|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Sony or not?
Aug 21 16 07:25 am Link I think Sony have made good thing for their mirrorless, speaking from their sensor, their lens. For who that don't need action shoot or certain telephoto lens, accept the (bad) ergonomics (typically on mirrorless camera, excessive smaller is coupled with big lens), slow availability of third party alternative (radio trigger and flash) or professional support on par with Canon and Nikon might be a nice choice. Aug 21 16 10:02 am Link Weird article. He never explained what prompted the switch. Beyond the perhaps lacking live view on the Nikon, he gave no shortcomings that had him looking for a better solution. But he DID list a few complaints from the Sony system. I guess I'm confused as to the reason for this article. He didn't explain WHY he moved from Nikon to Sony, just that he did, and what his plans for the rest of the transition would look like. But whatever. People should use the tools they feel most comfortable with that will give them the results they're chasing. It's nice that we have so many choices. Aug 21 16 10:54 am Link He didn't explain WHY he moved from Nikon to Sony, Maybe he got the Sony in exchange for pumping Sony? I dont spend lots of money on cameras, so I have to shop carefully. I have bought 2 Sonys in about 9 years. Prior to that I had a Maxxum. Bought in 1986. I bought the horrid Maxxum Pro as well. That was the worst. Aug 21 16 11:58 am Link Yeah, the article is weird all right. It reads like Sony was forcing him to write it. Which couldn't be the case, or he wouldn't mention that he won't be buying Sony lenses. The whole thing is just awkward. I'm not familiar with this guy ... Is he generally a good writer? Aug 21 16 05:01 pm Link lol petapixel Aug 21 16 05:12 pm Link There's probably no way in hell I'd switch to Sony and there's no way in hell I'd be buying those mortgage payment Zeiss lenses unless I'm getting paid a crap ton of money for my photography. Aug 22 16 09:55 am Link I have Nikon & Sony. 95% of my shoots I use the Nikon's, I only break out the Sony A7s II's when I need silent shooting. Aug 22 16 10:24 am Link I am a Leica lens user and so tolerate a lot of BS from the Sony A7 digital. I am NOT like most of you guys in the least. To me, it is the optics and it is all in the optics, the camera body is just the support. Also I will freely admit that computers and technology are for me the death trap to creativity, it just gets in the way of creativity. In this I know that I am in the weird 1% of the 1% group. I loath technology in its totality. All of that said, I found the Zeiss 20mm lens to me a delightful lens to use, but it's electronics was shit, it kept stopping me from making photographs, so I gave it back and now know that I will avoid electronic lenses once again. Back to manual lenses like the Leitz 50mm f2 Summitar. The Sony camera body is truly a pain in the ass to work with. The controls are to easily altered. I have large hands and so the camera is a pain to work with. This was one of the reasons I got rid of the Leica CL, just way to small. The Sony body is now acting erratically, will not let me access preview, some times just won't allow me use use and other items. I just don't have money to send yet another failure back for repair. I know that I live in the digital age, the age of failed camera systems. I shot with Leicas from 1932, they worked then, they work fine now. The R-6 Leica works just fine. The lenses work great. The Canon gear is just shit and so is Nikons. So I will plug along but make images that will be around long after I am dead, that is my desire. But Sony, Canon, Nikon all joke gear. Give me the old equipment, reliable, consistent and they make great images because the are well crafted and they do not interfere with the making of great work. My cheap proof about ME: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/11231350 Aug 22 16 02:17 pm Link For what it's worth Tim, I use an A7ii with a 50 Summilux and a 90 tele-elmar. No major issues. Pro tip: the best thing about the camera being infinitely customizable is you can go into the menu and turn off most of the bullshit. I only use like a third of the buttons, tops. Aug 22 16 03:24 pm Link Unless you want the ability to shoot at medium format resolution, use almost any lens made in the last 100 years (and make it stabilized), shoot cinema quality 4K, and have the potential of a travel kit half the weight of a dslr, then its definitely not worth looking at the Sony A7 family. Aug 22 16 03:43 pm Link Nikon is rumored to be releasing a special camera for its 100th anniversary in 2017. With the history and corporate nostalgia for rangefinders, it's a good bet we will see something along those lines released. An improved Df? But yes, the article was pretty critical of Sony cameras while not offering any significant reasons for switching systems. But, people do offer Nikon F to Sony E adapters with AF. Strange he didn't explore that option. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/contro … ku=1265004 My recent D500 purchase has me re-thinking my Fuji strategy. I am so in love with the incredible viewfinder and sensor-covering AF points, and the other major improvements in the new camera. Just waiting for the Apple version of snapbridge to drop. It offers a whole lot for the money. I may sell my XT-1 and see if Fuji comes out with their MF camera, or Nikon delivers on the digital rangefinder. Aug 23 16 04:02 am Link I have both. I shoot a lot of unit stills, it's my primary job. I love the Sony for that because it's perfectly silent. However, the 24-70 f4 isn't great. And the image quality isn't as amazing as one would hope. I only have the A7s 1.0. The camera itself also leaves a lot to be desired. The 2.0 is better, though. Both models offer only contrast-detection AF, so it's both slow and sometimes inaccurate. I've been shooting Nikon forever, and I got a D5 earlier this summer. It is flat out amazing. It is at least as good in low light as the A7s. Probably better. The images from the A7s tend to get muddy at really high ISOs and lose detail. Not so with the D5. (I realize that the high ISO thing isn't as important to other people. Who else needs to shoot at ISO 25K+ sometimes?) The D5 is also the most amazingly fast and accurate focusing camera I've ever witnessed. And, unlike the Sony, I've never owned a crappy lens. My 2¢ Aug 23 16 05:32 am Link I've owned only Sony's since NEX-5N. Most current 2 I use often are A7RII and A7II. What can I say, I like 'em.  Aug 25 16 12:21 am Link Photomezzo wrote: and turn any MF lens into an autofocus lens Aug 25 16 02:20 pm Link Maxximages wrote: If you start your photo process with the lens, the A7ii series are the best cameras in the world - nothing else uses more lenses with their intended field of view. Whatever your favourite lens is(less other mirrorless lenses), you can use it, and it is now stabilized. Aug 25 16 04:02 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: Just curious, did you set the SteadyShot Focal Len setting? By default, it's set to stabilize at 8mm. It adjusts all the way to 1000mm. Aug 25 16 11:51 pm Link I did, and I change it when I change lenses. Ibis doesn't work as well as ilis, because it can't be designed for a specific lens. But it does more-or-less counteract the added difficulty of hand holding with a high res full frame. It just isn't going to do anything crazy like the ilis in some pro glass. Aug 26 16 06:53 am Link This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my co-worker. He originally got the Canon, then switched to Nikon and then decided he wants small and light and went with Sony. Now he is thinking of switching back to Nikon. Aug 29 16 08:44 pm Link I am a canon person... But i also have a new Sony A7s II that i mainly use for video.. It is fantastic. I have the 55 1.8 which is becoming a legendary lens for its quality. The DOF i get from it AND the full frame camera is amazing. The sony lens are expensive. Just when i thought Canon was taking all of my money! But... I still love my canon... Aug 30 16 09:32 am Link ChanStudio wrote: If I had to do sports and weddings again tomorrow, I'd switch back to Nikon. I think the pro and prosumer mirrorless cameras are a couple generations away from equaling the performance of a similar DSLR at, say, an indoor basketball game. Aug 30 16 03:48 pm Link I think the article should more accurately be titled "Why I switched from SLR to Mirrorless" I switched from Canon to Sony A7RII....here is why. I got tired of carrying around a brick without any measurable benefit to the extra weight/size/price. I have the 55mm 1.8 lens attached which leaves me wanting nothing more. So my photoshoots consist of me putting my camera into my glove compartment and just going. I like that.  Sep 04 16 09:08 am Link Eyesso wrote: Pretty much this. And I dont even miss that 5d3 & 50 1.2 Sep 04 16 11:00 am Link Eyesso wrote: +2 this Sep 04 16 11:22 am Link Yosh Studio wrote: Those that have the funds can replace their Otises with the Leica 50 Summilux Asph and 90 Summicron Asph; they test nearly as well in all aspects and better in some, and the the 50 is about a quarter the size and a third the weight. Plus they're cheaper ... Wtf. Sep 04 16 04:49 pm Link I shot Canon for years until frustration with the lack of dynamic range forced me to jump ship. I now shoot with a Pentax 645z and an A7Rii. If I'm not in the studio, the Sony is my go to camera and I love it. Some of the lower end glass left things to be desired, but I have absolutely no complaints when it comes to image quality when using G Master lenses. Yes, the ergonomics aren't the greatest, but I make things work for me. When I've recommended the Sony system to friends (and I do.... a lot), it's purely based on the image quality and in the end, that's all that really matters. Sep 06 16 03:47 pm Link |
