Sonar has some video facilities but shouldn't be regarded as a video production suite.

When I see questions like the OP it always brings to mind what Beepster mentioned... the user skill. Much of the "pro" is "proficiency" and I have seen many novice guitarists invest huge dollars in a new guitar thinking that makes them better...

 
I have the same thought....insert skill and talent here.

Another vote for Vegas+Sonar. Depending on the project I'll either create the audio first (e.g., narration for tutorials) then bring into Vegas and cut audio to video, or create the audio in Vegas and bring into Sonar for scoring. With the latter, the time-stretching DSP and acidization/REX options are helpful for coping with unforeseen changes.
 
 

CakeAlexS
Sonically Sonar is no different to Pro Tools. It's your hardware that matters. The work flow isn't that different either.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. I've run sessions on just about all DAWs and find that the workflows vary considerably depending on what you want to do. For example I always recommended Pro Tools when people wanted to transition from 2" 24-track to a DAW, as the workflow was the most similar. Reason is like a fully-realized MIDI sequencer with digital audio for those who want it. For composition, songwriting, and creating sample libraries and other content, I haven't found anything with more fluid workflow than Sonar.

It's not the hammer, it's the carpenter.
 
Are YOU powerful enough to make a pro product?

But don't you feel Sonar is missing out on a good market share only because it refuses to upgrade the video app? I meen, Sonar is 5/10 years behind other daws in terms of video handling..

zblip
But don't you feel Sonar is missing out on a good market share only because it refuses to upgrade the video app? I meen, Sonar is 5/10 years behind other daws in terms of video handling..

Well, it's not 5/10 years behind most other DAWs. Pro Tools and DP are pretty much the main DAWs for full-time audio-for-video professionals; the other DAWs are in the same general zone as Sonar with respect to video.
 
I don't think Sonar is missing out on a good size market at all. Audio-for-video is quite specialized. The amount of effort required to make Sonar into a truly robust audio-for-video program would be significant, and I highly doubt the returns would even come close to justifying that effort. Then there's also the matter of having to persuade the relatively few audio-for-video users of PT and DP, who have been with those programs for years, to switch. DP even had a hard time getting people to switch from PT to DP on Windows.
 
Of course it's up to Cakewalk to decide where to take the program, and I do think X3d is really making a move in the right direction when it comes to video - this opens up a lot more video opportunities for Sonar users. But if it was up to me, I would prefer that Sonar keep focusing like a laser on being a highly versatile DAW for music creation, editing, mixing, mastering, and publishing. The market for that is huge, and Sonar excels in that realm.

I think Sonar knows exactly what it's doing.  In order for Sonar to do what YOU want it to do, it would be a very expensive upgrade, and the end result would be a program that costs much more than it does now.  If you combine the cost of Sonar and Vegas, you will get what you want in a system where most of the bugs have already been worked out, and the overall cost would be about the same as other do-it-all programs.  Sonar was designed to score music to video, and not video to music. The marriage of Sonar and Vegas has been proven time and again, and if you need confirmation of their ability to work together, just check the numerous examples offered by many members of this forum.  If this is not good enough for you, then be prepared to pay.

I wouldn't want to pay extra for video features, I just want this software for producing music, and its already quite expensive enough for the Pro version. I couldn't afford Pro Tools, and I think its great how Sonar lets you start with cheaper option and then upgrade later, so its much more friendly for low budgets and / or beginners.

What you guys say makes sense, BUT not everybody becomes a pop star. A good part of the musicians that I know started out writing songs and playing in bands and finally ended up writing jingles for TV and adds, or scoring to picture. Sonar's philosophy doesn't take in consideration that a very small portion of the musicians using there product will actually succede in becomming "famous". Take Mr Anderton, he is an accomplished musician and all, and probably dreamed (I may be totally wrong by the way its for the sake of illustrating my thoughts) of living of making music alone, and now he is working a doing many things related to music. One of the best "post rockstar dream" venues is to write for TV, Publicity and Movies. Sonar doesn't carry the video tools to perform in this market and therefore forces Sonar Users to abandon the product. That is another way of putting it..