously. the funny thing is they both are sounds from the same country who agree each other even if they know they talk Sh:t. I do not dislike Sony product but when read childish articles like this i just want to shut the computer completely.
it has been for some times when i see their comment i just skip and don’t read it. mind you Hendrick left a comment on Mirrorlessroumors one of these past days and it showed his immaturity as if a 10 year old rude kids talking
Ha, talk about rude.
I used Nikon, Contax, Canon, Mamiya, Pentax and Ricoh…I came to Sony because it was sound for me. In the great scheme of things, it has great product offerings.
Was I a fan of Canon or Nikon when I was using them? no, but they were the best at what they offered when I joined them (D2x – 5D2) so it was clear who was heading in the right direction for me.
Now, Sony is. A lot of people here keep on arguing that so and so are better or have more capable offerings in X department. But why do they have to come here to a community servicing those interested in this particular brand?
The point which some SAR try to bring out here is that such articles like from Vlad are actually belonging into comment-system, privat blog or little fan-community but not in the topic of the well-established, serios, internatonal information portal like SAR.
Andrea I hope you will choose topics better if you really want to take some of your load off in this way.
Nothing against Vlad or Hendric or arguments in this article: it’s IMHO just a wrong tone on wrong place!
Edit: that means “some SAR-reader”
It’s a leanring process. I am trying to understand how readers post can be integrated in SAR and how well accepted it is. Negatove feedbacks and critics are very helpful for this too! Thanks!
“The point which some SAR try to bring out here is that such articles like from Vlad are actually belonging into comment-system”
> I strongly suggest that you reread the comments above from VladHendrick and Meeran, because I do not see this point being made. I see a bunch of personal attacks and insults, which shouldn’t have their place here at all. Any post can be easily skipped, btw, if you do not see an interest in it. I believe there is a community here and we are having discussions about a brand that we are interested in. My text above represents my view and judging by the number of comments, certainly did spark interest and generated a discussion. How is that bad? Frankly, people who are unable or unwilling to do a proper comparison or build a proper argument, shouldn’t be bashing a product. From all the negative comments here (I mean those treating me as a fanboy and being biased), not one has presented a single proper argument. Thankfully, there aren’t many of those and there are people who while still disagreeing, care to be polite and discuss.
“Nothing against Vlad or Hendric or arguments in this article: it’s IMHO just a wrong tone on wrong place!”
> I can’t argue about the “place”, as this is Andrea’s privilege, but why is my tone “wrong”?
Not your tone personally Vlad. Your article is good written, objective and I do agree with 99% of points in it. But the whole stuff is like someone already said “need to justify why they shoot with a Sony”. It is even not really so, but it looks like. Somehow childish. That’s why I said wrong tone on wrong place… wrong content on wrong place is perhaps better.
@Vic Tor I see now. Yep, I understand your position.
Dear Hendrick,
If you only allow one view, in this case hail everything Sony, this site would become very boring. Please do never try censorship- anywhere!
No camera or camera system makes you a better photographer. There is no truth here. It is about personal preferences and availabl budget. Having a good discussion helps us all to make the optimal personal choice.
But when you providing alternative point of view, please be concrete 😉
Sony just need to refresh its 24-105 or make a new equivalent one. my minolta 24-105 is not satusfying enough in my A99
Not the best article some ok points but not really nailing things
Let’s forget myths and concentrate on facts.
1: Fact Canikon sell a ton more OVF DSLR’s than Sony do SLT models. If that’s down to preference or old ways or whatever we can safely say that just “having” EVF models has not worked for Sony. You can argue either way but it’s not a strong enough reason for most people to look at Sony, and some will not look at them at all due to no OVF.
Solution is to offer both OVF and EVF models, everyone is happy. One suit size does not fit all
2: IBIS is good, we know that and it’s a “free ticket” but some Sony lenses are priced above Canikon IS/VR lenses when they should be priced closer to the non IS/VR ones the 70-200mm f28 G is a very obvious example. Sony have not really made “in body IS” appealing bar third party lens makers and s/h Minolta lenses
3: Prices being high. Mixed here some lenses are comparatively well priced 70-400mm G being one example v the Nikon equivalent. Some are not well priced 70-300mm G is seriously overpriced – near £700 for that lens is ridiculous. Some lenses like the 18-135mm, budget primes, normal kit zooms etc. are in line with rivals
4: Support or lack of, issues remaining on A mount bodies, flash delays on a £2000 camera are not acceptable, iffy jpegs not addressed, silly annoying nag screens baby hand holding etc. This is a real problem and Sony need to get on top of it.
5: Missing lenses, quite a problem in some ways no 70-200mm f4, no 85mm f1.8, no 28mm prime at all nothing current, no reasonable cost 24mm, no up to date UWA zoom either, this needs sorting out and fairly fast. The 50mm f 1.4 CZ was NOT needed and not a priority with that missing stuff.
6: Flash, Sony have a lot of work to do here and need to put back functionality into the bodies, not try to force people into buying high end flashes. Hot shoe change was not a good move, made worse with the awful fall off adaptor from Sony
Whilst the OP has some fair points, he’s missed many obvious ones and it’s too fan boy based IMO, wake up!
1. Canon and Nikon have 40+ years of building their brands in people’s minds. Sony’s got a bit more than a decade and much of that not in professional hands. So people only associate the big two with professional names, hence the initial choice is ‘what the professionals use’ although they don’t use a D90 or 50D.
2. Show the price comparison from one shop alone to support that argument. IBIS is worth it because you don’t need to update lenses to have IS or no IS because the IS is always renewed with new bodies. It is so much better value than Canon/Nikon offerings which, for any IS lens, charge a lot more money!
See the new 35mm/2
The 24-70 IS (how much for that?)
The 70-200 IS (how much again?)
4. What issues? All flash development to the drain because whiners wanted a future back to the past with a silly hotshoe. So, Sony is back on square 1 with flash implementation.
5.No reasonable cost 24mm? Have you seen how good that lens is comapared to Canon or Nikon 2.8 or 1.4 lenses? Its the best!
6. Again, flash development has gone back to square one thanks to the old/new hotshoe.
Slightly selective argument coming from you.
“Let’s forget myths and concentrate on facts.”
> That would be an entirely different article.
“If that’s down to preference or old ways or whatever we can safely say that just “having” EVF models has not worked for Sony.”
> No, we can’t.
“You can argue either way but it’s not a strong enough reason for most people to look at Sony, and some will not look at them at all due to no OVF.”
> Nobody said you must look at Sony just because of the EVF. Plenty of other features available.
“Solution is to offer both OVF and EVF models, everyone is happy.”
> Unless you are company and you don’t have limitless resources.
“IBIS is good, we know that and it’s a “free ticket” but some Sony lenses are priced above Canikon IS/VR lenses when they should be priced closer to the non IS/VR ones the 70-200mm f28 G is a very obvious example.”
> You are arguing my text above, yet I haven’t even mentioned IBIS. But ok. Why it should be priced closer to the non IS versions, when in the end you have a stabilized lens?
“Mixed here some lenses are comparatively well priced 70-400mm G being one example v the Nikon equivalent. Some are not well priced 70-300mm G is seriously overpriced – near £700 for that lens is ridiculous. Some lenses like the 18-135mm, budget primes, normal kit zooms etc. are in line with rivals”
> Essentially exactly what I said above in Myth I.
“Support or lack of, issues remaining on A mount bodies, flash delays on a £2000 camera are not acceptable, iffy jpegs not addressed, silly annoying nag screens baby hand holding etc. This is a real problem and Sony need to get on top of it.”
> Here’s what I meant by “an entirely different article.”
“Whilst the OP has some fair points, he’s missed many obvious ones and it’s too fan boy based IMO, wake up!”
I believe you should wake up. You are basically arguing that I didn’t write properly an article that I didn’t write.
One Man One Mission – lol. Nothing new to me. As a SonyFanboy well done. Otherwise useless article.
So what are you doing here?
Not a bad article, but it ultimately suffers from a lack of enough factual information to back up claims or bust the myths. For instance, myth 2 – lacking lens line-up could have used a count of Nikon F, Canon EF and Sony a-mount lenses (plus additional Minolta a-mount options). Plus a note about third-party information would be good. [Note: it is certainly not a myth as it pertains to speciality lenses such as tilt-shift].
A graphic of the pricing breakdown of bodies & lenses vs Nikon & Canon would have been very helpful and bolstered the argument against that myth.
Vlad your article doesn’t address many concerns A mount users have.
So what are the many other reasons people should look at Sony over rivals if you ignore the OVF/EVF debate?
About the only one I can think of is some nice classic Minolta glass much of which is quite cheaply priced, and you get IBIS with that. Apart from this one point I fail to see any really compelling reason to look at Sony (ie bargain hunter looking to build up a cheap system with legacy Minolta lenses)
Why should a lens be priced closer to the non IS versions from other makers? Pretty simple really considering the no. of users moaning about Tamron’s pricing ie no cheaper for non VC lenses v VC ones, isn’t it a bit obvious? If Sony are priced at or above rivals for lenses then people won’t look at them simple as that.
If you’re trying to make an argument about pricing non IS lenses at IS prices you’ve really got to go away, ponder why Sony are a weak third place and with probably less than 10% of the market. You have to “attract people” to the mount, and that is one way of doing it ie price incentive.
It’s obviously cheaper to make a non IS lens than it is an IS one that’s rather obvious.
Regarding the OVF/EVF aspect well Sony seem to be wasting a lot of resources in NEX and other odd projects such as this new smartphone lens concept. You need to get out a bit more and talk to people to see what they like or don’t like
Right now I just see your article as missing the most obvious points and being blunt a die hard fan with their head in the “sand”
“Vlad your article doesn’t address many concerns A mount users have.”
> Peter, my text is clearly aimed at addressing a few myths about the brand. It is certainly not a complete description of the brand, nor does it pretend to be.
“So what are the many other reasons people should look at Sony over rivals if you ignore the OVF/EVF debate?”
> IBIS, swivel screen, amazing Live View experience, some specific lenses like AF Zeiss, focus peaking, etc.
“Why should a lens be priced closer to the non IS versions from other makers?”
> It is an equivalent product.
“If you’re trying to make an argument about pricing non IS lenses at IS prices you’ve really got to go away, ponder why Sony are a weak third place and with probably less than 10% of the market. You have to “attract people” to the mount, and that is one way of doing it ie price incentive.”
> You said it, price is only “one” way. Unlike you, I don’t think Sony’s issue is pricing, they have other problems which left them stuck at that market share and they should be solved differently.
“It’s obviously cheaper to make a non IS lens than it is an IS one that’s rather obvious.”
> That is not how pricing is done.
One more time, my article has a title and addresses specific issues. It is not titled “Sony’s problems” (I could write that too).
While I enjoy a nice discussion, you went for personal attacks, which is simply too boring for me, so I will stop this here.
I’d love to know how anyone can justify the A99 price, nice try Vlad but care to be more specific about that? The 6d currently costs £1250 odd on cashback, D600 around £1300. Now can you find out where that extra £700+ price gap comes from because I can’t for the life of me work it out.
I’m all ears on that one.
Reality is Sony are just trying to gouge a big profit out, and it’s failed as most people just buy a Canikon FF body if they are going to full frame.
It’s a real let down Sony actually think the A99 is worth the asking price it’s not even remotely a pro level FF body in any way shape or form, more a FF sensor shoved in a semi pro A77 body. Epic fail here, and the article is seriously mis informed sorry
I explained it above. For a stills only person, it doesnt make much sense. But for video and stills, especially professionals, it makes as much sense as a 5D3.
If you cant understand the other half of the offering, it means you cant find half of its value.
Don’t you find that a bit worrying in that you say it “doesn’t make sense” for a “stills person” to pick up an A99.?
I mean most of us here are “mostly interested in stills photography” Video is way down the list of “must have” stuff. Important to some, but I think most people here are photographers and not video shooters, some might be both but a lot less.
Why do you say ‘most of us’ if there is no way for you to know? Care to ask?
He’s probably right I know a LOT of DSLR users and very few are really into video certainly a lot less than still shooting. I don’t really think it’s “that big” with most users.
Anyway Canon have stolen Sony’s thunder with the 70d on sensor AF
Denis,
I know a lot of professionals (I am one) and most of us do pay attention to video quite simply because there are jobs that want X quality of video or better. Every little aspect helps. We make our living through this industry, whether stills or video.
I know most enthusiasts in photography are interested in stills only, or mostly. However, a99 is not an enthusiast camera, its a professional one and a lot of that market looks at both features equally. Quite simply, a lot of clients want a bit of video to go with their stills too (many times)
While D600 may also have video (quality is worse) its usability is considerably more cumbersome for that task: where a99 is best DSLR for that beyond 5D3 and D800 because of SLT and Live view through EVF and IBIS with any lens you attach to it.
How would you justify the price of the D4? That is three times the price of the D600, let’s see where this price gap comes from. Or the 5D3 which costs almost twice as the 6D? Diminishing returns. As I see it, the A99 is a camera at the level of the 5D3 and the D800.
And every company is trying to gouge a big profit out. Canikon’s current strategy simply aligns with some people’s interests. And that will change. Remember, Sony had the cheapest FF camera first.
VLAD: I agree with you that A99, D800 and 5DMkIII are in the same bracket. D4 is in another league though with more distinct specs aimed at photojournalism.
In the end the right price of a product/service is what is accepted by booth buye and seller. As Canikon brands are stronger compared to Sony when it is about camera systems, one could expect Sony should be a bit cheaper to compete. Instead Nikon have a very aggressive pricing which is great for Nikon customers, but not so great for Sony sales.
“As Canikon brands are stronger compared to Sony when it is about camera systems, one could expect Sony should be a bit cheaper to compete.”
I see your point. Pentax is going kind of that way. But I can’t help myself to try and look from the company’s perspective. And I simply do not see Sony winning a price war, given the current situation of the market. I actually see them losing it very badly.
Despite the “wishful thinking” of some the A99 is NOT a pro level body.
D800 and 5dMk III are. Reason, they have “full mag alloy bodies” nor partial, dual slots, no scene modes and much more advanced AF systems v the A99’s single slot SD (consumer), scene modes (consumer), partial mag alloy (consumer) same AF system as the A77 (19 point AF) and poor coverage only the central area, well below the D800 and 5dMkIII AF systems.
I’m not saying the A99 isn’t any good, but it’s clearly not a pro level body. It’s an A77 with a FF sensor and a few extra bits thrown in. A77 is a semi pro level body.
” clearly not a pro level body”
> What is clear is that you decided arbitrarily what a pro body is and then cherry-picked whatever suits your argument, not to mention you messed up the specs (the A99 has two slots). A professional camera is nothing more than a camera with enough features to allow a photographer do the work he is asked for.
And how is the live view and manual focusing on those amazing D800 and 5D3 bodies? Way behind the A99, but obviously it’s better to omit it, right? I mean, what professional would ever use manual focus?! Where is the convenient swivel screen, useful for video, tripod and difficult angles work? Where’s the stabilization for every lens? And you are worried about some “scene mode” that you could simply ignore?
Simon, have you ever tried from an economical Point of view?
Because this is the most likely reason.
R&D cost plus production cost versus estimated sales versus competitors (this is of course just a simple naive assesment, but it Shows the crusical factor – estimated sales).
Additionally I continue to disagree with comparing the A99 with 6D/D600. Just compare built quality (materials and haptic).
With all its weaknesses the A99 is much closer to 5D3/D800.
@Vlad
Nice writing, and 96% agreed Content.
Regarding your “stop listening” advice connected to crappy lenses I have a question.
Do you mean it, the 1650 shall not be indicated as No.1 of crappy lenses, or do you disagree with people claiming its IQ as quite bad at all?
I mean, the 16 and the 30 macro are my favorites in the “crappy line-up”, too, and I would always indicate the 16mm first.
But the 16-50 might be a choice for friends of silent zooming during Video capturing, but it is indeed a suboptimal choice as a standard-zoom.
I do not agree with your assessment of the 16-50mm power zoom as suboptimal. Here is a picture taken with the lens taken on an airplane with the fast setting sun providing diminishing amounts of light.
http://500px.com/photo/45682648
Yes, I should have used a faster lens and maybe go to a cleaner airplane window, but the lens isn’t nearly as bad as people say it is.
Nice Picture. Really nice shot at the perfect Moment.
And this is the point – the perfect moment doesn’t care of the lens been chosen.
At this moment you could have chosen any other lens, it would have (slightly) improved the IQ, not the Impression it makes.
Thanks, Dibok. Basically, what I am saying is that it doesn’t make much sense to make a judgment on IQ, without taking into account the purpose of the lens. Compared to Sony’s 16-50 f2.8, that pancake zoom doesn’t stand a chance. But it is not meant to. It is made to be cheap and compact. So, how can a kit lens be “crap” if it actually serves its purpose?
Partly agree.
Of course the design of the lens as a pancake zoom is reason for its weaknesses.
I didn’t say it’s an unsable lens – for me it’s to weak as an every day lens (Need to say that i don’t care size at all).
In that sense the “old” 18-55 is a much better choice in my point of view.
However – in the end it’s the guy behind the camera capturing the Images. 🙂
i have use EVF before and still is. But the truth is OVF is indeed better.
What a wonderfully simple statement 🙂 I have used OVF (both crop and fullframe) before and sometimes still do, but EVF is indeed better 🙂
Myth II is not a myth at all, and it is only exaggerated if you can be 100% sure that you will never need the lenses Sony does not have. This might be fine for some, but for others it is a deal breaker.
Myth III is also not a myth. The NEX lens line up is lacking, and for a long time the lenses were not great. This has changed somewhat recently, but compared to M43 the NEX system is way behind. Fuji also doesn’t have a huge lineup, but the lens quality seems to be better.
The biggest problem for Sony, and the reason why I did not switch to Sony when I upgraded this spring is their apparent lack of direction. I am not buying a camera (the A99 was certainly tempting though), or a lens; I am investing in a camera system which I am planning to use for several years. And to be honest, I am not sure what kind of cameras Sony is going to make in 3 years. Will the A mount (lenses) still be fully supported or will everything be replaced by a FF NEX system. Will they add lenses to the NEX system, or is everythin going FF NEX? Does Sony have enough resources to develop three different systems? Perhaps, but this lack of direction adds uncertainty to my business. CaNikon in a way are behind Sony (no EVF for example), but due to their legacy issues I can be pretty certain that I can still use my excellent 85mm 1.4 with the latest camera in 3 years.
Going on about those “myths” won’t change that.
“Myth II is not a myth at all, and it is only exaggerated if you can be 100% sure that you will never need the lenses Sony does not have.”
> From the Myth II section:
“Not exactly a myth, but an over-exaggerated issue. (…) It all depends on your needs.(…) Advice: Know your needs.”
“This has changed somewhat recently, but compared to M43 the NEX system is way behind. Fuji also doesn’t have a huge lineup, but the lens quality seems to be better.”
> There’s a reason why NEX is behind M43. As to Fuji, if you check my text above, I have quite some praise for them. Better lenses, agreed, but not wider range.
“The biggest problem for Sony, and the reason why I did not switch to Sony when I upgraded this spring is their apparent lack of direction.”
> Valid point.
My points are very simple. You can’t just find one overpriced product and then call the whole lineup overpriced. You can’t say a lineup is lacking, when you aren’t comparing to another one and/or looking at someone’s needs. You can’t say lenses are crappy, without looking at their prices and/or the final user’s needs. Because otherwise you get a bunch of flawed generalizations. And, frankly, it’s not only about Sony. I could write something similar about Pentax.
“Not exactly a myth, but an over-exaggerated issue. (…) It all depends on your needs.(…) Advice: Know your needs.”
> It is an over-exaggerated issue only if you are 100% sure what your needs are now and will be in a few years.
In any case, my point was not that those myths are actually facts, although I think dismissing those concerns as “myths” belittles legitimate problems the Sony lineup currently has. The big problem for me is that those myths show that Sony has not truly understood what is needed to make their systems attractive. As a professional I might be particularly difficult to please, but I think it is a wider problem. Case in point, the NEX line-up. We have had countless iterations of cameras while lens development has been a disaster. Then comes the A99, a great attempt at shaking the camera scene up. And a few months later it seems like development of those type of cameras has been stopped? Why? What will be the replacement? Who knows.
As for A mount lens development, Sony is way behind Canon and Nikon. If there was any indication that they are trying to plug the holes, the myth would not be a problem, but I just don’t see this happening. So, yes you can say the lens line-up is lacking and might be lacking for a long time. But you can of course also say, that you are okay with it.
“dismissing those concerns as “myths” belittles legitimate problems the Sony lineup currently has”
> That definitely wasn’t my intent. I do acknowledge the problem, I just don’t accept how far it is taken. Also, the overpricing is definitely not true. Most importantly though, for me, Sony’s problem lies exactly in their “direction”, as you pointed out before, and in their marketing and support. More lenses won’t fix that.
“Case in point, the NEX line-up. We have had countless iterations of cameras while lens development has been a disaster.”
> Absolutely agreed. But then Fuji’s bodies needed a ton of firmware just to make them usable, Olympus was iterating the same camera with the same sensor for many years, until finally they came up with the OMD, etc. Which one is better? Every company has its weaknesses. Or strengths.
“Then comes the A99, a great attempt at shaking the camera scene up. And a few months later it seems like development of those type of cameras has been stopped? Why?”
> They are simply stopping the SLT designs. Probably because they managed to improve on-sensor AF. I doubt they’ll just throw the A-mount out of the window.
Hi Vlad,
Well written article.
Although I have to disagree with myth 4. I genuinely think that most people do prefer an OVF. I think if this wasn’t true, Canon and Nikon wouldn’t have such a duopoly of ‘serious’ cameras.
As you say though, this doesn’t mean an OVF is better, it of course comes down to personal preference and needs.
Maybe as an experiment you could create a survey monkey with the question “All else equal would you prefer an EVF or an OVF on a camera?”
Well let SAR put up a poll they had one on a few other sites. I honestly do think most people prefer an OVF (esp a pentaprism one either APS-C or full frame)
If that’s correct, then that should make Sony re-think their SLT only strategy.
I like SLT in some respects, but if you pick up an A99 and then an A900 there is no question the A900 VF is vastly superior, the build on the A900 is also much denser and solid, another reason why I think the A99 can’t really command it’s price premium.
There would be nothing to stop Sony making OVF cameras with on sensor AF (like the 70d) offering users a live view and the superb clarity and detail of an optical finder.
The A900 OVF is outstanding. I hope with the EVF push, OVF makers will finally give us something like the OM1 OVF.
Sony has already rethought the SLT strategy. No more SLT, just CDAF+PDAF in sensor.
Hi Citrus, thanks. The reason for this article is that when people ask me what camera to buy, they are surprised that on top of Canon and Nikon, I also present to them Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic (yes, I do not present Leica and Samsung). The reason why they are surprised is that nobody else did the same. Which is, in turn, surprising to me. I believe it is all due to generalizations and half-truths, and shop policies.
For the OVF, I would disagree (you may very well be right though). Sony had OVFs for many years, it didn’t help them much. Also the product that camera companies are selling is a “system”. Which means that once you have invested enough, you will need a big push to move out. So, once you have the big market share, it’s easy to simply iterate and keep it.
“Sony had OVFs for many years, it didn’t help them much.”
That’s actually a really interesting point, I hadn’t thought of it like that before. I’m going to have to go away and think about that one.
To be honest, Sony taught me that I don’t even need a VF. I do all of my shooting now with my NEX 5R (or my phone!)
I completely agree with your reasons to write the piece. People are definitely too brand focussed. Although I probably don’t blame them. If somebody knows nothing about photography, they probably still know that Canon and Nikon are well reputed brands and therefore are more likely to trust buying a camera from them.
I think that people who are in the know however obviously shouldn’t knock the other brands.
Sony sold more DSLR’s with OVF’s than they did with SLT’s that’s well known. Remember the A200-350 range and they “grabbed” 20% of the EU market. Well since then they’ve said nothing at all, and just how many SLT’s do you see around?
I’ve seen quite a few A200’s and A350’s the odd A700 and all of “one” A77 in 2 years
“Sony sold more DSLR’s with OVF’s than they did with SLT’s that’s well known.”
I definitely do not know that. You might be right, but we don’t have any numbers.
“Remember the A200-350 range and they “grabbed” 20% of the EU market.”
If the market share stays the same, it means people are buying the new cameras.
Have you mentioned weight? A99 is very lightweight.
sony cameras are crap but playstation is good
We meet again…
Nice article. I would hardly say that the 16mm is crappy (I find that it gives acceptable performance in many instances). The SEL18200 (the original 18-200mm lens) is a wonderful performer. Here are some images (I sent references to these to Andrea) of the NEX7 coupled with the 18-200mm lens.
http://500px.com/photo/45649592
http://500px.com/photo/45574856
http://500px.com/photo/45586252
I actually loved this combination. And I like the 18-200mm powerzoom even more.
Sony isn’t overpriced, I’d still be shooting with it. Sony do not cater to the demanding users, that’s all. I like a99 and would use it for slow methodical work. Sony G and Carl Zeiss lenses deliver beautiful images with excellent character. The flash sucks and a99 is very slow to wake up and has lacking AF power in low light. Although, shooting manually is a joy. Should Sony decide to cater to pro photographers and deliver such gear, I’d buy it. Beginner and amateur segment is well covered and I miss the tilt screen and Sony’s excellent live view with peaking a lot.
Hendrick, I feel like you haven’t really compared the video of the A99 to the 5d. They really don’t look close to me, and I have a hard time understanding using that as any sort of a defense of the A99s value.
Try doing a video while palying Playstation, you will understand what I mean. RX1 rules! Haha.
I love the 16-50mm PZ kit lens, why because it is small, light, has IS and deliveries perfectly good photos. Yes it has heavy vignetting in 16mm and its not the fastest or sharpest, don’t care its a great lens for the size of the NEX. I would say that this lens is better than the Canon kit lenses I’ve used, I not a huge fan of Canon low to mid teir glass.
Gear wars, boring….
I wrote a little piece about this last year. http://www.fixel.com.au/rotw-sony-the-elephant-in-the-room/
I love what sony are doing and can’t wait for the nex ff. I have no doubt I’ll switch to Sony in the next year or 2. But they need some variants of their high cost zooms.
OVF… The best electronic viewfinder I saw so far are the one on A99 and Olympus VF4. I used both of them. and I think THEY SUCK!
If I have to take the bulky of a FF camera I WANT a DAMM GOOD OVF. A900, Nikon D700 and Nikon D800. If not let me with a good liveview and a smaller, lighter camera.
NEX: My one is just gone. Nice, little snappy and responsive camera. the one thing alone that make me trash them all is the lack of proper wired remote. the CRAP ir only serves for selfportrait and does not allow bracketing. The firmware, when you get to it, is not bad either. Lenses? some so-so zooms, 3 nice primes, a joke (24 zeiss) and some crap. Very few to make use of one of the best sensors ever made. With old MF lenses works like a charm. Micro bodies with APSC sized lenses, make the ergonomy completely crazy.
I went Olympus and I’m happy, I do like Fujis a lot, but my balance was for the smaller Oly. Sony really WANTS that their NEX are for snapshots only. I do want ONE proper camera, to use in ALL situations. I want it small, portable, with liveview and WITHOUT EVF, I want to use it on tripod (PROPER tripod)by night, by day, on stage, on the field and in studio. On a pole and from the pocket.
Video-wise, any Magic Lantern firmware, with a body to contain it, will fullfill my needs. No dsrl with original firmware does (maybe the Panasonic GH3, but not completely).
My pro cine-cams are 5DIIIs and 600Ds. My pro studio cam is D800E. I do have old Zeiss lens adapted, and the body are rented on the needs
What about crappy jpeg engine and nothing holds value. Oh wait, these aren’t myths.
You answered your question.
I have been an amateur photographer for 40 years, probably never owning more than 4 lenses at any one time. I know there is a lot of chatter on the internet about this system and that, but frankly, to the vast majority of us, it really doesn’t matter how extensive the lens line up is compared to another. The question is do you enjoy using the camera you purchased and are their sufficient accessories to meet your needs, as opposed to wants..
Myths aside, the Sony NEX 7 made me a better photographer, and I finally understood the advantage of live view through a viewfinder. The technology was amazing and worth the price in my book. Now, they were not able to meet my needs, an excellent18-55 lens and an excellent 55-200mm, and an excellent fast normal , so I finally sold it and switched to a Fuji system. I never felt the Sony was overpriced, nor the NEX lenses too big (they are all smaller than the Fuji equivalents). If only the 18-55 and 55-200 SONY were capable lenses….
Nex lens vs Canon M lens
kit lens: SEL 18-55 ($298) vs EF-M 18-55 ($269)
Fast wide angle prime: SEL 24 f1.8 ($1098) vs EF-M 22 f2 ($229)
Wide angle zoom: SEL 10-18 f4 ($848)vs EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 ($399)
lots of review out there on the quality of both the nex and canon m lens.
OMG, are we at this again?
A99 VS D600.
A99 Pros: EVF, tilting screen, slightly tougher body/buttons.
D600 Pros: Better focusing, better IQ, better flash system, cheaper (much cheaper).
1) most of us don’t care much if the camera is made out of diamond, plastic is fine.
2) yes the A99 controls are slightly better, but give me a break, there’s a point of diminishing returns, who the hell cares if the D600 is 90 points on their control VS A99 100 points.
3) The bottom line is, the D600 is a better photographic tool, it wins on important stuff such as focusing, and IQ, it got beat by the A99 on certain aspects, but even so, the D600 still do those stuff at a very very good level. Compare the focus of the A99 VS the D600, then you compare the price. For the A99 body, i can grab a bunch of cool stuff with the D600 (mainly 3rd party flash/wireless triggers that’s full TTL compatible), much better tool as a package over all for the 2.2 2.5k that sony is asking for their body.
Of course we are. You just did what I described, you disregarded the Sony A99’s advantages and gave weight to those of the D600. Which might be fine for your particular case, but it certainly doesn’t make the the D600 “a better photographic tool”.
How does the D600 has better focusing, when the A99 has better focusing in live view and is also better for manual focusing? Even in regular AF the A99 will stack up nicely. Where exactly is the D600 better? IQ is only slightly worse and then only in low light. What, half a stop?
Better live view experience (significantly so), focus peaking, swivel screen, 1/8000 shutter, IBIS, less shutter lag, GPS, 60p video, etc. I wonder, what do you consider the D4 to be?
A99 has a built in video camera with 60p =)
Range of lenses. I already said that in another thread, Sony is lacking of their own (optimized) lenses:
– 200mm macro
– 400/800 fast tele
– tilt/shift
Buying Canon/ Nikon gives You not only body but plety of optimized lenses to choose from. Using third-part lenses gives You either slow AF, slightly (but visible) worse IQ or both. There are some rare exceptions. Imagine You are buying a car and winter-tires are bad. You don’t always ride in winter – I agree. Car wasn’t exepnsive but winter tires were bad or not available. I hope You see the difference between complete system and uncomplete.
“Developing system” instead of an incomplete system would be more apt.
In addition to lack of decent lens range with decent price tags, the flash is a disaster. How long will one has to wait before Sony makes decent, capable flashes for the NEX?
When will they ever make a new flash that does not fry itslelf? When will they get away from their P&S outlook?
Lot of questions remain.
I do see a difference. And I even mentioned in the text I wrote. But, same as we spoke last time, what if you don’t need TS or 200mm macro or superfast tele? It is a very real possibility.
I’ll give you another car analogy. Many people simply buy a small car for the city. Following your logic, they are completely screwed for when they need to go in the fields, where they’d need a 4×4, because they can’t change their car into a 4×4. It is all horses for courses.
As a EX-sony user let me address your points, sony is not winning customers because on the whole because they don’t have a overall competitive package. The problem is Sony has a lot of little reasons for you to buy BUT they have a few BIG reasons not to and if any one of those BIG reasons is a deal breaker for you than there’s no sale (for a given price point).
Myth I : Sony is overpriced
I think people are basically saying that they expect a significant discount in order to accept one (or more) of the perceived drawbacks of the system. For example I would not accept the current EVF over a FF OVF nor did I want to give up the SLT light loss (would have changed my mind had the A99 been priced at £1k). You should also bare in mind Sony gained many users including myself back in the A200/300/350 days when they were significantly undercutting canikon sony stopped being that price competitive a long time ago despite SLT/EVF allegedly being cheaper to produce.
Myth II : Sony’s lens range is lacking
Well you agreed it’s true albeit overstated
Myth III : Sony’s NEX lens range is lacking
It’s not really the number of lenses so much as the lack of small/compact pancake lenses – had sony made the 35mm & 50mm prime pancakes with reasonable sharpness (many) people would be happy. I’d happily take a NEX body over a M43 body but as a compact system? sorry I’d like to use the panasonic 20mm or indeed the samsung 30mm pancake.
Myth IV : most people prefer OVFs
It’s probably more accurate to say the advantages of EVFs don’t yet comfortably outweigh the cons, the gap grows if you’re considering a FF OVF. The tech isn’t quite mature enough yet but I tend to assume it’s only a question of time.
Very interesting comment.
“I think people are basically saying that they expect a significant discount in order to accept one (or more) of the perceived drawbacks of the system.”
> I disagree here for two reasons. First, there are people who simply cannot compare prices properly. Second, in the case you are describing, there are drawbacks to any system. There is even a third reason, company-wise. Sony did try, as you pointed out, to undercut Canikon with these cheaper models (and you can also include the A850 there), but apparently it didn’t work out for them (because they screwed up other things). Currently, they are trying to differentiate themselves, building three lines of products and you simply cannot expect them to also fight a price war. It is easy for Canikon to do that though, when they have mature technology on their hands and a huge market share.
On a more specific point, how much cheaper an EVF (compared to an OVF) actually is? I don’t know their respective costs, but it won’t make some huge savings.
“It’s not really the number of lenses so much as the lack of small/compact pancake lenses – had sony made the 35mm & 50mm prime pancakes with reasonable sharpness (many) people would be happy.”
> I have both of these lenses for my NEX-7. The 35 is quite small and they are both more than reasonably sharp.
“It’s probably more accurate to say the advantages of EVFs don’t yet comfortably outweigh the cons, the gap grows if you’re considering a FF OVF. ”
> I do not consider OVFs being better though. They also have disadvantages compared to EVFs. It is really a subjective choice and I can’t see this as a disadvantage for Sony.
The reason why Sony messed up before (and is still messing up) is different from lack of some lenses, imho. I am pretty confident that if Sony brings up more lenses tomorrow, to equal say Canon’s lineup, their share won’t suddenly triple. They have more profound issues, having to see with perception of the brand and a few other things.
The problem is Vlad, you seem think every good and bad point should counted and given the same weighting and therefore on balance Sony offering should surely stand up? In reality we all have our priorities and for many photographers SLT/EVF does not tick the right boxes. 2 small benefits does not undo 1 major drawback (for our own respective priorities).
In my case:
The fact that SLT has superior video AF, does not make up for the fact canikon have superior still AF. Since I don’t care about taking video and if I was a videographer I’d probably be into manual focusing.
The fact that EVF can more accurately show exposure or aid manual focusing does not make up for the fact I happen to think the quality of EVFs are shit (lag prone/worse detail/worse dynamic range) compared to a FF OVF, maybe I could be closer to neutral vs a APS-C pentamirror, but it’s not even close for me on FF OVF.
The fact that the nex 35/50mm primes are sharp and the fact that I actually think the nex5 series of bodies are a sweet spot in mirrorless bodies does not override my preference for wanting a (coat) pocketable combination so sorry the nex5n + 35mm loses out to a GF3/GX1 + 20mm pancake despite me assuming the nex will have nicer image quality.
Look I’m not trying to convince you to swap, clearly our priorities are different and therefore we’ve come to different conclusions, ultimately whatever works for you.
The point is we all have our priorities and collectively there are relatively common needs (which sony doesn’t always address). You try to discount these as myths or try to offset them with other benefits, but you miss the point that you cannot buy off 1 major drawback with 2 small benefits and I would argue that’s why you get so many calls for Sony to be cheaper it’s to give 1 extra major benefit to offset it’s list of major cons. i.e. make a unwilling customer say “I’m not really a fan of SLT/EVF but it’s the cheapest FF camera on the market soo I’ll let it slide”
“The problem is Vlad, you seem think every good and bad point should counted and given the same weighting and therefore on balance Sony offering should surely stand up?”
> I am not sure what do you mean by “stand up”. As you say, we all have our priorities and Sony’s system definitely fits some of those (it is still selling, right?). That is all that I am saying and I am not sure how it is a problem.
“In my case:”
> I can’t argue your case 🙂
“The fact that SLT has superior video AF, does not make up for the fact canikon have superior still AF.”
> See, generalization. Canikon have better AF in some FF models. The A77 has great AF. Also, how superior are we talking?
“The fact that EVF can more accurately show exposure or aid manual focusing does not make up for the fact I happen to think the quality of EVFs are shit .”
> That is for you. I never said everybody should use Sony. For some people, EVF is better. For some people, Sony’s offer is better.
“Look I’m not trying to convince you to swap, clearly our priorities are different and therefore we’ve come to different conclusions, ultimately whatever works for you.”
> Same here 🙂
“The point is we all have our priorities and collectively there are relatively common needs (which sony doesn’t always address). You try to discount these as myths…”
> I do agree that Sony has some serious issues and even though I called some things “myths”, I very clearly indicated that some were actual real issues. I am still holding my position that some of them are greatly exaggerated though.
“you miss the point that you cannot buy off 1 major drawback with 2 small benefits”
> That is precisely what I am arguing – what is a “major” drawback and what is a “small benefit”? Is the fact that the 35mm lens isn’t a real pancake a major drawback? Or lack of TS lenses? Or lack of a cheap FF model? These aren’t major for me. Some of them are only current issues. What is major is Sony’s lack of support, the overal perception of the brand, lack of communication, etc. I wrote that somewhere here already, but if tomorrow Sony has the same lineup as Canon, I don’t see it selling much better.
“I would argue that’s why you get so many calls for Sony to be cheaper it’s to give 1 extra major benefit to offset it’s list of major cons”
> Yet again, I do not see the EVF as major con. Not convinced at all. I’d argue that the calls for Sony to be cheaper is due to (in no particular order):
– people not checking prices and not knowing how to compare them (we see the NEX lens lineup often compared to EF or F)
– Sony lacking a cheaper FF model to compete with 6D/D600, which gets perverted into saying that the A99 is overpriced
– generalizations – some say that Sony is overpriced and simply show a product that is more expensive than the competition, hardly anyone here who disagreed with me has defined the problem the way you did (i.e. quite well)
My point with that writing is mostly to address the bashing. You know your needs, you have your priorities and you certainly do not need me to tell you what to buy. But when I see some blogger writing how Sony is overpriced or their lenses being crap or an employee in a camera store doing the same, while providing some half-truths and twisted views, it does make me cringe.
I think people are reading more in my text than there actually is.
I do agree the often cited issue of not enough lenses is overplayed and yes even if sony’s A mount lineup matched Canon’s it’s not going to be the sliver bullet.
Speaking as a ex-sony user one of the greatest fears just before I’d jumped ship is the fear for A mount itself.
Will future mirrorless A mount bodies work with old lenses?
Will sony even release A mount bodies much longer? (why produce both mirrorless E and A mount systems)
With all those question marks can you blame people for not investing into the system?
I am replying here to your last comment, so you can get the update (hopefully).
“Will future mirrorless A mount bodies work with old lenses?
Will sony even release A mount bodies much longer?
With all those question marks can you blame people for not investing into the system?”
I certainly can’t. You nailed it perfectly and this is where I agree – this is Sony’s problem. Until they fixed people’s perception, until they can communicate properly with their user base, until they show commitment, no lenses or bodies or cheaper prices will help them. Sure one could argue that a few lenses might show some commitment, that cheaper prices will attracts some interest, but until when? Until the next miscommunicated shift in direction? Until the next lack of proper firmware update?
But that is what I meant with people reading too much in my post. It wasn’t about that. It was simply meant to address some of the rather mindless bashing going around, certainly not teach professionals how to make their choices 🙂 And if people decide to not go Sony, it should be for the correct reasons.