dCapFoto.error

Movers & Shakers
Back in 2004/2005 era, which is a very long time ago in the digital SLR world, a few people moved out from Canon or Nikon to the KonicaMinolta, the 7D was at its time of launch an absolute wonder, in camera anti-shake. I did this myself, and have no regrets at the swtich. Switching system is a nerve racking thing to do, it takes time and a lot of effort and it can be worth it. I really enjoyed my 2.5 years in the Alpha mount. But the fact remains that Minolta (KonicaMinolta) were very late into the game and then there were some major design flaws in the longevity of the 7D's shutter - the infamous first black frame. That alone did a lot to push people out from the mount. And during all of this time the only other, invalid, criticism of the 7D was that it was not a 9D. Pretty obvious, but the only bashing it would get would be from people who wanted/needed a 9D
NEWS FLASH: The KonicaMinolta 7D was not a Minolta 9D!
NEWS FLASH: The Sony a700 is also not a Minolta 9D!

Lenses Listed & Not Listed
Okay, so I didn't list the 35/2 or the 50/1.8 or indeed the 24/2.8 - they are missing from the Sony line-up. There are also some other versions available, some 10.5 fisheye and a 24/1.4 and a 50/1.2 - again these are not listed. There is nothing wrong with having a smaller list of available lenses, Sony are new to the market and could not sustain or even build a position by coming in on day one with 50-60 lenses, it would be too much of a risk. But I have listed the 85/1.8 and the 100/2 - these are lenses that offer alternatives to the, lets just call it premium priced, 85/1.4 and 135/2 level lenses.

±
So some of these lenses are a few pounds more in one mount than the other. Some have USM or AFS and some don't. Overall Canon and Nikon prices seem to compete well with each other, if you have 5-6 prime lenses you'd be paying about the same in either CAF or NAF.

Why not get a free body or an extra lens?
- Sony 20/2.8 ... you could get the CAF/NAF 20/2.8 - plus - 28/2.8 for less than the Sony price 20/2.8
- Anyone's 85/1.4 or 1.2 ... you could get a CAF/NAF 85/1.8 and have a lot of change, enough for a 2nd camera body!
- Sony 70-200/2.8 ... why not get the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR and a free Nikon D80 for LESS money?
- Sony 300/2.8 SSM ... for the £1489 differential you could take a Nikon version and a D300 + grip + batteries!!
- Sony 300/2.8 SSM ... or a Nikon 300/2.8 VR AFS - plus - 70-200/2.8 VR AFS - plus - a 1.4x!!!

Where am I coming from?
Well, I spent 17 years at Canon, 2.5 years at KonicaMinolta/Sony, and since Jul-07 in Nikon. During my Canon/pre-KM days I had a lot of respect for Minolta (pre-digital) and also for Nikon. I had a Nikon FM and FE with 55/2.8 micro for macro work on film. So, some of my comments above are from personal experience having owned some of them in the past. Digital is different though, and it must be said that Nikon have some shit wide angle primes, there is a - quite stupid - acceptance that with their wide primes you get purple fringe - forgetaboutit. And there are some gems to be had, Canon and Nikon's 85/1.8 and Canon's 100/2 are absolutely blinding lenses and you need to have a very good reason to go on up to one of the faster versions, I've had the Minolta 85/1.4 its great, but sorry its no better than the CAF/NAF 85/1.8 and here is a problem, Sony don't offer an affordable version of this prime.

The Value of the in Camera AS
This is the biggest pull to the Sony system: the in camera anti-shake (SSSI). With Canon or Nikon you have to buy in the IS or VR by selecting that specific lens. "But with Sony every lens is anti-shake" - the argument falls flat on its face when you look at the price of the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8. The simple fact that with either of these lenses its cheaper to get the Canon or Nikon version and get a 2nd or 3rd body or another lens. Lets not forget that Canon also have a 70-200/4 and that both Canon/Nikon have a 400/500/600mm prime lens too. If Sony wanted to cash in on the "But with Sony every lens is anti-shake" there lens prices need to match or beat (in the other direction) the competition.

Closing out with a Question
Frankly, what is the point in setting the right price on the Sony a700 but not addressing the across the board errors in lens prices. If Sony are aiming for its market share from old Minolta fans, then that is not a growth area. Surely more have left the mount due to the late entry of the 7D, and the problems with the 7D shutter, and the uncertainty with the Sony take over, and the long wait (again) to bring the still only at level 7 body out. If Sony are aiming for the ex-compact or the lens-glued-on dSLR market, then these people have no investment in any camp, so they will shop around at Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Sony - and buy the one they like best, it might be Sony, it might be one of the other four? If they are aiming at the a100/a200 market with a 1-2 zoom kit then perhaps that is covered? Perhaps those compare to the competition (Pentax has some keen prices to make people think twice at Sony). Some of these users will then move up to primes and to a700 and higher level bodies ... but at that time if its a complete swap out of their a100/a200 and kit lens - what reason do they have for staying in Sony rather than moving to a bigger and better priced player? I say none.

Bottom Line
It doesn't really matter. Its a rare thing to see someone switch from Canon to Nikon or from Nikon to Canon - whichever camp you are in there is a lot of choice and for some focal lengths (85/100/135) there are several options to tempt you. If you are into your Pro spec lenses, your Canon L series, then you are getting stella lenses at a premium price, lets not forget that. The 135/2 L or 85/1.2 L buyer is either a professional making good money or an enthusiast who wants to have the best lenses available for their hobby. I'm not a pro, don't want to be a pro, I do however have a 300/2.8 (Nikon manual focus) and one day I'd love to have an auto focus one, a fast one with AS. I had the Minolta 300/2.8 APO G original, I loved it, it wasn't as sharp as the 200/2.8, it was beat up and it is a slow AFing lens. I have a very real need and desire for a fast AF version, an SSSM/USM/AFS ... that is quite possibly the steering factor that forced me out of Sony. I took a long term look at the system I was in, and moved to a better one. Yes, better, more availability, more options, better pricing. Sony needs to offer something special or different than Canon or Nikon, but they don't have anything on offer - its one thing: "But with Sony every lens is anti-shake" ... so you don't have to buy IS/VR lenses, you just have to pay considerably more for non IS/VR lenses. Why?

back to page 1