Why isn't Sony anywhere near as popular as Nikon or Canon when it comes to non point and shoot cameras?
I've never seen anything bad about them. Got a free Nikon D70 and spent nothing but $15 for a charger. When I scrounge up enough money to buy something better I plan on going with a Sony, possibly a mirror less
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST STOP WITH ALL THIS FUCKING BRAND THREAD FAGGOTRY!
This
>>2860589
>Why isn't Sony anywhere near as popular as Nikon or Canon when it comes to non point and shoot cameras?
Because they didn't start in that market until decades later. Now delete this thread.
>>2860591
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2860589
>Why isn't Sony anywhere near as popular as Nikon or Canon when it comes to non point and shoot cameras?
I work in a camera shop, so here's my $.02
Because there's always been a trade-off you have to make in order to shoot Sony that doesn't exist for the other brands. Worse low light performance due to the SLT system, lacking lens selection, worse autofocus, poor ergonomics, and so on.
These days, their cameras are looking excellent on paper, but many people are turned off by how they operate in person. The image quality is great, the adaptability is excellent, the video is very good (When the camera isn't overheating) and the autofocus is class leading, but lots of people say they don't like (or don't understand) the lens selection, and simply don't like the way they feel in the hand. Many complaints about too many menus and inconsistent button operation. People who would rather have better battery life (stick with a DSLR) or better controls (Many consider Fuji, though they don't offer full frame, and their sensors are not cutting edge like Sony's, or again, stick with a DSLR)
>>2860630
>buy a rabal
>shoot in liveview anyway
>no battery.
>>2860630
>Many consider Fuji, though they don't offer full frame, and their sensors are not cutting edge like Sony's
Fuji sensors are Sony sensors, senpai
>>2860660
Yes, of course, the comment was to point out that Sony is using their most modern sensors, whereas Fuji is using Sony sensors from a couple of years ago (or as many as four or five years ago, depending on what model you're looking at)
>>2860662
>from a couple of years ago
They're not bottles of wine, these aren't vintage dates. They're start-of-run dates.
>>2860665
This isn't in any of our training or literature, so it's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, but I was always of the understanding that Sony created their sensors, and then used them for a while, and then after a set period of time, released them for sale to other manufacturers. For instance, there were a lot of rumors that the delay of the release of certain Sony mirrorless cameras would also push back the releases from some other manufacturers because the exclusivity window would be shifted.
If Fuji is using bespoke sensors rather than existing architectures, then I'm sorry for my bad information. Didn't mean to mislead anyone.
>>2860670
Do you think they make a big batch of sensors, then box them up, and use some, then sell the rest, never to make more or something? There's a pretty easy way of disproving that; Fuji's don't have a limited production run per model.
>>2860683
>Do you think they make a big batch of sensors, then box them up, and use some, then sell the rest, never to make more or something?
No? Where did I suggest that?
I was under the impression that they would design a sensor, set up the production, and use that production to drive their newest camera for a set amount of time, exclusively. Then, after that exclusivity period, they might say "okay, now Fuji/Nikon/etc can purchase this sensor and put it in their own body"
For instance, right now, the a7Rmk2 is the only camera using that sensor, but next year, that same sensor might show up in a D820 for instance, after Sony has enjoyed their exclusivity period.
The physical sensor in that D820 might be only a month old, of course, but the design itself would be years old by that point.
But again, this is just my understanding from what I've seen people talk about on forums, and rumors around the shop. I could be entirely wrong.
>>2860589
>Got a free Nikon D70 and spent nothing but $15 for a charger.
Man...I bought one of those as my first camera back in high school for $850 in 2005...
>>2860690
>No? Where did I suggest that?
>whereas Fuji is using Sony sensors from a couple of years ago (or as many as four or five years ago, depending on what model you're looking at)
I guess I'm arguing against what appears to be a tendency to praise a tech upgrade for a tech upgrade's sake. It's that use of older, more established sensors that generally leads to Fuji besting Sony's newer sensor of a given size bracket.
"The design itself would be years old by that point" smacks of gear being treated as wine with vintage dates, and doesn't really imply you keep up with much information on the usage-differences between them. A slightly older, slightly lower resolving sensor will generally have slightly better high-stress image quality than the latest and greatest.
>>2860695
Sure that's all true, but if Sony has made real advances in any areas in their most recent sensors, buying a camera from Fuji that was released in the same year won't get you those benefits, is all I was talking about. For instance, the XPro2 and a6300. Released right around the same time, but the technology in the XPro2's sensor is technically older (I believe. Again, I have no proof of this, merely the way I understand that Sony does sensor distribution) Yet Fuji manages to do great work with that sensor, so obviously it isn't an enormous issue, or reason to dismiss Fuji (or Nikon, for that matter) but still, when people come into the shop, many of them want the newest wiz-bang technology, and are under the (correct) impression that the most recent stuff to come out of the lab is in a Sony camera.
I usually try to get people to actually look at image results as a way to choose their camera, but some people won't be swayed.
>>2860698
You're buying a whole package not a sensor.
You're enabling bad consumer behavior for comission.
>>2860729
By telling people to try the cameras out before buying them, to see for themselves that the "newer" Sony tech doesn't provide any real world benefits?
I'm doing my best, but I'm absolutely not authorized to tell people "guys, Sony isn't really doing anything worthwhile with all of their bleeding edge tech, and you'll get at least equal results elsewhere" all I can do is encourage people to do testing that will bring them to the right conclusions on their own.
>>2860698
>and are under the (correct) impression that the most recent stuff to come out of the lab is in a Sony camera.
whoa, hey there. I think you meant "Samsung".
>>2860589
>i'll keep making this thread until you like it.
>>2860630
>Sony
>the autofocus is class leading,
waaaahhahahahahaha, that's a good one
>>2860740
The class being "mirrorless cameras" it absolutely is.
>>2860757
>gold medal in the special olympics
>>2860774
how are you posting from 2012? That's pretty cool.
>>2860778
2012? They've been telling that joke for at least 30 years.
>>2860779
The joke that mirrorless autofocus is the equivalent of the special olympics? no, not really.
>>2860757
rubbish, Panasonic has better autofocus
>>2860782
The joke that being the best of the worst is somehow good.
>>2860694
That's why I was surprised when I got it.
Friend was like "I never use it and I know I won't." So he gave it to me.
>>2860788
XD dude! i'm giggling my ass off! When was panasonic good? For that matter, when was m43 good? That shit is rubbish.
>>2860867
>when was m43 good
Who said anything about sensor size, the GX8 focusses faster and more reliably than anything Sony have made.
>>2860965
Yeah okay, and that suddenly makes up for the fact that it's got so much noise at iso 100 and above.
>>2860968
I don't care about noise, Sony's autofocus is not "class leading" for mirrorless cameras, it's not even as good as a shitty m43.
>>2860665
Yes, and technology is moving very fast, instead of that x-pro 2 with outdated sensor and af, you could have got an a6300 and a decent lens.
Or if your happy with your sensor, an a6000 and the 28f2 and 50f1.8 and 21mm conversion lens.
If you had the right gear for someone like you, some of your photos may be in focus.
>>2860695
Technology
Hookes law
Exponential improvement
This is the world we live in.
Imagine going into a pc parts store, picking up a 1st gen i5 cpu, and being charged £250 for it, because it's only a 3 year old design, still runs minesweeper just fine and it comes with a nicer cooler than the latest model.
Are you just going to ignore the fact the latest model is the same price, if not cheaper, runs much faster and for less electricity. Well yes, if you were dumb as fuck. This is isi, lets not forget she took out a credit card to purchase her already out of date, massively overpriced memecam when she's a for profit art college dropout neet.
>>2860980
Yes it is, i bet my a6300 can out af anything you have.
>>2860998
No it can't. Further more my dick is bigger than yours
>>2860998
Dude you shouldn't even compare sony to m43 cameras. m43 can't even compete in anything except against 100 dollar point and shoots.
>>2861003
>you shouldn't even compare sony to m43 cameras
Why not, they are all toys
>>2861005
Correct except you should replace Sony with fujifilm.
>>2861002
Im down for a timestamp challenge if you are?
>>2861011
Hah, so you ARE the kind of person that posts dick pics on 4chan. I bet you have the sony logo tattoo'd on the side, eh
>>2861025
Small dick damage control
>>2861025
No, i have "So now i am happy" tattood down my cock, it does look like "sony" after i've been in the pool though.
And is this you pussing out? Lol.
>>2860695
>high stress image quality
Is that for all your >colorbursts
Rofl'd, you're fully mental and lost in your own world.
>ask question
>thread gets more poo than Mainstreet Mumbai
>>2860996
Hooke's law....
>>2860698
If you look at tests 6300 VS XPRO2 the X2 has more detail and better high iso, even though it's an older sensor.
>>2861142
No
http://alikgriffin.com/sony-a6300-vs-fujifilm-x-pro2
See here, where he's all like "there's almost nothing in it" after stating he had to drop the exposure of the Sony shots by a third of a stop. Which is a non-real life example setup to favour the fuji.
The real world example would be boosting the fuji images exposure, and taking the increase in noise that comes with it.
