Why so little on the Sony Alpha DSLR's?

PegLeg Media

PegLeg Media

Well-known member
I have been looking at cameras all week trying to figure out what I want to get. I was set between the Panasonic G6 and GH3 but have looked at everything. I mainly do video but think something easy with photography would be nice to take up as a hobby. I started looking at the Sony A-65 and A-77 and they seem to have more than any other DSLR for their price but I cant find hardly any footage on them or any people that own them. Not only would I save money but instead of spending a thousand bucks on the panasonic 12-35mm lens i could get the sony 16-50mm 2.8 for way cheaper.

The image stabilization is crazy awesome and continious auto focus is the best I have seen. Using this thing hand held feels like it could be a documentary filmmakers dream.

other than the amazing and cheap lens, unbeatable auto-focus and image stabilization. It can take 10 pictures a second, has 24 megapixals, when the GH3 only has 16. It has focus peaking unlike the GH3 and has other fun features like panarama.

I am just curious why this isnt big in the DSLR world, I'm scared to buy it over the GH3 or G6 because I cant find much footage on it so I dont know how good the video quality is. Can someone give me some reasons to choose a different DSLR for the same price?

Here was a cool video I found, a guy just running around town with auto focus on and using it hand held:
 
The lens mount is probably why the Sony Alpha DSLRs never got much traction around here. The flange length is long, which really limits what lenses can be used with it. Most DSLR video shooters are already at least somewhat invested in Canon, Nikon, PL-mount, or other lenses. Upgrading from a 5d MKII, for example, to a Sony Alpha becomes less appealing if you have to buy all new glass to go with it.

Additionally, and this is just IMHO, but the limited footage that I have seen from the Alphas, like the A99, has not impressed me. They seem to be rather more prone to aliasing than many of the newer cameras from other manufacturers, like the GH2/3, 5d MKIII, D5200, etc.
 
Higher end lenses are very expensive. Their codec is only 24mbps and prone to blowing up when pushed. Very low to no resale potential.

The NEX line is much more comparable, but again lenses are incredibly expensive with limited options natively. The NEX line can be used with adaptors and any vintage lens which is a huge plus and the reason they are much more popular than the A line cams.

Cheers,
Pete
 
I would say it is because of the nex line:
- the alphas have some issues that the nex don't, like a small crop in video mode because of the in-body IS, and some GUI dumb things, etc
- apart from that, they are very similar, and anything the alphas can do, the nex can do too (except autofocus and in-body IS, for that the SLTs would be better)
- the nex lens mount will take basically any manual glass, the alpha lens won't take most lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top