Okay ... minor interview time ... via survey :D
Okay ... minor interview time ... via survey :D
To be honest, it was at a great price and I was looking for a dSLR. Originally I really wanted an XTi or XSi but the Sony a300 was just too good to pass up and the built in SSS was a major factor I guess that pushed me in that direction. The superior live view also helped a bit I suppose since the XSi's LV is pretty slow.
Was familer with Sony from there audio componets back in the day when they were top notch. Knew about the famous Minolta history, seemed like a good marriage. did lots and lots of research, price played a factor. Did lots of lurking on forums, found this one and started asking questions, and was treated with RESPECT in a open friendly manner here. Kept seein a name come up here over and over, so I went and read every single post on this site by him. Then decided the Sony DSLR was for me, along with Tamron lenses. I was going to go with A100 or 200 to learn on, but was persuded to go big and be set up right with the A700................Got mine in July, now obsessed with it and digital photography, and have developed a glass addiction. The only bad thing to come from this is I have had to cut back on my single malt scotch purchases LOL.
Thank you Don Schap for making me a Sonyman!:D
I came with Minolta ... from about 30 years ago. I've seen them grow, blossom ... fold ... and experience rebirth. Not exactly an easy feat to pull off, but "she be done!"
I've seen some very novel approaches to photography, during this time, as well as many others have. Now, getting used to the new approach, with the full frame entry ... is becoming quite a challenge with the limited information available for it.
I seriously considered moving to Canon, buying one of their new "Pro-sumer" DSLRs and several lenses, as an alternative when Minolta bought the farm ... but, Canon's insistance to not use "in-the-body-IS" I found extremely disturbing ... and still do. It really makes no sense at all to me and many others. :rolleyes:
So, with a rather long history ... make mine SONY. Let's take some pictures! :D
We were, and still are, a Canon family for P&S. But I was not sold on the entry level Canon DSLRs, especially given the price. I also looked at Nikon, and was surprisingly not impressed with what I saw from a couple of samples. This really surprised me, given their history of quality optics. And I tried a couple cameras form a couple sources to ensure it wasn't a problem with a given unit.
With disappointing issues with the big two, especially for the price, the inbody anti-shake made the choice easy. I too don't understand the resistance to this feature.
And I had good results right away testing with the Sony. Pentax was the other choice, but Sony has a good track record in other areas, so despite not being real affordable, they seemed to offer good value for the dollar. The intense competition for the Minolta lenses proves that there are ample others that see value in the Sony solution as well.
If you would have added: The availability of Carl Zeiss lenses, then that is what I would have chosen :)
You can only have 10 choices in these surveys ... so, you see ...
the thing about this poll is that this option...
Other manufacturer’s camera costs drove me to SONY
is nothing more than a myth.
i can see the logic i suppose in most of the others; features etc. but the sony system itself is more expensive than either canon or nikon.
i just did a quick add up of a number of options...
55-200, (canon is 55-250)
basic kit lens (18-70 or 18-55)
these are i guess the most common variations consumers look for and buy.
guess what ? according to bhphoto prices...
so the "cheap" sony system is $1400 more than canon and $1200 more than Nikon. Thats not even taking into account that the a700 is $300 more than the 40d or D90.
and guess what...
apart from the Canikon versions of the 24-70, thats all stabilised.
apart from the zeiss 24-70 and 70-200, the optical quality of the Canikon lens far exceeds the quality of the sony options. thats why you guys buy so much tamron gear.
there are also a load of other kit lens offered, especially by Nikon now, that are all stabilised and have superb optical performance for price. unlike the paperweight 18-70 sony.
dont want genuine ? both sigma and tamron offer stabilised variations which will still come in cheaper than the Sony system.
so really. as i said before, the in-body stabilisation is a major selling point, i accept that. but to suggest that the Sony system is CHEAPER and that people were driven away from other systems cos of the cost is nothing but a load of shit.
its also arguable if the sony bodies actually do offer any more features. the d90 has pretty much blown that theory out of the water now when it retails for under $1k.
It think things are about to turn around, Rooz ... in the ol' Full Frame market. Thanks for hoppin' on the "Love Train", though.
The Carl Zeiss & "G" lenses you have listed have a premium price tag to them, that's for sure. This has been discussed many, many times. I don't think it is going to stop, today, either. :rolleyes:
Please review the initial kit prices ... without these premium lenses in the evaluation. It will probably be quite a bit closer in this mythological world of which you speak.
Besides ... isn't this the SONY DSLR forum ... what gives, did you sneak off and buy an Alpha camera when we weren't looking? Good choice! :D
maybe Rooz is a SecretSonyMan, lol but please keep posting Rooz I have learned things from you here also, even though your a Nikon man you don't belittle us Sony folks, and you talk about PHOTOGRAPHY. If you and Don manage to wind each other up now and then I sit back and read and know I am going to learn something!