Why people choosing Sony ?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Join now!

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,824
24
8,191
1,339
Hi. I was wondering to ask those Sony owners, why there a lot of people are choosing Sony over other brands, or they are switching from other brands to Sony ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chavezshutter

Chavezshutter

Moderator
Staff member
3 1
Aug 4, 2020
1,366
3
1,778
739
My previous camera was 14 years old. I used it for about a year learning the basics but I needed an upgrade sooner or later. When I saw what was available from other brands I found Sony to have many good features at a pretty good price:
  • The autofocus on these cameras is exceptional. Eye AF specifically is almost cheat mode. It can pick up a person's eye wearing sunglasses from across a football stadium (with a zoom lens of course), it has to be seen to be believed. Other brands including the new Canons (R5 and R6) and others have caught up recently but Sony had it 5 years ago. When I switch brand letting go of Sony's Eye AF will be a hard thing to do so I hope my next camera has something similar.
  • Low light perfomance and dynamic range is very good too. I rarely use auto ISO, but if i do I set my upper limit to 6400, yes it can still take useable photos at this range. The camera can almost see in the dark.
  • The glass for it is outstanding with third party lens manufacturers adding more to the choices all the time ( Sigma's Art line was the latest offering and they are super sharp and quite affordable đź‘Ś). Only some of the new RF lenses from Canon can line up against the (soon to be redesigned) GMaster series for sharpness and detail, but GMaster is expensive and RFs make them look cheap in price comparison, some of the most expensive lenses in the market. More specifically to macro the 90mm 2.8 Sony lens is rated as one of the sharpest in its class (1:1) by independent places like DXOMark and others.
  • Video - I'm not much of a videographer myself, too busy learning photography but its very nice to have 4k and an autofocus system to go along with it. More than anything else video is the one thing that Sony did that forced other brands to begin including higher level video in their cameras. When other brands were insisting a photo camera was only for photos Sony were putting in 4k video as standard across all their cameras.
  • When other brands were insisting you dont even need full frame, Sony was already releasing and perfecting model after model of full frame cameras.
I could go on and on about other features but instead I will end with the main reason I went with Sony. Sony is an electronic goods and sensor manufacturer (They actually make sensors for many other camera brands). Their approach to what they offer in their cameras is different. They do not try to keep higher level technologies behind their medium format and cine cameras ($$$$), instead choosing to pack in as much technology as possible with each camera release. The new A7S3 which is a video camera first and photo camera secondary is essentially a cine camera squeezed into a regular camera body. How many manufacturers out there that you can think of could would include the technologies from their top tier pool into the hands of regular users at an affordable price? Not many I'm pretty sure. Sony can afford to because of its size and approach and that is what convinced me to go Sony.... for now. I have no concept of brand loyalty other than what my wallet can afford :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack and Hobbies

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,824
24
8,191
1,339
Sony has some great products, can't argue. But I'm assuming Canon has been longest in photography industry. I have dsrl and mirrorless camera, both from Canon, and pretty happy. I don't need 4k as I'm not vlogger. But I saw, a lot of people does want features which they might not use or need in future.

I think Sony, its ridiculous expensive for what does, and for that price you can get decent camera with good lens. I learned that its not worth investing in body cameras, but worth investing in glass, as that's how you get good image quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chavezshutter

Chavezshutter

Moderator
Staff member
3 1
Aug 4, 2020
1,366
3
1,778
739
Someone showed me the price of the Sony in Europe and I was shocked. Over here the bodies are fairly reasonable priced when compared to other brands. Sure the GMaster lenses are pricey but once again have a look at the RF's, you gotta be making some big bucks for those.

100% agree about lenses, no getting around that with any camera. Lenses are the biggest factor in good image quality and that is where most of our money goes into.
100% disagree about being the first in the industry being a factor when choosing any camera. There is so many good ones out there. I keep eyeing out a Lumix/Panasonic that has my attention :D

It's 2020, even a gopro can put out (increasingly improving) 4k and even 8k, mobile phones are getting insane results. You cant just make a photo camera anymore. I was cheering for Canon on their latests release as i think Sony has began to slack off but then 8k and the heat debacle, I was pretty angry at Canon about it tbh. One of the best stills cameras made advertised as a video camera, i dont understand what their marketing and development was thinking. I still love Canon. I learned to shoot on them and if I shot portrait I might even still be using them for their colour tones specially on skin but they need to sort out their video, who asked for 8k? can we even edit it? and why 30 mins record time, didnt that tax get removed a while back? I hate to see it fumble what otherwise would have been one of the best cameras ever made. Maybe one day I might even end up back where I started and switch back to Canon, never know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack

Chavezshutter

Moderator
Staff member
3 1
Aug 4, 2020
1,366
3
1,778
739
an R5 or R6 with unlimited 4k video recording would have been like a mic drop in the camera world
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,824
24
8,191
1,339
Someone showed me the price of the Sony in Europe and I was shocked. Over here the bodies are fairly reasonable priced when compared to other brands. Sure the GMaster lenses are pricey but once again have a look at the RF's, you gotta be making some big bucks for those

prices, are ridiculous high in Europe, and I don’t think an amateur photographer will aFord to purchase a camera over €2k . That’s way to expensive, and I think it’s pointless to spend so much money just for making some shots.

there are very affordable other brands on market, which pretty much deliver same features and quality.

100% agree about lenses, no getting around that with any camera. Lenses are the biggest factor in good image quality and that is where most of our money goes into.

The way how I’m thinking about lenses and cameras is, imagine a cheap car, but with good engine = Cheap camera with expensive lens and a beautiful car with bad engine = expensive body camera with cheap lens. As I mentioned above, I will always go for glass instead of camera body, which in future might drop in price , when glass will last a bit longer.

It's 2020, even a gopro can put out (increasingly improving) 4k and even 8k, mobile phones are getting insane results. You cant just make a photo camera anymore. I was cheering for Canon on their latests release as i think Sony has began to slack off but then 8k and the heat debacle, I was pretty angry at Canon about it tbh. One of the best stills cameras made advertised as a video camera, i dont understand what their marketing and development was thinking. I still love Canon. I learned to shoot on them and if I shot portrait I might even still be using them for their colour tones specially on skin but they need to sort out their video, who asked for 8k? can we even edit it? and why 30 mins record time, didnt that tax get removed a while back? I hate to see it fumble what otherwise would have been one of the best cameras ever made. Maybe one day I might even end up back where I started and switch back to Canon, never know.

The question is, how many of us needs 4K or 8k on your body camera? It’s nice to have it, yes, agree but most of us don’t need it, as long as you are not creating HD movies, or you making good cash with that.

GoPro has some nice small devices, which their purpose is to record actions, no way you can take images with them, that will look weird.

Phones does make good images, and they look good as long as you viewing them on that device, once you upload on pc, they are nothing , i checked that, no matter what phone you have, they will never replace a professional body camera, unless they will design some adapters which will allow you to attach your lenses to it, which I’m really sure they won’t spend money to create that.

At the end of the day, your are the photographer behind the camera, and not camera does images, but human eyes. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chavezshutter

Chavezshutter

Moderator
Staff member
3 1
Aug 4, 2020
1,366
3
1,778
739
Over €2k?!?! That's almost $3,300 AUD! which is only a couple of hundred off buying an A7Riv which is a 62MP monster Sony's flagship photography centric, video secondary camera. What model can you get there for over €2k? I own the A7iii which is a hybrid 24MP camera with good photo and good video, not amazing at either. They are just over $2000 AUD now which is €1214.40.

Good logic on lenses, cant argue with that. I think were on the same page on this. Good lenses are critical for good photos.

I see your point about needing or wanting video but I also believe Canon should be able to offer to their customer what Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Sony do. Good solid 4k video without restrictions on their photo cameras without needing to jump into the proffesional level where camera begin at $5k AUD. 4k is now standard across the brands. Canon can do easily it but wont, I dont understand it. They jumped to 8k and created a toaster oven instead on their new models 🤦‍♂️, I would still use them for stills but I just cant help but ask why would they do this to their new cameras?

If you really think about it, there is no reason at all why a photo camera cant be a video camera. It has a shutter, lenses, a focusing system, why cant it shoot video? Sure it may not be cinema class machine but its well within what it can do. These things may not matter to you and me to a degree but a new customers sees these things and they do add up when making a brand choice.

Of course a Gopro can correct for a single lens via software, easy job. Will it ever be to a DSLR or Full frame level for photos, probably not. But their 4k video is getting scary good. All i will say about mobile phones is a take a closer look at the newer ones and not just their capabilites or specs (108 MPs!!!omg)but their software and what it can do. I was quite surprised to say the least, i will go out on a limb and say future photography will involve a blend of mobile and camera technology. It already does to a degree. Just like you I prefer photography as is but whether we like it or not it is a technology driven art.

For sure a good photographer takes good photos with any camera. I enjoy these chats :) . I geek out over camera things.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,824
24
8,191
1,339
Over €2k?!?! That's almost $3,300 AUD! which is only a couple of hundred off buying an A7Riv which is a 62MP monster Sony's flagship photography centric, video secondary camera. What model can you get there for over €2k? I own the A7iii which is a hybrid 24MP camera with good photo and good video, not amazing at either. They are just over $2000 AUD now which is €1214.40.

We have this website on U.K. , you can check their ridiculous prices

Thats way to expensive for me to invest in Sony.

I see your point about needing or wanting video but I also believe Canon should be able to offer to their customer what Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Sony do. Good solid 4k video without restrictions on their photo cameras without needing to jump into the proffesional level where camera begin at $5k AUD. 4k is now standard across the brands. Canon can do easily it but wont, I dont understand it. They jumped to 8k and created a toaster oven instead on their new models 🤦‍♂️, I would still use them for stills but I just cant help but ask why would they do this to their new cameras?

To be honest I have canon 7d M2 and still happy with it. I can’t really buy new one as this will be waste of money, my shutter count is around 17k from 200k if I’m not wrong. So still have long way till my camera will die.

Every brand can make high top camera, I think they just don’t want this.

If you really think about it, there is no reason at all why a photo camera cant be a video camera. It has a shutter, lenses, a focusing system, why cant it shoot video? Sure it may not be cinema class machine but its well within what it can do. These things may not matter to you and me to a degree but a new customers sees these things and they do add up when making a brand choice.

I do agree with you here, but how many of us needs that on use video on camera ? I do use on my mirrorless body camera, but not on My dsrl as it’s to bulky .

New customers are just looking for these features just to feel proud , but very few of them will use those features.

Of course a Gopro can correct for a single lens via software, easy job. Will it ever be to a DSLR or Full frame level for photos, probably not.

Definitely not, they have been built for other purpose. And imagine someone shooting with a GoPro at wedding :)))) ?


All i will say about mobile phones is a take a closer look at the newer ones and not just their capabilites or specs (108 MPs!!!omg)but their software and what it can do. I was quite surprised to say the least, i will go out on a limb and say future photography will involve a blend of mobile and camera technology. It already does to a degree. Just like you I prefer photography as is but whether we like it or not it is a technology driven art.

Yes, agree fro 2000 when we had these brick phones and now we have very high tech phones , the difference it’s big, well to big. But don’t forget, camera industry has been developed and progressed too.

And still , probably will take an other 100 years till probably phones will replace a camera, but than don’t forget the battery life ? They probably will die.

And still, non of small phone lens will replace proper camera Lens, here is like we compare an telescope which we have home and Hubble telescopic space.
 

Chavezshutter

Moderator
Staff member
3 1
Aug 4, 2020
1,366
3
1,778
739
Those prices are absolutely absurd!!! I can almost pick up a A7RIV for that money. The a7iii is over 2 years old now?!:confused:. I don't know what you guys got going over there but I am starting to see your point of view regarding value for money. I would never buy an a7iii at those prices, they are not THAT good :LOL:. Ask me and I will tell you all that I dislike about them and what i think are it's weakpoints. I know where to go to sell mine when I'm ready to switch :D

The 7d Mark2 is a solid workhorse. I would be happy with it as a photo camera. Ironically this camera costs between $1700 - $2100 AUD. Yes you read that right - a 6 year old canon is about the same price as the 2 year old A7iii over here. If we were to try to compare apples to apples something like the EOS R is closer to the capabilities of the A7iii and the EOS R is over $3000AUD over here. Perhaps you now see why I went Sony. Canon makes great cameras but they are not cheap here at all. You got heaps of clicks left on your camera, solid machines. I kind of wish they stuck to that body shape.

" Every brand can make high top camera, I think they just don’t want this. "

Hmmm, now where getting somewhere. Why would they not want to do this? It's the very thing that has allowed all the other camera companies to get a foothold of the market share. On top of that they went 8k, so it seems they are trying to close the video gap. They are not so far in the photography aspect that they should think photos are enough. Its not, not anymore. 4k is mainstream now. It is not an extra feature. Not when almost every other brand is offering it. I can go to Aldi to buy a 4k monitor for around $200 AUD right now.

Whether people need or want 4k video is another question but surely you can see how many people WOULD like decent video. If nothing else the simple fact a brand has that feature is a plus not a downside for many customers. I'm very happy having it on standby, it was very useful at a wedding and a baptism. I'm not carrying a separate video cam when my camera can do both - all camera brands should have this as standard and many do.

Mobile phones can now use multiple lenses to take a single image, the software inside can stitch a final image allowing the choice of multiple zoom ranges from ultra wide to zoom. They can also use various DOF to stitch an image with various depths of fields. These are are like focus stacking techniques but with more choices than simple sharp focus being the main factor. This is just a small sample of what current phones can do from a software perspective. The focusing system Sony has and is now being matched by Canon, Nikon and others came from mobile phone tech. That's the reason I said both techs (mobile and camera) will merge closer. Computational photography has already arrived.

A lens is just (highly engineered) glass, attaching it to a mobile would hardly be a great technology feat nowdays. Even then mobile phones have a long way to go to get anywhere near cameras for image quality but the point I am making is that the two technologies are far closer entwined and closer in terms capabilities than most people think.
 
Last edited: