schristie11 wrote:
We are all splitting hairs on performance anyhow; the real point should not be missed in all of the Sony fan boy’s posts.
Sony charges more for their name brand products than other MFG's in EVERY case, except the end of year close out sale.
Sony is late to delivery all of these products as well.
Even if there was some advantage to the latest Sony product, if your cant have the product in your hands for a few years or decades, then what good is it?
why all the hate for sony? i believe half the people refuting you here don't actually shoot sony, so i wouldn't call them sony fanboys.
your first assertion has already been shown not to be true in "EVERY case" and your last assertion is new to this discussion. did you have some bad personal experience with sony that would be useful to relate rather than broad generalizations that are gross exaggerations?
schristie11 wrote:
We are all splitting hairs on performance anyhow; the real point should not be missed in all of the Sony fan boy’s posts.
Sony charges more for their name brand products than other MFG's in EVERY case, except the end of year close out sale.
Sony is late to delivery all of these products as well.
Even if there was some advantage to the latest Sony product, if your cant have the product in your hands for a few years or decades, then what good is it?
Every case?
Sony DT 50mm f1.8 retails for less than the Nikon 50mm f1.8 D in MSRP in most markets (B&H is oddly expensive for the Sony, dunno why. MSRP is $30 cheaper in Canada than B&H's $150 price)
Sony's 30mm f2.8 Macro is cheapest in-class (cheaper than the Pentax or Tokina options, Canon and Nikon don't offer sub-50mm macros).
Prices vary. Sony's expensive in some places (the 70-200G and 300G are both distinctly more costly than they should be) and cheaper in others.
schristie11 wrote:
Even if there was some advantage to the latest Sony product,
if your can’t have the product in your hands for a few years or decades,
then what good is it?
and why pay more for it? - rewarding mediocrity
Nikon has the same problems to a somewhat lesser extent. They have far less production capacity than Canon and new lenses/bodies are often scarcely available. Being a smaller company with less production volume, you'll logically pay more for a product equal in quality to Canon, let alone a higher quality ones (which both Nikon and Sony offer).
mawz wrote:
Prices vary. Sony's expensive in some places (the 70-200G and 300G are both distinctly more costly than they should be) and cheaper in others.
I say if you think the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and Canon 100-400L are equivalents to the Sony versions, more power to you, but you're not going to get a lot of agreement on this forum...especially from those that have switched from Canon to Sony. You should try the Sonys sometime. You may be surprised.
Sony DT 50mm f1.8 retails for less than the Nikon 50mm f1.8 D in MSRP in most markets (B&H is oddly expensive for the Sony, dunno why. MSRP is $30 cheaper in Canada than B&H's $150 price)
Sony's 30mm f2.8 Macro is cheapest in-class (cheaper than the Pentax or Tokina options, Canon and Nikon don't offer sub-50mm macros).
You cant seriously think these cost less than the $99.00 Canon 50 f/1.8 macro lens?
douglasf13 wrote:
I say if you think the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and Canon 100-400L are equivalents to the Sony versions, more power to you, but you're not going to get a lot of agreement on this forum...especially from those that have switched from Canon to Sony. You should try the Sonys sometime. You may be surprised.
Yes, I know i'm in a land of sony lovers preaching another brand, so I expect disagreement.
but the prices is where I base my complaint, they sony lacks features and cost more or the same.
No one can say that is not true.
Cost of "new mfg dev." and quality of one vs the other is nearly moot.
The result, photo prints look 99.9% the same, but you pay a lot more for the lens.
To me, this makes no sense.
Also, my other point stands, that Sony lacks a number of lenses that Canon and Nikon offer.
For many people, this is a serious issue.
AhamB wrote:
Check out his profile. He wouldn't touch anything without the Canon badge.
Wrong,
When I looked at each system a few years back, and even again recently..
I rented equipment and testing it to see how I liked it.
I have rented a Sony a900 twice times for a month.
I also rented a Nikon D700 similarly.
Each time I got the 70-200 24-70 lenses with them.
I could not see a diff from the Canon, and so I saved bundle buying Canon gear from then on out.
mawz wrote:
Prices vary. Sony's expensive in some places (the 70-200G and 300G are both distinctly more costly than they should be) and cheaper in others.
schristie11 wrote:
Right!
That's my point exactly.
mawz wrote: No your point was
schristie11 wrote:
Sony charges more for their name brand products than other MFG's in EVERY case, except the end of year close out sale.
mawz wrote:
I just disproved that it's in every case.
How you disprove? wiht your sily 50 1.8 argument? lol
The canon 50 1.8 is $99. and so it is cheaper too.
schristie11 wrote:
Yes, I know i'm in a land of sony lovers preaching another brand, so I expect disagreement.
but the prices is where I base my complaint, they sony lacks features and cost more or the same.
No one can say that is not true.
Cost of "new mfg dev." and quality of one vs the other is nearly moot.
The result, photo prints look 99.9% the same, but you pay a lot more for the lens.
To me, this makes no sense.
Also, my other point stands, that Sony lacks a number of lenses that Canon and Nikon offer.
For many people, this is a serious issue.
Have you ever even tried a single Sony/Zeiss lens by yourself?
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Have you ever even tried a single Sony/Zeiss lens by yourself?
When I looked at each system a few years back, and even again recently..
I rented equipment and testing it to see how I liked it.
I have rented a Sony a900 twice times for a month.
I also rented a Nikon D700 similarly.
Each time I got the 70-200 24-70 lenses with them.
I could not see a diff from the Canon, and so I saved bundle buying Canon gear from then on out.
mawz wrote:
You said 'than other manufacturers in EVERY case', the Sony is cheaper than the Nikon, therefore it cannot be 'in EVERY case'.
Not really, the canon is cheaper - regardless of the Nikon price.
I was saying the Sony is more expensive, despite no technical or material advantage being present.
schristie11 wrote:
Yes, I know i'm in a land of sony lovers preaching another brand, so I expect disagreement.
but the prices is where I base my complaint, they sony lacks features and cost more or the same.
Again, you are in the Alternative forum where the majority of members value ultimate image quality/ character over specific brands. I know it's hard to comprehend given your posting background, but it's true. You really come off as someone looking for a fight. Very trollish.
My last post completely disproves your statement about price and features.
