DSLRUsers.com

http://www.smh.com.au/news/reviews/road ... 04157.html

The SMH roadtested entry level DSLR, wont spoil the results but Gary will not be a fan of their choice.

Haven't even read it yet, but did someone say Sony?

Not the Moscowflex!!!!!!!The Zenith!

If the aperture hole is small then everything in your photo will be in focus.

Says it all, really.

This is the sort of discerning, hard-hitting review that has made the paper what it is today.

I heard that the cartoonist wrote the article as the photography reviewer had to pick up his Polaroid from the repair shop

whats there not to like about the a300 ? if your new to dslr and want all the features then the a300 is, at the very least, a serious contender. the best LV implementation, in-body IS, tilt screen, good IQ. its a mile better than the pisspoor d60 imo. i dont see why this is such a surprise or even controversial regardless of how incompetant the reviewer may or may not be.

Rooz wrote:whats there not to like about the a300 ?

Build quality.

Reliability.

Lack of good glass.

Out of curiousity, what's the cost of a genuine battery?

whats wrong with the build quality and reliability ? i've not heard of any reliability issues with any sony dslr. the build quality seems decent enuf to me when i held one. its no d300 but neither is it meant to be.

there is not an absense of good glass either. there are some old minolta goodies, zeiss is making some good gear and there is always sigma and tamron for the more budget conscious.

wouldnt have a clue what the cost of a genuine battery is. i suspect given your statement, its priecy. whats the cost of the piece of crap nikon wireless remote again ?

a little snobbery going on here.

Rooz wrote:whats wrong with the build quality and reliability ?

It's made by Sony. They stopped making anything of any quality quite some years ago. Haven't seen a Sony product of any type last much beyond the warranty period plus a few days in quite a while.

its no d300

Quite correct. Nor is it a 300D.

there are some old minolta goodies, zeiss is making some good gear and there is always sigma and tamron for the more budget conscious.

And how many of those names that you mentioned were spelled "Sony" ?

That many?

I thought so.

Let's try this quick quiz, and a Coke bottle to the firstest, neatest, correct answer. How old is the newest Minolta? How long since Zeiss was really Zeiss? Who are the other two brands? Which one of them also makes drink containers?

wouldnt have a clue what the cost of a genuine battery is. i suspect given your statement, its priecy.

That would be my expectation, given their history.

whats the cost of the piece of crap nikon wireless remote again ?

Last time I bought a genuine Nikon remote, it cost me all of Au$29. It was smaller and more solid than the remote for my Benz.

I suspect your point is not all that well made.

Like a Sony. How appropriate is that?

a little snobbery going on here.

No, not a little.

Not even a bit. Just expressing opinions that are founded upon several years of being burned by the poor quality of Sony product.

Cellphones that fail about halfway through a contract. With three identical phones under contract, we had four that failed. All displayed issues within days of being new. One DOA. All with severe issues. None survived the contract period. All survived just beyond the scope of their warranty.

Camcorders that fail just beyond the scope of their warranty. Two of.

Laptops for which a battery costs about 1/3 the price of the computer. And which fail with manufacturing defects just beyond the scope of the warranty.

Noticing a pattern here?

Jist went and read the PoS. Sorry, review.

Whomever wrote that clearly hasn't the slightest clue about photography. Apart from the faux pas mentioned by Photohiker, we have the following gems ...

SLR, by the way, stands for single lens reflex, which is a jargon-rich way of saying you own a big camera with interchangeable lenses.

A CP5700 is about the same size as a D40.

Stike one.

Back in the olden days - the late 1990s - SLRs could be described as boxes that had detachable lenses at one end and could take any film at the other.

So, if the late 1990s are the "olden days", what does that make the 1960s, when exactly the same statement was true?

And what of the Leica (and similar) which could be described as boxes that had detachable lenses at one end and could take any film at the other, but absobloodylutely could never be described as being even remotely like a SLR?

Strike two.

Referring to SLRs ...

ultimately they've worked on the same principles for the past 150 years.

So, roughly speaking, the SLR was invented before the compact camera ... before roll film even ...

I don't think so.

Strike three!

And thus far, I've only read the first three paras.

This has to be the biggest load of crap that I've seen in a very long bloody time!

gstark wrote:

Rooz wrote:whats wrong with the build quality and reliability ?

It's made by Sony. They stopped making anything of any quality quite some years ago. Haven't seen a Sony product of any type last much beyond the warranty period plus a few days in quite a while.

its no d300

Quite correct. Nor is it a 300D.

there are some old minolta goodies, zeiss is making some good gear and there is always sigma and tamron for the more budget conscious.

And how many of those names that you mentioned were spelled "Sony" ?

That many?

I thought so.

Let's try this quick quiz, and a Coke bottle to the firstest, neatest, correct answer. How old is the newest Minolta? How long since Zeiss was really Zeiss? Who are the other two brands? Which one of them also makes drink containers?

wouldnt have a clue what the cost of a genuine battery is. i suspect given your statement, its priecy.

That would be my expectation, given their history.

whats the cost of the piece of crap nikon wireless remote again ?

Last time I bought a genuine Nikon remote, it cost me all of Au$29. It was smaller and more solid than the remote for my Benz.

I suspect your point is not all that well made.

Like a Sony. How appropriate is that?

a little snobbery going on here.

No, not a little.

Not even a bit. Just expressing opinions that are founded upon several years of being burned by the poor quality of Sony product.

Cellphones that fail about halfway through a contract. With three identical phones under contract, we had four that failed. All displayed issues within days of being new. One DOA. All with severe issues. None survived the contract period. All survived just beyond the scope of their warranty.

Camcorders that fail just beyond the scope of their warranty. Two of.

Laptops for which a battery costs about 1/3 the price of the computer. And which fail with manufacturing defects just beyond the scope of the warranty.

Noticing a pattern here?

too many holes in this argumentative drivvel to bother with.

Quote:
Back in the olden days - the late 1990s - SLRs could be described as boxes that had detachable lenses at one end and could take any film at the other.


So, if the late 1990s are the "olden days", what does that make the 1960s, when exactly the same statement was true?

Much as I tried I could never get 120 film into my FM2. Does that mean it wasn't an SLR?

 ROFL!

Can I just say that from my experience with the Sony DSLR's (I have played with all of them A100. A200. A300. A350 and A700, with both kit and Zeiss lenses (16-80, 24-70 f/2.8, 135 f/1. and have found them all to be very plastic feeling (incl the mag alloy A700) and seem to be fairly noisy from 800 ISO (exclucding the A700).

The Zeiss lenses are nice though, who actually makes the ones for the Sony's???

As for the LiveView, I'll give it to Sony, they do have the best implementation, but have over marketed it. I picked up the A350 wtih huge expectations for the quick AF and was dissappointed, but it is faster than the mirror flipping (although the Leica Digilux 3 has a similar system that is just as fast as the Sony - and a bouncing pop up flash). I dont use LiveView much on my D300 and have not really used it when I have a Sony in my hands either.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

photohiker wrote:

If the aperture hole is small then everything in your photo will be in focus.

Says it all, really.

This is the sort of discerning, hard-hitting review that has made the paper what it is today.

Nothing like taking something completely out of context in order to bag it.

Nothing wrong with that as a statement given it's in a general newpaper article that is clearly explaining basic camera concepts. It's not in a photography magazine.

If you want to read totally laughable reviews of DSLRs, read the ones the PCUser insist on doing regularly. The most common complaint is that Canon & Nikon don't havein body shake-reduction. I kid you not. They are atrociously clueless.

aim54x wrote:I dont use LiveView much on my D300 and have not really used it when I have a Sony in my hands either.

Exactly. It's mostly a marketing gimmick. Careful you don't step in that marketing.

Rooz: Holes? In my personal experiences? Give me a break!

You want to see the three dead cellphones? Or the dead laptop? The dead camcorders? They're all here, forming a large part of my technology cemetery. The IBM laptop, which the Sony was purchased to replace and is 30 months older, still works perfectly, with a battery cost less than a third of that of the Sony.

Given my personal experience with Sony there is little reason for me to consider for purchase anything made by them. Ever. Seven items, covering three totally unrelated product lines, all of which have failed when barely beyond warranty.

Tell me they make reliable products against that insurmountable wall to the contrary!

mickeyjuice wrote:

photohiker wrote:

If the aperture hole is small then everything in your photo will be in focus.

Says it all, really.

This is the sort of discerning, hard-hitting review that has made the paper what it is today.

Nothing like taking something completely out of context in order to bag it.

Nothing wrong with that as a statement given it's in a general newpaper article that is clearly explaining basic camera concepts. It's not in a photography magazine.

Sorry, but that statement was not taken out of context: look at the whole article, and the lack of any sort of knowledge of photography of the writer is painfully evident. The writer of that article should be fired, and the editor too: there has clearly been less than zero checking of facts.

You state that the market for the article is towards a general newspaper audience, but the article is reviewing DSLR cameras, FFS. We're not talking about cellphone cameras or a basic PHD compact that costs a couple of farts. Even at the most basic levels, these are serious cameras, capable of helping a user to obtain some pretty good results, and the sort of verbal diarrhoea that this alleged reviewer spouted does nothing at all to help educate even a trained gnat.

I noticed too, btw, that in the review, he totally failed to mention the UI of the D60 (shared with the D40) which is quite simply the best UI of any SLR that I have ever seen, and if anything, goes a hell of a long way towards explaining, in a very simple and concise manner, exactly what this tool totally failed to explain in his disgustingly poor excuse for a review!

OMG.
Did they get a Harvey Norman Salesman to write this ????

Truly disappointing that so much "mis-information" can be widely spread in such a manner.

My favourite line was:

SMH Quote:
"SLRs take much better pictures than compact cameras mainly because they have much bigger lenses. "

I always wondered why my Canon A550 was no match for the D70. I never stopped to think I should try and jerry-rig the kit lens onto the Canon to get better photos

gstark wrote:Sorry, but that statement was not taken out of context: look at the whole article, and the lack of any sort of knowledge of photography of the writer is painfully evident. The writer of that article should be fired, and the editor too: there has clearly been less than zero checking of facts.

It's written for its intended audience, as articles should be. Most people don't have a clue how a camera/lens works.

You state that the market for the article is towards a general newspaper audience, but the article is reviewing DSLR cameras, FFS. We're not talking about cellphone cameras or a basic PHD compact that costs a couple of farts. Even at the most basic levels, these are serious cameras, capable of helping a user to obtain some pretty good results, and the sort of verbal diarrhoea that this alleged reviewer spouted does nothing at all to help educate even a trained gnat.

It says they give good results.

No, it's not a review written for a camera magazine, but I'm utterly amazed at the vitriol being aimed at it.

I noticed too, btw, that in the review, he totally failed to mention the UI of the D60 (shared with the D40) which is quite simply the best UI of any SLR that I have ever seen, and if anything, goes a hell of a long way towards explaining, in a very simple and concise manner, exactly what this tool totally failed to explain in his disgustingly poor excuse for a review!

Oh yeah, that's totally important to people who don't know what a DSLR is - it would mean a huge amount to them.

mickeyjuice wrote: I'm utterly amazed at the vitriol being aimed at it.

Why? Its content has no basis of fact, and is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter rubbish. It's supposed to be journalism: you know, with checking of facts, verification of details, all that sort of stuff. Clearly none of which has been done in this alleged review.

Were this to be physically printed, its best use would be as loo paper.

Used.

gstark wrote:Were this to be physically printed, its best use would be as loo paper.

Used.

I continue to be amazed.

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:I dont use LiveView much on my D300 and have not really used it when I have a Sony in my hands either.

Exactly. It's mostly a marketing gimmick. Careful you don't step in that marketing.

Rooz: Holes? In my personal experiences? Give me a break!

You want to see the three dead cellphones? Or the dead laptop? The dead camcorders? They're all here, forming a large part of my technology cemetery. The IBM laptop, which the Sony was purchased to replace and is 30 months older, still works perfectly, with a battery cost less than a third of that of the Sony.

Given my personal experience with Sony there is little reason for me to consider for purchase anything made by them. Ever. Seven items, covering three totally unrelated product lines, all of which have failed when barely beyond warranty.

Tell me they make reliable products against that insurmountable wall to the contrary!

firstly, what is a gimick to some is fantastic for others. i love LV. i use it for macro regulalry and use it for portrait shoots when i'm on a tripod. who's to say whats a gimick and whats not ? you ? please mate.

i dont need to see your dead stuff. i believe you that you've had bad experiences. so what ? sony sell billions of products. i have owned heaps of sony stuff and none of its ever missed a beat. 3 TV's, 2 camcorders, a PS2 and PS3 to name a few. hell i even have an old video player and discman thats still going. so am i then to use that as a basis to draw an argument that the stuff they make is of exceptional quality ? its not an argument with any logic at all.

you skipped the part about the cost of the ML-L3 remote. well, you used another example. but having used the piece of shit nikon remote which worked like crap and was built like crap, i can safely say nikon do a pretty good jonb ripping people off aswell. hell nikon, a well established and leder in photography is still selling us screw drive primes ! thats a bloody disgrace.

sony also make, (or brand), some excellent quality glass that is current.

you also make assumptions that their quality is crap, not even on par with the 300d. says who ? based on what ? based on the fact that your phone busted ? again, its just rubbish. they seem to have held up pretty well so far. better than the top of the range canon focussing issues.

sorry mate, i just personally find your comments baseless and pretty irrelevant.

Were this to be physically printed,

It was. It was in Monday's Guide supplement in the SMH.

I tend to agree with the view that it is an article aimed at its intended audience. While I disagreed with its conclusions, and its detail at times, I understand that a simplification often gets facts "wrong" in the eyes of an expert. It remains illuminating for an ignorant bystander.

e.g. Newton's laws of motion are wrong (they were disproved about 1915), but that doesn't stop them from being being sufficiently accurate for day to day to day use in the real world, and they don't get the flack meted out to the Darwin's theory despite the fact that the latter is yet to be disproved scientifically.

mickeyjuice wrote:

photohiker wrote:

If the aperture hole is small then everything in your photo will be in focus.

Says it all, really.

This is the sort of discerning, hard-hitting review that has made the paper what it is today.

Nothing like taking something completely out of context in order to bag it.

Mickeyjuice, I think you may have misunderstood my point. Forgive me for not making myself clearer.

Here is the paragraph with the quoted sentence in context:

Increasing the shutter speed simply means you can take sharp pictures of something that's moving. A camera's aperture determines how much light passes through the lens and onto the digital sensor. If the aperture hole is small then everything in your photo will be in focus. If the aperture hole is big then you can focus on one thing and everything else will be blurry. Landscape photos look much better when everything is in focus. Portraits have far more impact when everything other than the face is blurred out.

Each of the concepts presented has some grains of truth, but it's revealing for what is left out, rather than what is reported. For me, the point is that the reviewer either knows almost nothing about photography (which I actually doubt is the case) or they are deliberately dumbing down the subject to such a level that it misrepresents the design and application of cameras to the photography process and simultaneously insults the intelligence of the reader.

The article would struggle to be acceptable with a junior primary audience IMO. If that's where the paper is aiming it's readership at, or if that's where it thinks it readership is at, great. IMHO I think they are out of step.

Michael

photohiker wrote:The article would struggle to be acceptable with a junior primary audience IMO. If that's where the paper is aiming it's readership at, or if that's where it thinks it readership is at, great. IMHO I think they are out of step.

Fair enough, but I still think that, given the wide reach of theintended audience, it was fine. Most people don't have a clue about how cameras work, and as photographers, we forget that.

It was the condescending remarks after the quote that got me to the replying stage - why would a camera review in the SMH be "hard-hitting"? What is wrong with explaining that small apertures will get a much greater DOF without using that confusing term?

Again - you write for your audience, not the critics.

mickeyjuice wrote: What is wrong with explaining that small apertures will get a much greater DOF without using that confusing term?

Nothing.

But this turkey is a journalist. A supposedly professional writer! I've done a fair bit of professional writing in my time, and in all honesty, this is crap, and it simply doesn't pass muster. It's little to do with photography, and everything to do with being a professional writer.

That is the point!

It is his job to research his stories, to consider carefully the words that he uses, and to use words that accurately convey the story that he has to tell. Not a whole lot to do with who his target audience is (a little, yes) really, but a hell of a lot to do with him having some level of professional pride, to be able to point to the story and proudly proclaim "I wrote that!"

Had he said something along the lines of "using small apertures will get a much greater area of the image in sharp focus", he would have been accurate, correct, and there would be no argument from me. It took me all of about five seconds consideration to devise that alternate wording. It would take me but a few moments to recast the other inaccuracies he has blurted forth, and the story would, I suspect, change from an inaccurate load of dogshit to something that at least doesn't stink up the whole place.

This turkey clearly doesn't seem to have the professional integrity to even read and consider what he wrote in this story, such is the level of the rubbish he has put forth. As a writer .... as a professional ... I take pride in my output, and I always consider carefully the words I write. Even (especially) here. I see no evidence whatsoever that this has been done with this story.

And that is where the problem lies. I actually find it quite offensive that he will collect a paycheque for writing something that is so without journalistic or professional merit. I would be ashamed to put my name to something so poorly written.

That is my point!

Rooz wrote: sony sell billions of products.

Yes. That's an expected outcome for large corporations with huge marketing departments.

That still doesn't mean that they make their products of an acceptable (to me) quality.

i have owned heaps of sony stuff and none of its ever missed a beat.

Same here. But none of the stuff they've made in the last five or six years, for me, falls into that category. And it is widely accepted - by many people with whom I've had this discussion - that the level of quality that they produce has fallen over time. Significantly so.

old video player and discman thats still going.

Yep. Precisely. The old stuff is way better than the new stuff. By an order of magnitude.

you skipped the part about the cost of the ML-L3 remote.

Well, as I am not personally familiar with the item, how can I comment upon it?

i can safely say nikon do a pretty good jonb ripping people off aswell.

I say that too.

Frequently, as it happens.

sony also make, (or brand), some excellent quality glass that is current.

No, not really.

you also make assumptions that their quality is crap, not even on par with the 300d. says who ? based on what ?

I do, and FYI, based upon my playing with the examples that I've played with. Unimpressive in the extreme. My experiences with their other stuff - and the lack of quality and longevity of it all - only helps to shape my overall impressions. Putting it a different way, I do not get a feeling of confidence when handling Sony DSLRs (as I might when using, say, an old Minolta), and when I take that lack of confidence, and add to it my experiences with what seems to be the planned obselesence that they use, I have no hesitation in making the statements that I have made.

Couldn't be simpler, really.

sorry mate, i just personally find your comments baseless and pretty irrelevant.

Fine. You are are welcome to your opinions, but no, they're not baseless, and no, to me, they are not irrelevant.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Quote:
Back in the olden days - the late 1990s - SLRs could be described as boxes that had detachable lenses at one end and could take any film at the other.


So, if the late 1990s are the "olden days", what does that make the 1960s, when exactly the same statement was true?

Much as I tried I could never get 120 film into my FM2. Does that mean it wasn't an SLR?

Oddly enough, in the current Nikon Oz product list, there are still two film SLRs, one of which being the FM10. I guess that makes this year one of the "olden days".

gstark wrote:And that is where the problem lies. I actually find it quite offensive that he will collect a paycheque for writing something that is so without journalistic or professional merit. I would be ashamed to put my name to something so poorly written.

That is my point!

My main query is wondering what he did to you to provoke such a virulent outpouring. I find it bizarre in the extreme given it's a little article on DSLRs for people who are expected to be clueless about them.

No actual points, just some bizarre rants. It's not how you'd write it. I get that. Bad luck. He probably didn't have forever to write it, funnily enough. Most writers are under significant time-pressure, and they don't write how everyone wants them to write. Again, bad luck.

(I wonder if people froth at the mouth like this about the stuff I write every day? I probably don't use the words they'd like, either. Bad luck for them, too.)

mickeyjuice wrote:[No actual points,

With all due respect, I firstly referred to the piss-poor mis-statement regarding aperture that had already been quoted, and then proceeded to list, explicitly, not one, not two, but THREE errors of fact that he had written in just the first three paragraphs. You'll note that those are annotated with the strike one, strike two etc comments.

No actual points? Go back and read my words, please.

It's not how you'd write it. I get that. Bad luck. He probably didn't have forever to write it,

You have no idea if that's true, or not.

Regardless, it's irrelevant. He's supposed to be a professional. Being a professional entails taking some responsibility and pride in your work. It's that simple. Being under pressure is, precisely, a part of being a professional. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the bloody kitchen.

I've had to write, and sometimes rewrite, parts of a book just days before publication. Yes, that's pressure too. Big bloody deal: it's a part of life, so deal with it. I certainly don't have forever to write the stuff I write, but I'll be damned if I'm going to turn in shit.

Again, being a professional means having a professional attitude: we once fired a guitarist from a band because he couldn't be bothered turning up for gigs in time to get set up for those gigs. Again, this was an example of unprofessional behaviour. I have fired photographers because they got drunk while shooting a wedding. One even rolled his car on the way home. In one word: unprofessional.

And a journalist turning in a story that's inadequately researched, full of holes and inaccuracies is equally unprofessional.

If I have unprofessional people working with me, that affects my reputation; it makes me look bad. You may be satisfied with unprofessional attitudes and behaviour; I am not. never have been, and never will be.

Let's go this way: why in the world should I be expected to accept substandard workmanship? Let's forget this article for a moment, and talk about something else: would you accept poorly prepared food in a restaurant? How about a plumber who, in fixing your cistern, floods the whole bloody bathroom? A gardner who, while mowing the lawn, cuts down your prize roses? Dealing with a camera store whose staff know fuck-all about photography?

Is there a difference? Absobloodylutely not!

What on earth is wrong with having a commitment to excellence? I would contend that too many people do not have this commitment, and stories such as this load of rubbish are the result.

I see no reason to accept a fourth rate product, and this story is just that: no excellence, no accuracy, just excuses and crap.

Most writers are under significant time-pressure, and they don't write how everyone wants them to write. Again, bad luck.

it's one thing to be writing under pressure. it happens all the time, and it's a part of life. Big deal.

That someone writes in a manner that doesn't please somebody is simply not the issue. It's avoiding the fact that this so-called journalist has failed to be professional in so many ways. I have already illustrated how one section could have been easily rewritten to be more accurate, and it would have taken just seconds to do.

Oh yes, and a dash of professionalism on the part of the author.

I probably don't use the words they'd like, either. Bad luck for them, too.)

Again, it's not just a matter of the words that you write: it's what those words mean, and it's how you communicate, in a clear and concise manner, an accurate message.

And surely, that is what writing is all about?

Especially for a professional.

gstark wrote:No actual points? Go back and read my words, please.

OK, I guess I didn't correlate those fairly minor points to the extraordinary vitriol attached.

From my POV this is an extraordinarily bitter and disproportionate response to a fairly simple article, so I'm out of this conversation, as it seems not only pointless, but counterproductive.

Have a nice day.

Cellphones that fail about halfway through a contract. With three identical phones under contract, we had four that failed. All displayed issues within days of being new. One DOA. All with severe issues. None survived the contract period. All survived just beyond the scope of their warranty.

Camcorders that fail just beyond the scope of their warranty. Two of.

Laptops for which a battery costs about 1/3 the price of the computer. And which fail with manufacturing defects just beyond the scope of the warranty.

Noticing a pattern here?

Sorry to hear of your bad luck with Sony Gary.
My track record:
Sony radio bought 1969. Still in daily use despite being dropped repeatedly, left out in the rain etc. It only misses a beat when the batteries go flat
Sony Amplifier. Bought 1972 Still working happily
Sony TV. Bought 1986. Failed once about 5 years ago. Repaired for $90 (faulty capacitor: labour was the main cost). Replaced by Sony widescreen a bit over a year ago, was still going strong then. (Still in occasional use at the weekeender)
Sony VCR bought about 1988 still going strong, though no longer on a daily basis (also at the weekender)

EDIT: I forgot this one:
Sony DVD bought 2003. Still working fine
End Edit

Sony Flatpanel TV bought a bit over a year ago in anticipation of the Digital changeover. Out of warranty. Still working beautifully.

Noticing a pattern here?

I've never had one of their Computers, cell phones or camcorder, so can't comment on them. I have had other brands though which have failed, including several IBM, Compaq and Toshiba computers; LG, Motorola and Kyocera phones; oh and Panasonic VCRs, Denon DVDs etc. Never owned a camcorder.

Mr Darcy wrote:Noticing a pattern here?

Yep. With the exception of just one item, all of the stuff you talk about is old. Mostly significantly so. Thank you for reinforcing my point that Sony used to make good quality stuff.

You relate that you have just one newer item purchased that is still working outside of its warranty period: hardly a substantive sample, is it?

Never owned a camcorder.

Maybe you should now buy a D90 ?

Mr Darcy wrote:
Noticing a pattern here?


Yep. With the exception of just one item, all of the stuff you talk about is old. Mostly significantly so. Thank you for reinforcing my point that Sony used to make good quality stuff.

You relate that you have just one newer item purchased that is still working outside of its warranty period: hardly a substantive sample, is it?

I've since checked the DVD receipt. Bought late 2004 (An XMas pressie) That is two items that are recent
And yes I don't have any 1 year old equipment that has been working happily for 40 years. Somehow I don't think anyone has.
But I do have Sony equipment of varying ages that has ALL worked consistently for all the years I have had it.
I don't pretend that it is a statistically significant sample though. It is simply a counter example. Nor do I believe that your sample is statistically significant. Just unfortunate.
As was my run with IBM PCs: I used to work for them. I know that my Sony experience with their gear was not mirrored in the greater volumes they sold. A small percentage failed. Most didn't.

I would agree though, that the quality of technology equipment, generally, has decreased in recent years. My first Panasonic VCR was a solid beast that lasted many years. My more recent ones have been obviously far more flimsy affairs that I do not expect to last as well. Of course, their price, adjusted for inflation , was much lower. My latest Panasonic, a DVDR, is a very poorly designed beast. I live in a fringe area. It loses digital reception while the Sony TV is still presenting perfect reception, from the same aerial. It will also refuse to play an NTSC disc unless I manually change a setting in the machine. I then need to manually change it back to play PAL discs again. (NB this is not region code dependent - I have Region 4 NTSC discs) I have not met another recent machine that will not detect and adapt automagically unless you force lock it to a single system.

I don't particularly like any of Sony's current products, and think the Ericsson phones went downhill at around the time they stopped being Ericsson. The Trinitron monitors and teles were great in their day (we still have a Trinitron TV, although it's been repaired a couple of times). Although I will admit that I've been eyeing off some of the latest Bravias...
We have a Sony LCD monitor in our house and have no complaints about it. Our Sony VCR recently kicked the bucket (having been repaired several times in the past).

It used to be that the Sony brand held a lot of value. These days I have to judge each product on its own features/etc. Similarly I used to love my Motorola analog phone (it was a solid, dependable product) but my latest phone happens to be a Motorola and it's been giving me lots of reliability problems.
On this forum I just accept that Gary doesn't like Sony, and skim over the details.

gstark wrote:Let's try this quick quiz, and a Coke bottle to the firstest, neatest, correct answer. How old is the newest Minolta? How long since Zeiss was really Zeiss? Who are the other two brands? Which one of them also makes drink containers?

I had to laugh when I started reading this paragraph: I was expecting Gary to suggest the Coke bottle would make a better lens...

Mr Darcy wrote:I have Region 4 NTSC discs

I know that Warner Bros released a slew of Region 4 NTSC but one has to ask the question - why? NTSC does not have the resolution of PAL and we do live in a PAL region. . .

Zeiss lenses for Nikon are made by Cosina in Japan.

DaveB wrote:

gstark wrote:Let's try this quick quiz, and a Coke bottle to the firstest, neatest, correct answer. How old is the newest Minolta? How long since Zeiss was really Zeiss? Who are the other two brands? Which one of them also makes drink containers?

I had to laugh when I started reading this paragraph: I was expecting Gary to suggest the Coke bottle would make a better lens...

Dave,

It does. Have you not seen our F-Mount coke bottle? We actually do have one. 300cc I believe

sirhc55 wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:I have Region 4 NTSC discs

I know that Warner Bros released a slew of Region 4 NTSC but one has to ask the question - why? NTSC does not have the resolution of PAL and we do live in a PAL region. . .

Just so you know just how bizarre this really is:
The DVDs in question are all BBC productions. That means... you guessed it they were originally made in PAL format. Go figure.
The other logos on the discs are 2entertain, Roadshow (they should know better) and wait for it... ABC (The Australian one that is. They definitely should know better!)

DaveB wrote:On this forum I just accept that Gary doesn't like Sony, and skim over the details.

Things change Dave, I remember when Gary was just as adamant about Sigma until he bought the 10-20. There's hope for Sony yet.

The other thing is that Dad hasn't actually tried the A300 or the A700 (or tried for long periods of time)... or any of the Sony Digital SLR's to boot.

I know Nick. He's a nice guy and a good tech journalist. I wouldn't say that cameras are his strongest point - not in the same vein as myself or some of the other tech journos - but many of you are right in that this was written for a target audience and it is that target audience which reads the tech section of the Herald.

Further, everyone makes good products and crap products and no amount of furious text writing will be able to show up one company more than the other. I'm just going to look at one crap product right now made by a company we all know and love...

The Nikon D200 - Hey! A Nikon that was crap! Who here felt ripped off when they realised that everything except the body amounted to little more than a hill of beans (and we know what beans make you do...) when they bought this! THIS was a crappy Nikon. And it's from Nikon. NIKON.

For what it's worth, I've played briefly with the A300 and didn't mind it. While too light for my hands, it didn't feel bad and at least Sony had the better judgment to go with Compact Flash in their cameras and not the head-bludgeoning array of MemoryStick formats. The biggest problem I can see without actually properly reviewing one is the lack of glass available at decent prices, but that's just me.

Dad, I suspect you have a similar aversion to the possibility of Sony making a good product in the same way that sirhc55 (Chris) has enormous skepticism for video being useful in a digital SLR... and so far I've gone out of my way to prove one of those beliefs unnecessary... batter up?

Nnnnsic wrote:The other thing is that Dad hasn't actually tried the A300 or the A700 (or tried for long periods of time)... or any of the Sony Digital SLR's to boot.

Actually, you're wrong, and I have, but you're right, because it was for only a short period of time.

But it was enough of a play to permit me to get a feel for the unit, and to determine that it's not even an anthill of beans.

Oh, and you're wrong in that I don't have an aversion to the possibility that Sony might make a good product. I have an aversion to the bone-headed arrogance that that they display in the marketing of their products, that leads to the mind-numbingly immense array of different types of memory that they, almost without exception, require that you use, and that leads to items being priced beyond all good reason.

Oh yes, and that their general level of quality has, over a period of time, gone downhill.

And yet you bought the D200, too.

I REST MY CASE.

Nnnnsic wrote:And yet you bought the D200, too.

I REST MY CASE.

Yep. I made no direct mention of any problems in that decision. That remains true.

Nnnnsic wrote:in the same way that sirhc55 (Chris) has enormous skepticism for video being useful in a digital SLR...

OK, that‘s it, light wands at dawn