Why Sony DSLT Cameras in Their Alpha Lineup Are Avoided and People Buy Canon EOS and Nikon Blindly?

Well that's basically an influential issue. Sony Alpha hasn't been the true Alpha of the camera making until 2016. Firstly because Minolta was the enterprise Sony Corp bought. Secondly, earlier than the purchase, Minolta changed three mounts in less than 50 years. They began with MD mount, then with MC mount and finally the Alpha Mount lineup, which Sony bought in 2008. That change of systems made possibilities get weaker due to the increasing technological fusion between the mechanics of a camera and the electronics of light metering (and later digital imaging).

Secondly: Sony does sell cameras that outperform their same price counterparts, and equal to two or three levels upper (Sony A68 costing 500 and being the same level of the 1050 Nikon d7200 being this last superior to the Sony only in shutter speed, battery life and body sealing) . But although the last SLT series has become the most sophisticated camera system, the fragility of full electronic system lacks the self confidence a Canon or a Nikon body offers.Thirdly: Sony Corp thinks that by making the best, the technical assistance is not necessary. False. Always you have to go to third party services that end up in a worsening unexpected result.Canon is known for offering Apple-istic repair prices (but with solid results) that makes one think wether send the camera to service, fix it at home or change the body.Nikon is known for gifting you with a new generation camera if you had an issue with warranty still not expired(just joking but Nikon service is way one of the best by opinions by users). See a curious story about someone who bought a fake Nikon D7000 that had a lower model processor, that after Nikon revised the camera and found no solution to the mysterious faking, decided to send back a recently created D7100 unit) search by i am fake nikon d7000 .I don't say Canon and Nikon are worse nor better than Sony. Today Sony Alpha (A mount and E mount) became more open to gadgetry (whoa, Sony E series are capable to use Canon/Nikon glass with a fully working adapter!). I say that Canon and Nikon are better known and, by starters as well as professionals, they find more secure moving towards the famous. And this fame is what makes CaNikon being pricier given their specifications.So; it's a fact that Sony cameras are superior in innovation and features; the Sony A99 is a six year old full frame SLT that performs way better than Canon 5D iii and Nikon D750 in every aspect (flexibility and video highlights). But the translucent mirror adds a drawback (more battery consumption, more fragility, less weather sealing hostages and, for the sybarites, the mirror steals 1/7 of the light income). Would this be a problem for professional photographers? Maybe yes, maybe it's just biasing after using a single brand for many years, maybe they actually haven't enough bucks to switch brand and admit they cannot buy anything different. People is actually approaching to Sony, the brand that has three cameras classified in the very best first 10, and not necessarily at the end. By DxO Mark (interpreted then by Cameradecision website), the best current market sensor of 2018 is the one from Nikon D850, but the best all round camera is the Sony A9 (Mirror less), and the best professional reliable camera is the A99II, being the most powerful full frame camera in the market, being ranked the 3rd of all cameras; with Canon's flagships Eos 5D IV and 1Dx II at lower than #20 ranks, priced double the value of Sony and Nikon top lines. It will take short time when Sony becomes a serious Alpha leader. Now other brands are quite scared about the unexpected assault of the Wolf.

• Related Questions

What do you think of the Nikon Z6 and Z7 full frame mirror-less cameras?

I think Nikon did pretty much what everyone was expecting, with a few additions. So, there was absolutely no question about where Nikon looked when thinking about mirrorless: not Panasonic, not Olympus, not Fujifilm, but Sony. Which of course makes sense, as Sony was the only company making a full frame mirrorless other than Leica.

You can pretty much match Z6 specs against the A7 Mark III and Z7 specs against the A7R Mark III. One big win is video. While Nikon actually did make the first DSLR with video, Canon did it better in the early days. Sony is doing very nice consumer/prosumer video in their A7 series, but Nikon bumped up a bit above that in these new cameras. And a bit above Canon, at least given Canons best efforts to cripple 4K video in some way in every DSLR and mirrorless theyve made so far. So they did their homework.The other thing to consider is the fact that these seem very much targeted at Nikon users who have been flirting with Sony. If youre using high-end Nikons today, you can bring your XQD cards, your batteries, your flash and other accessories, and even your glass with Nikons active adapter. They need all of those, because they have been losing customers to Sony (and perhaps other mirrorless brands, but in the USA in particular, probably Sony most of the time), and its going to take some years to build up a line of native lenses to strongly attract first-time buyers. Micro Four Thirds, Fujifilm, and Sony are still the guys with full mirrorless systems right now.I was a bit disappointed that they only matched Sony on camera performance maybe. The fast memory cards and mirrorless ought to boost their shot rate, but they have not tried to match or beat their top of the line D5. That could be just to keep selling a $6,000 camera, or it may be that theyre not ready to claim their new on-chip autofocus is a match for their top DSLR autofocus yet. Maybe they know they need a more fleshed out system before they take on the A9, or maybe they dont see competition in flagship cameras from Sony, just the popular ones. That might make some sense, in that the flagship cameras from Canon and Nikon are all about the system, the service, the reliability, etc not just the specs.More detail here: Dave Haynie's answer to What does Dave Haynie think of the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?Since writing that, Ill admit Im a little confused about where Nikons going with lenses maybe the sample of three isnt enough. So we have a 2470mm f/4.0, which is relatively small compared to, well what do you compare it to. The standard higher-end normal-zoom lens is either a 2470/75mm f/2.8 or a 24100/120mm f/4.0. And this is a $1,000 lens. Theyre not cheaping out. Canon makes a 2470mm f/4.0L, but its $200 or so cheaper and and a bit larger. And of course, Sony makes one, which is a bit longer but thinner and lighter.

Then we have the Z series Nifty-Fifty, the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S. Thats a monsterous lens, nearly as large and heavy as the zoom, larger than Nikons f/1.2 and larger than their f/1.4, as well as costing $600. So Nikons not going for size here this is a gigundo as any Zeiss lens. I guess Ill withhold judgement a bit for the reviews. Though some of those crazy large and expensive Zeiss lenses arent as sharp as their name and price might suggest.I suspect sales of the FTZ adapter and Z series bodies will essentially be 1:1. And this.