# 10 reasons why a Pro Photographer left Nikon...



## ConradM (Oct 13, 2014)

.. and switched to Sony. Interesting video. Also, all the bullet points he mentions apply to the A mount line as well.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 13, 2014)

Hmmm... smells an awful lot like "Paid pitch" to me!


----------



## sscarmack (Oct 13, 2014)

Not a fan of his, so I don't take one word of anything he says to heart or even thought.


----------



## runnah (Oct 13, 2014)

I cannot take someone who wears that hat seriously.

No offense Sean...


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 13, 2014)

I like those hats.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> I cannot take someone who wears that hat seriously.





astroNikon said:


> I like those hats.



'nuf said.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2014)

Wonder why he didn't enumerate Sony's 16-lens "system" of optics as one of his positive selling points for his new A7s camera? Or mention the five prime lenses it offers? Or the percentage of toy-grade 18-XXX slow zoom lenses Sony has released?

http://store.sony.com/e-mount-lenses/cat-27-catid-All-E-Mount-Len

The cameras are here, but the lenses are missing in action, unless one can be satisfied with consumer-grade lenses. I totally "get" that his Sony can send an image via Wi-Fi to his smart phone. And the idea that a Sony can shoot a Nikon flash...uh, YEAH...so can my Canon, and my Canons can fire a Nikon flash as well. The "cross-system compatibility" he listed for flashes is a "duh!" comment. The CENTRAL PIN on any flash is all that is needed to fire a speedlight! He had to make up a non-issue and list it as a plus for the Sony system? Sorry, Ehhhh! [buzzer sound!].

Then at the end,_ he ASKED FOR a sponsorship deal from Sony?_ OMG...*.him asking on-air to be sponsored by the company he had just spent 22 minutes whoring for*? No doubt intellectually honest people are thinking to themselves, "Dude....what a serious blow to your reputation!"

No doubt, he is right thought--Sony DOES make some cheap, light, small cameras that people wonder about when he shows up to professional assignments. I DO believe that what he says about that is 100% true. Buuuuuut, compensating for the small, light, cheap cameras is the fact that now *he can shoot at 11 frames per second!* He mentions that multiple times. Yessss!!!!!! Blast away, maybe get an amazing shot or two!

Again...the guy begs Sony for an endorsement deal at the end of his 24-minute video. Wow....just....wow.


----------



## runnah (Oct 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The cameras are here, but the lenses are missing in action, unless one can be satisfied with consumer-grade lenses.



Yup, the A7s is very exciting and something I'd be excited to try, but the lens selection is deeply lacking for anyone who is serious into video.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Wonder why he didn't enumerate Sony's 16-lens "system" of optics as one of his positive selling points for his new A7s camera? Or mention the five prime lenses it offers? Or the percentage of toy-grade 18-XXX slow zoom lenses Sony has released?
> 
> http://store.sony.com/e-mount-lenses/cat-27-catid-All-E-Mount-Len
> 
> The cameras are here, but the lenses are missing in action, unless one can be satisfied with consumer-grade lenses. I totally "get" that his Sony can send an image via Wi-Fi to his smart phone.


That, and the build quality which is lacking...  true, these are a LOT cheaper than a D4s, BUT, when you bang a D4s against a concrete wall, at worst, you'll get a little scuff mark.  These Sony products, IMO, are likely to wind up as a pile of shattered plastic on the ground.  When you have to buy 3-4 a year, I suspect the cost-savings might not be there.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 13, 2014)

What gives you that idea?

edit: I let my 11 year old run around with my 5 year old a33 and we all know how kids can be with electronics.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 13, 2014)

Some really exciting tech and excellent performance as always form Sony. I've owned multiple Sony cameras in the past and always found them to be excellent performers at the time.

The lens availability criticism is precisely correct. Those are some cool cameras and if and when pro-grade lenses become available they'll become truly exciting and usable cameras. However, if Sony is at all true to form and behaves at all like Sony has behaved over and over and over and over and over again, that day will never come and they'll abandon these cameras (and customers) for whatever their new cool stuff will be then.

The biggest reason Pros don't and won't use Sony cameras is because Sony has no clue what it means for a camera company to make a commitment to their working pro customers. Sony doesn't understand why pros don't use their cameras -- it's not the cameras, it's Sony.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2014)

In all fairness, he did back up what he said with photos: the little A6000 did a good job with desperate-looking Ehtiophians who sat or stood there and stared blankly into the camera. But I've seen the autofocus tests on the A6000, and the lenses and focus system are not up to what d-slrs can provide for sports or action and nature work. Lenses that are in the f/5~6.3 range are kind of a sticking point in some of the mirrorless systems, so what many people would end up needing is another entirely different system.

But for social photography, like the Ethiopians sitting around and looking helpless, any camera is going to be up to the task of focusing and metering those shots. If a person needs a light, small, compact camera for walkaround shooting of mostly still or slow-moving stuff, I think the mirrorless options make a lot of sense.

My issue with Sony is the four different lens mounts within a 10 year period. I'm just not down with that kind of a company, one that treats me as a credit card number. I really DO NOT have any faith in Sony ever sticking with ANYTHING to its true fruition.


----------



## runnah (Oct 13, 2014)

Say what you will about Sony but they are the ballsiest company out there. granted they have had some duds but they have also changed the game more times than most companies. They just seem to lack focus as their products tend to get outdated quickly as Sony quickly shifts focus onto the next shiny object.

Canon/Nikon could be a bit more brave when it comes to trying new ideas.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> Say what you will about Sony but they are the ballsiest company out there. granted they have had some duds but they have also changed the game more times than most companies. They just seem to lack focus as their products tend to get outdated quickly as Sony quickly shifts focus onto the next shiny object.
> 
> *Canon/Nikon could be a bit more brave when it comes to trying new ideas.*



It still blows my mind that canon and nikon haven't adopted EVF's in at least some of their DSLR models.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 13, 2014)

ConradM said:


> What gives you that idea?
> 
> edit: I let my 11 year old run around with my 5 year old a33 and we all know how kids can be with electronics.


First hand experience.  Having handled them, they feel light, cheaply made and 'delicate'.  I'm not disputing the image quality, features, etc, just their ability to hold up in long-term professional service.  Just my $00.02 - YMMV


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 13, 2014)

I get what everyone's said, but, some of those features sound pretty sweet. Mainly the EVF and focus peaking...maybe just because I'm a newb but I'd love to see the changes in the viewfinder as I make adjustments and I'd love to be able to "cheat" and verify focus before actually snapping the photo...Not that I'd move to Sony, I love my Nikon...I'm just saying.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 13, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> I get what everyone's said, but, some of those features sound pretty sweet. Mainly the EVF and focus peaking...maybe just because I'm a newb but I'd love to see the changes in the viewfinder as I make adjustments and I'd love to be able to "cheat" and verify focus before actually snapping the photo...Not that I'd move to Sony, I love my Nikon...I'm just saying.



They are pretty sweet. I started with Sony so for a while I thought seeing exposure and WB in real time was normal. 

The other thing that canon/nikon user like to play down is the speed of sony cameras. 7 - 11 fps with AFC is amazing for sports and action.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 13, 2014)

This person talks about these giant corporations like they are your everyday mom and pop shops down the street. Mister and misses faceless corporation won't give you a cookie if your wooden toy breaks in-front of their shops.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 13, 2014)

That was a simple sales pitch for selling mid range digital cameras. The shots he did in Ethiopia could also have been shot with an entry level digital camera in the hands of another skilled professional, with good glass.  I'm  not so sure Sony would prove to be as tough as the high end Nikon or Canon bodies, or be able to keep up with Nikon or Canon when shooting sports.  As I have said, in the hands of another skilled professional anything is possible though.

I would guess that the A7s is good for most situations, but not sports, the smaller body with a longer lens on it would be way out of balance.  If a photographer is used to holding a larger camera body, the smaller Sony would prove to feel uncomfortable, this is from my own personal experience.

Everything he said was a sales pitch for Sony, I imagine paid for by Sony, or at the very least he was given gear.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Hmmm... smells an awful lot like "Paid pitch" to me!



Sounds like a good reason to put at #1 - because they paid me a crap ton of money and gave me free gear!


----------



## Designer (Oct 13, 2014)

"Must shoot in RAW"
"Must shoot in Kelvin"

Uh huh.....


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2014)

A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 13, 2014)

gsgary said:


> A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7



Can't help but notice that the flag there is a little blurry...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7
> ...



If it had been the Union Jack it would have been pin sharp


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 13, 2014)

Haha! I'm sure it would have been!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2014)

I looked at the current Sony lens lineup page for their E-mount cameras, plus their two future offerings. E-Mount Lenses - Lenses Sony Store - Sony US

Sony currently offers its E-system users the choice of three different 18-200mm f/3.5~6.3 zoom models. Five primes: A 16mm, a 20mm,a 30mm macro,a 35mm,and then a 50mm f/1.8.

Who the heck came up with this dysfunctional lens lineup? Seriously. THREE 18-200mm f/3.5~6.3 zooms? And then five primes-- 16mm, a 20mm, a 30mm and a 35mm, and finally a 50/1.8.

One helluva lineup!!!


----------



## runnah (Oct 13, 2014)

If they were smart they'd focus on bodies and let the big boys make the lenses.

An a7s with canon glass would suit me just fine.


----------



## cgw (Oct 13, 2014)

Can you say "brand ambassador?" It's the polite euphemism for "shill."

Thoroughly resent the"come to Jesus" moments these plonkers all recount as they stepped out of darkness into the light. Laughable.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 13, 2014)

gsgary said:


> A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7


How is the autofocus when the jumper is coming straight at you? I know focusing on the jump makes shots like this easier.  I don't want to take anything away from the image, as it's a nice shot. Just wondering how good the autofocus is with the A7, I've read it's a little slow.  What lens were you using for this?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 13, 2014)

Designer said:


> "Must shoot in RAW"
> "Must shoot in Kelvin"
> 
> Uh huh.....


Good point - are there any Nikon DSLRs which don't allow you to set the WB in Kelvin?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > "Must shoot in RAW"
> ...



Dude-STOP killing the straw men, dang it!!!


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 13, 2014)

Why would shooting Kelvin be important if you're shooting RAW? Like... wtf?

Secondly... if you are a REAL pro... who the hell cares how much a camera cost? 

A lot of his "reasons" sound more like that of a novice shooter rather than a seasoned professional... and his work follows the same trend.  

Sorry.. but I can't take this seriously.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 13, 2014)

Also, for the love of god, what professional uploads unedited "RAW" files to social media... HAHA.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 13, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Also, for the love of god, what professional uploads unedited "RAW" files to social media... HAHA.


Didn't watch video.
If he's trying to do that, he doesn't know what a raw file is.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 14, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7
> ...


No auto focus this was taken with Canon 70-200f4 and cheap adapter and no aperture adjustment but usually I only use Leica mount lenses on it, it won't be shooting spot I bought it because I can't justify a digital M as I shoot 90% film now


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 14, 2014)

after using the sony a7 and a6000 I think they are great cameras that make life a lot easier! Its not just focus peaking that I thought was cool but Auto Eye Focus with a simple push of a button and it really really works. I liked the EVF and that everything you changed from white balance to EXP you saw right in front of you. I think they need to find a way to incorporate some of those features into the NIKON and Canon DSLR..I know they could!

BUT, if you want to use NIkon lenses just about all functions except for focus peaking go away because the adapters do not talk to the cameras. If you use metabones canon adapter your good to go and can still utilize the awesome features that you pay for.

Another side note is that the battery sucks!!!! 150-200 pictures tops you have to buy at least 3-4 batteries to get what you get from a nikon or canon.

Once you start using Nikon glass or Canon glass (pro grade) the camera is not so little and light anymore. 

My opinion is that these are great cameras. I myself was waiting to see what Nikon was going to come out with and now with the D750 you get the swivel screen and in live you can adjust EXP and see it…it really has made me reconsider staying with Nikon , Plus resale value on Sony is not as good as nikon and canon.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 15, 2014)

On that note, anybody found out what the difference between general face detection and this "eye detection" in special is ?

And yes the big guns usually dont have face detection. Nikon just recently changed that for the D810 and D750, though. I guess Canon will follow.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

First I want to say as a past Sony user I have a lot of warm positive feeling to Sony, I enjoyed it and still have lots of respect to it.
I do think Sony keeps pushing the envelope, also I like the fact they use crop sensor and full frame sensor and not micro 4/3
No doubt in my mind mirrorless is the future but this technology still didn't mature enough to replace DSLR, once it will you will see Canon and Nikon shedding their DSLR like yesterday rain. AF is still not there.

1.So the guy just found out his Nikon is using Sony sensor ?
Wow, really ? Only now ?
Not a big secret, Nikon was very open about it.
2.Sony A6000, yep a good mirrorless camera but its AF system is not impressive so 11 FPS is pointless.
3.He forgot to mention how very little lenses are out there currently by Sony and the pro lenses for Sony cameras are not cheap at all!!!
4.He also forgot to mention that size is great but the truly heavy stuff is lenses and if you want fast glass it will be heavy so small, light cameras with FF sensor is great but the glass still weighs a ton!!!
5.So he just found out about wifi, woooo hooo, sorry I am not a 15 years old, I don't post my pics on instegram, don't need wifi, don't care about wifi, if he does then god bless him but bashing others who find this pointless and silly is immature.
I do post my pictures on Flickr but that's after I go through my pics at home, process them and then choose the ones I want to post, I would never imagine to shoot JPEG and posting the pics right away on the internet.
6.The call to Sony at the end, well I don't need to add anything to that, everybody should come to their own conclusion on that, I sure did.
7.He said the A7s shoots 4K, true but there is another device you need to buy to do that which I understood is very expensive!!! 
8.Shooting at 100000ISO or 400000 ISO ?
Sillly!!!
No doubt the A7s is good in low light but it has low MP count which for me and I think many others is VERY important, I think the D750 or 5D III (which are relatively close in price to the A7s) with fast glass will cover 99% of the needs of a pro and hobbyist with good size MP resolution.
I have the Canon G15 which has 12MP sensor and when I crop it I gotta tell you there is very, very little "meat" there to crop into.

Bottom line god bless him for moving to Sony, doesn't make me sad or happy, if he is happy then good for him, I will stay with my "inadequate/old technology" Nikon DSLR and when the time will come I will do the jump to mirrorless when the technology will really get better then DSLR......its not quite there yet.


----------



## DevC (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm gonna go with the "paid pitch"


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

I could only get through about two minutes of his blubbering, so I'll have to take everyone else' word that the video wasn't worth watching the last 22 minutes.   Personally, I'd love to get an A7R, but right now the A7 series, and mirrorless in general, aren't far enough along to replace a dedicated SLR kit.  Of course, if the rumored new FF sensor from Canon doesn't show any signs of improvement then an A7R will be joining my collection, but only as an addition, not a replacement.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> ..........................
> 5.So he just found out about wifi, woooo hooo, sorry I am not a 15 years old, I don't post my pics on instegram, don't need wifi, don't care about wifi, if he does then god bless him but bashing others who find this pointless and silly is immature.
> I do post my pictures on Flickr but that's after I go through my pics at home, process them and then choose the ones I want to post, I would never imagine to shoot JPEG and posting the pics right away on the internet............................................


Having built in WiFi has nothing to do with posting to social media and everything to do with wireless camera control.  Anyone who shoots tethered regularly will be able to appreciate having WiFi built into the camera rather than having to carry an extra cable for wired tethering or using an external wireless adapter.   I shoot entirely tethered in the studio using a wireless adapter.  I can literally hold my tablet in my hand and make adjustments to lights, reflectors, props, etc and see the changes on my screen in real time; without having to go back to the camera a peak through the viewfinder.


----------



## KmH (Oct 15, 2014)

One guy switching from Nikon to Sony is hardly news worthy.
So how many guys switched from Sony to Nikon? Or from Sony to Canon? Or from Sony to Pentax?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

KmH said:


> One guy switching from Nikon to Sony is hardly news worthy.
> So how many guys switched from Sony to Nikon? Or from Sony to Canon? Or from Sony to Pentax?


There are quite a few studio and landscape shooters on the Canon boards who have added an A7R to their kit.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

runnah said:


> I cannot take someone who wears that hat seriously.
> 
> No offense Sean...



Prez for the next 2 months.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I like those hats.



Ummm, me too.  Huh?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> First I want to say as a past Sony user I have a lot of warm positive feeling to Sony, I enjoyed it and still have lots of respect to it.
> I do think Sony keeps pushing the envelope, also I like the fact they use crop sensor and full frame sensor and not micro 4/3
> No doubt in my mind mirrorless is the future but this technology still didn't mature enough to replace DSLR, once it will you will see Canon and Nikon shedding their DSLR like yesterday rain. AF is still not there.
> 
> ...


The fast lenses I put on my A7 are not big or heavy


----------



## vvcarpio (Oct 15, 2014)

I share his enthusiasm. I've no affiliation with Sony but on my website I have "All images taken with Sony Alphas" just to make a statement.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > ..........................
> ...


Ahhh, now thats sounds interesting and logical.
He was raving about social media as an application to wifi.
BTW the D750 I believe has wifi
Personally being a hobbyist I don't find I need it or plan on using it if I will have it................but things can change.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > First I want to say as a past Sony user I have a lot of warm positive feeling to Sony, I enjoyed it and still have lots of respect to it.
> ...


What lens are these if I may ask ?

If I would theoretically buy a Sony A7 I would first want a 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8.
Cant see these lenses being small on a FF camera


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


Voigtlander 28F2 Ultron, Voigtlander 50F1.5 asph Nokton, Voigtlander 40F1.4 sc Nokton,


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


Part of what makes some lenses so large on an SLR is the registry distance  (flange to sensor).    Getting rid of the mirror allows you to mount the lens practically on top of the sensor, which allows for a much more compact design for wide angle and standard length lenses.  Remove the AF mechanisms and you get even smaller still.   For a lens like the 24-70 a decent amount of size can be removed as the lens will no longer require a retro focal design.  On the 70-200 however. . . . . 

If you look at the three lenses Gary mentioned, two of them are focal lengths that require a retro focal design with an SLR, making them much larger than they would need to be for a mirrorless camera.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Why do you think I bought it, it will fit in my coat pocket with any of these lenses on I only bought the cheap eos adapter to see how Canon lenses work, all my Canon lenses are going 300f2.8L has gone already


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Looks like we are talking two different languages here.
Prime lenses are fast lenses and seem like its working well for you.
For me it wouldn't, I love prime lenses but I absolutely don't like switching lenses.
I love 24-70mm and 70-200mm, two lenses that gives me excellent quality and minimal lens switching.
If Sony had these lenses on the A7....................

1.They would cost a ton
2.They would still be very big

Naf said.

This is personal choice, looks you are happy and that's all that matter.
Seriously if I would be forced to choose a mirrorles camera system I would go with the Sony A7, thank god though there are other options though.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...



Canon 70-200 on A7 iso6400







50F1.5asph and Voigtlander close focus adapter fully out for close focus and lens at F1.5


----------



## spacefuzz (Oct 15, 2014)

Didn't watch the video because why torture myself but....

I have a D800 and a NEX7. Both fine cameras and up in the high sierra that's where the mirrorless bodies shine, the weight difference is worth any other sacrifices.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

I watched the entire video, straight through. He made some weird "points" in it. He mentioned that he can upload photos to Facebook FROM THE WEDDINGS he is shooting. For him, apparently that's a way to avoid, "*The guests stealing your thunder*," (he actually used that phrase!) as they upload wedding snaps from their smart phones; that is actually an issue he touts as being a concern, and his Sony system allows him to re-claim his thunder from the wedding guests with their smart phone snappies. Okay....

Still, a light, small, inexpensive camera like the A6000 does have its advantages. Small can be good!


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 15, 2014)

Um, I think everyone is missing the point that MOST, MOST, MOST impressive...You can adjust the exposure...wait for it....STRAIGHT FROM YOUR PHONE SCREEN!!!!!!!!!!! Like, in real life!


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> Um, I think everyone is missing the point that MOST, MOST, MOST impressive...You can adjust the exposure...wait for it....STRAIGHT FROM YOUR PHONE SCREEN!!!!!!!!!!! Like, in real life!


Yeah, but i can do that with my Canon.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> MichaelHenson said:
> 
> 
> > Um, I think everyone is missing the point that MOST, MOST, MOST impressive...You can adjust the exposure...wait for it....STRAIGHT FROM YOUR PHONE SCREEN!!!!!!!!!!! Like, in real life!
> ...



Yeah, but....When's the last time your camera gear has got you so excited that you went to an abandoned building for a 24 minute video shoot? Nothing's ever gotten me that excited!

Also, the frequency with which he references being mugged in the beginning seemed weird to me...With a Nikon pro body you could bludgeon any would-be attackers and still go finish your shoot...definite points for the self-defense factor on Nikons.


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 15, 2014)

One of the big issues with mirror less cameras he left out is how dirty the sensor gets very quick if you are switching lenses a lot especially if you are using adapters. I know when tested out the A7 for a few weeks it got extremely dirty very very fast. Its not so much a problem if you are shooting low F numbers but once you get to F8 and above you will see it in your images. 

Thus this is also will be an expensive camera to maintain.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> The biggest reason Pros don't and won't use Sony cameras is because Sony has no clue what it means for a camera company to make a commitment to their working pro customers. Sony doesn't understand why pros don't use their cameras -- it's not the cameras, it's Sony.



Those few words are really the absolute essential truth when it comes to small, eye-level cameras for professional use. There USED TO BE more companies making eye-level, 35-millimeter type cameras, but the entire field has been whittled down to two companies that dominate the entire segment: Canon, and Nikon. Truth be told, it's actually more important to have the COMPANY behind your gear than it is to have the cameras. If you have a Canon, you can get virtually anything you need. Same with Nikon. And they are stable companies. Giants. You are not getting "a camera", but an entire system, an "eco-system" some call it.

Sony has been a big player in the video market, but for still cameras, they are a newborn. Meanwhile Canon is solidly #1, Nikon a close-ish #2, and Sony a diiiiiiiiiistant #3. The whole thing makes me think of pickup trucks. Ford F-150. Chevy. Dodge. Toyota.  Annnnnnnnnd, yeah, Honda has made  a pickup truck too! Sony is the Honda pickup   Honda pickup truck - Google Search


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> One of the big issues with mirror less cameras he left out is how dirty the sensor gets very quick if you are switching lenses a lot especially if you are using adapters. I know when tested out the A7 for a few weeks it got extremely dirty very very fast. Its not so much a problem if you are shooting low F numbers but once you get to F8 and above you will see it in your images.
> 
> Thus this is also will be an expensive camera to maintain.


Thats strange had mine about 4 months and never seen a spec of dust


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 15, 2014)

Sony is deeply flawed for a number of reasons, but my biggest Sony complaint, and why I still have yet to buy one, despite multiple opportunities is: Sony.  Sony thinks like an electronics giant and not like a camera manufacturer.  there's nothing wrong with that, by itself, but it creates hit and miss camera companies.  Samsung and Sony both are giant electronics companies, but it seems Samsung is more in tune with photographers, and why that is I'm not sure, but they keep pushing out more and more intuitive gear, with better and better tech, though they still lack a solid DSLR entry and appear to be focusing more on mirrorless, I still feel like Samsung is closer to getting it right.  Sony, on the other hand, it seems wanted a piece of the pie, bought up another camera company, and went at it, but more like they would for say.. a playstation, and less like say...a D800, and by that I mean, why all the Sony only accessories?  Can't play nice?  Why the baffling exclusions, like multi-touch screens on many models?  Did these people not make the PS Vita?  the whole back of that thing is a touch pad and you can't even see it, and why all the competing lens mounts with so few lenses?  Focus on one! Don't make us buy more stuff, make us WANT to buy more stuff. Every time I use a Canon, Nikon, or Pentax DSLR, I want to buy more of their stuff, I'm an addict, but when I start looking at Sony's offerings I can't get past their attitude towards the end user, like "Yes our sensors are some of the best around, so we wrapped it in an inconvenient package and charged you a lot for it!  Forget Canon and Nikon, they only have the best reputations in the world, dominate the market, have more lenses, more camera bodies, and a history of making history, forget them, and buy from us because it says Sony on it."  to me it seems if you are going to jump in and get serious, you should anticipate skepticism, and work that much harder to appeal to your potential customers, rather than offering up what amounts to more of the same, from a manufacturer that can clearly build some incredible electronics with bleeding edge tech, if they choose.

I'd give them 5 more years, let them sort out their systems, and re-evaluate, because they don't make garbage, they are nice cameras, but until then, unless I see a used a3000 or something on craigslist for cheap, I'm pretty much meh on Sony.


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 15, 2014)

You may not notice it on low f stops but I shoot a lot of HDR f8-f11 sometimes higher and you this is when you can see it. If you have the A7 point the camera at the sky shoot at F11 then go and look at your file.. I am sure you will see the dust. I see it more because when tone mapping it always will amplify those dust particles. Easy fix is to clone out but never the less it was there


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Lovely pictures 
Proving my point that if you are going to own a small camera with a huge lens you kind of defeating the point.
Still the A7 while not my choice of camera is indeed a good camera (all 3 models).


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


No because I will never use Canon lenses on it again unless they are LTM Canon lenses I bought It to use my Leica M mount lenses


----------



## goodguy (Oct 15, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Thats not the point, the point is that if you are like me want to use only good fast glass (zoom) you are forced to use big lenses.
The fact you choose to use certain lenses which are small are your choice but theoretical for me it would be pointless because I would be forced to use big glass on small body.....pointless for me.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


You will have to stick with a boring DSLR then


----------



## goodguy (Oct 16, 2014)

gsgary said:


> You will have to stick with a boring DSLR then


LOL, I guess I will (for now)
Again dont get me wrong the A7 camera series is awesome but for now as you said I will stick to DSLR.
I dont think it will take more then few years for DSLR to go in the ways of the Dodo (is this how you spell it ?) but for now its still the king of the hill.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > You will have to stick with a boring DSLR then
> ...


They are not king of the streets everyone can see you coming a mile off


----------



## goodguy (Oct 16, 2014)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Yep, when I have my D7100 with the Tami 70-200mm mounted on it you can see me even from the UK


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

You could have easily seen me with my 300f2.8L but that got sold 3 months ago


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Oct 16, 2014)

Personally I think if Lanier got a load of money, Sony would have had him promote the new lenses coming out soon.  They didn't and he didn't, so I have to think he was on his own.  He just likes Sony for the buck.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Oct 16, 2014)

gsgary said:


> A7 from last weekend 1D was left at home because i don't use it or my 5D since buying the A7


great picture GS!


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

Cheers


----------



## vvcarpio (Oct 16, 2014)

Not sure if this has been posted before but Trey of stuckincustoms.com apparently had also made the switch to Sony in 2013:

Hello Sony. Goodbye Nikon.  The Story of why I am Switching from Nikon to Sony. | Stuck in Customs
The China Experiment &#8211; Dumping Nikon for Sony | Stuck in Customs

I had considered the A7 when I bought my A77, but I was (still am) an aspiring professional so I thought it helps to be seen with a big body in my hands.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 16, 2014)

vvcarpio said:


> ... it helps to be seen with a big body in my hands.



Um...That's what she said! Ha!

Sorry...

I know that's quite a common thought held by most people (professionals and consumers alike). I think that as camera options change, that perception will slowly fade. Pros are slowly making the switch to other systems based on what they need and where there priorities lie...Zack Arias (one of my favs for his street photography) is basically all Fuji, all the time these days...He's even shot weddings and other assignments with it because he's able to get what he wants out of the camera and for the clients he's working with that's all that matters...

Also, I want a Fuji or two...but I'm broke.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 16, 2014)

TheStunch said:


> Sony is deeply flawed for a number of reasons, but my biggest Sony complaint, and why I still have yet to buy one, despite multiple opportunities is: Sony.  Sony thinks like an electronics giant and not like a camera manufacturer.  there's nothing wrong with that, by itself, but it creates hit and miss camera companies.  *Samsung and Sony both are giant electronics companies, but it seems Samsung is more in tune with photographers, and why that is I'm not sure, but they keep pushing out more and more intuitive gear, with better and better tech,* though they still lack a solid DSLR entry and appear to be focusing more on mirrorless, I still feel like Samsung is closer to getting it right.  Sony, on the other hand, it seems wanted a piece of the pie, bought up another camera company, and went at it, but more like they would for say.. a playstation, and less like say...a D800, and by that I mean, why all the Sony only accessories?  Can't play nice?  Why the baffling exclusions, like multi-touch screens on many models?  Did these people not make the PS Vita?  the whole back of that thing is a touch pad and you can't even see it, and why all the competing lens mounts with so few lenses?  Focus on one! Don't make us buy more stuff, make us WANT to buy more stuff. Every time I use a Canon, Nikon, or Pentax DSLR, I want to buy more of their stuff, I'm an addict, but when I start looking at Sony's offerings I can't get past their attitude towards the end user, like "Yes our sensors are some of the best around, so we wrapped it in an inconvenient package and charged you a lot for it!  Forget Canon and Nikon, they only have the best reputations in the world, dominate the market, have more lenses, more camera bodies, and a history of making history, forget them, and buy from us because it says Sony on it."  to me it seems if you are going to jump in and get serious, you should anticipate skepticism, and work that much harder to appeal to your potential customers, rather than offering up what amounts to more of the same, from a manufacturer that can clearly build some incredible electronics with bleeding edge tech, if they choose.
> 
> I'd give them 5 more years, let them sort out their systems, and re-evaluate, because they don't make garbage, they are nice cameras, but until then, unless I see a used a3000 or something on craigslist for cheap, I'm pretty much meh on Sony.



Any examples to what you mean? My only experience with Sony is with the A mount but Sony DSLR's are the most intuitive and easy to use cameras I've worked with. 

It doesn't get much easier than seeing real-time changes in the viewfinder as a new shooter. I was shooting in manual within the first week of owning my a33.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 16, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> Personally I think if Lanier got a load of money, Sony would have had him promote the new lenses coming out soon.  They didn't and he didn't, so I have to think he was on his own.  He just likes Sony for the buck.  Nothing wrong with that.



I agree. I can completely understand his enthusiasm.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're analogy is flawed. The Honda isn't even really a truck, it's a cross over with a bed. If that was you're point then you're either misinformed or in denial. 

Sony cameras are doing a lot of things better than canon/nikon and it's as plain as day. For example, the a7s low light performance, the a6000 speed and the a77 ii AF system and speed. These 3 things alone are untouchable in their respective categories.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Fact: *The massive majority of pro photographers don't and won't use Sony cameras.* That's not disputable. That's a fact you can't argue against. I've done this full-time in one form or another for 40 years. When I shot as a pro I shot Hasselblad and Nikon. I've been partial to other brands like Contax and owned some Contax cameras but it never crossed my mind to use them professionally. When I switched into academia it didn't matter what brand camera I used, but in business as a photographer it matters a lot. I'm retired now. As an enthusiast I've bought Sony cameras. If I were to come out of retirement right now and decide to go back to shooting I wouldn't consider Sony for a second.

If you're going to make a living with a camera you need more than just a camera you need a camera system. *You also need support. You need retail support, rental support, service support and stability support from the company that provides your camera system.* Nikon and Canon grade A on those items while Sony grades F.

Let's assume I decided to go back into business now. I'd need a camera system. Am I going to shop on the internet for it? That's stupid. Here in St. Louis there are 3 million people and one camera store that services professionals -- W. Schiller. As a working pro you need a good relationship with a local retailer; it's stupid not to have that. I'd head straight for Schillers and walk into Barry's office. I know Barry, I'm a photographer and we all know Barry. If I were dumb enough to say Sony while sitting in front of Barry's desk he'd grab a monopod and chase me out of the store. Sony doesn't understand the importance of opening and maintaining a retail conduit to the working professionals. They won't "work" with pro-support retailers and that makes Sony a curse word for the pro-support retailer.

I'd tell Barry what I planned and what I wanted. I'd tell him that I expected to put together a working system over the course of the next 3 months and that I wanted to buy both new and good used equipment. Buy saying used equipment Sony just got cut out of the equation. *Any one day at Schillers I'd have 1/2 a dozen 70-200 f/2.8 Canon L and or Nikon G zooms to chose from and ZERO Sony*. (That by the way makes Sony's cheaper cameras way more expensive since I can't buy used lenses).

After I finished talking to Barry and got started picking up some of the most critical hardware I'd head for the rental department. Schillers has a large rental business. As a pro photographer who wants to make money I'd be a fool to capitalize my business with lightly needed hardware when rental was an option. In fact this will be a huge deciding factor in what system I buy into. Rental allows me to take good paying infrequent jobs that require special hardware without having to tie up thousands or tens of thousands of $$$ in that hardware that I may only use 4 or 5 times a year. Want to guess what brand camera system lenses and accessories Schillers rents? HINT: It's not Sony.

Sony makes some nice cameras and I've enjoyed the ones that I've owned. They are not players in the pro-photography business because they have not and are not behaving in ways that would earn them a playing role. For Sony cameras retail support sucks, rental support is nonexistent, service support sucks and stability support a laughable joke.

Joe


----------



## vvcarpio (Oct 16, 2014)

Hi, Joe (Ysarex). Sony outlet when it was still around was OK but didn't suck. Calumet rentals have Sony lenses. I've had two of my Sony bodies repaired by Sony and so far have been working great. (They cost less to fix by Sony than a local and well-known camera repair shop in NYC.) Whether or not you're exaggerating, I think "laughable joke" is uncalled for. We have, after all, clients who would disagree.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


There was a Leica film camera pro using a Sony A7 in LFI the other month and he loved it


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2014)

vvcarpio said:


> Hi, Joe (Ysarex). Sony outlet when it was still around was OK but didn't suck. Calumet rentals have Sony lenses. I've had two of my Sony bodies repaired by Sony and so far have been working great. (They cost less to fix by Sony than a local and well-known camera repair shop in NYC.) Whether or not you're exaggerating, I think "laughable joke" is uncalled for. We have, after all, clients who would disagree.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 16, 2014)

Gotta say, Joe and Derrel's comments regarding the "eco-system" and support available for Canon and Nikon are EXTREMELY powerful arguments for one of these two manufacturers and a compelling reason for a pro to stick with one of the "big two." 

Unfortunately, Sony is fighting an uphill battle here. Not saying that there "stuff" doesn't have potential, they just have a lot of foundation building to do in their branded camera division. 

Also, thanks Joe! Now I'mma have to come to Schiller's and check everything out...I've been meaning to get over there, just difficult to make the time. (I've actually talked to Ed Crim about some of the Saturday classes but have yet to carve out time in an overloaded schedule...I will though!)


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2014)

gsgary said:
			
		

> There was a Leica film camera pro using a Sony A7 in LFI the other month and he loved it



I can totally believe that. The Sony A7 series is the current only game in town for people who want to use high-grade, adapted lenses on a full-frame mirrorless camera. The lens registration distance makes the Sony A7 series models (three of them!) a logical choice to allow a guy to use excellent glass on a new, modern, affordable body. With Leica full-frame rangefinders costing more than most small, used cars, the A7 at $1699 is almost a no-brainer.

The ONE thing I thought Lanier touched upon in a sort of roundabout way, but really failed to truly explain is the notion of *preciousness*, and how that perception of one's camera gear has a negative effect on the photographer.

His early talk about getting mugged or ripped off has been mentioned here, and I do know exactly what he means, but he did not explain the concept of the _NON-precious_ camera in a compelling and convincing manner. The issue is that when a camera is viewed as a low-cost tool, one that is easily replaced, and at low financial cost, it becomes much more used, much less precious; when a camera is really expensive, the tendency is to leave that precious baby at home, or to leave it in the case, as a way to protect one's investment. That's the real difference between a small, $599 body like the Sony A6000, and a big $6,499 d-slr like a Nikon D4, or even a $3,199 d-slr like a D800 class camera.

I can understand the idea that a $599 standard body has some big advantages over a $6499 camera. I totally,totally "get" that.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 16, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> vvcarpio said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Joe (Ysarex). Sony outlet when it was still around was OK but didn't suck. Calumet rentals have Sony lenses. I've had two of my Sony bodies repaired by Sony and so far have been working great. (They cost less to fix by Sony than a local and well-known camera repair shop in NYC.) Whether or not you're exaggerating, I think "laughable joke" is uncalled for. We have, after all, clients who would disagree.



What's the problem?  Looks like Nikon is Sony's answer to commitment to photographers pro and hobbyists.  Sony is brilliant.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2014)

Just a point of clarification: the sensor in the Nikon D7100 is made by Toshiba. Not Sony. In the past, Nikon has made its OWN sensors. The sensors of the D3, D3s, D700 and D3100 are made by Nikon | Nikon Rumors
The Nikon D4 sensor is made by Nikon. The D3200 sensor is Nikon-made. The D5200 has a Toshiba sensor. The D800/D800e sensor was made by Sony. The new D5300 has a Toshiba-made sensor.

So, yet again, the guy in the video is spewing wildly incorrect information.

Nikon DSLR (Digital Camera) Comparison by Thom Hogan

According to what I read in Hogan's column, the Sony/Nikon exclusive use agreement on the 36-MP sensor made by Sony is going to EXPIRE soon, which makes me wonder if perhaps Pentax or Canon might buy some of the awesome D800/D800e type sensors and start using those in their camera offerings. It's been rumored that Pentax has a full-frame d-slr in the works.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Just a point of clarification: the sensor in the Nikon D7100 is made by Toshiba. Not Sony. In the past, Nikon has made its OWN sensors. The sensors of the D3, D3s, D700 and D3100 are made by Nikon | Nikon Rumors
> The Nikon D4 sensor is made by Nikon. The D3200 sensor is Nikon-made. The D5200 has a Toshiba sensor. The D800/D800e sensor was made by Sony.
> 
> So, yet again, the guy in the video is spewing wildly incorrect information.
> ...



Darn - That Jaca trying to stir the pot again.  At least I'm trying to have fun with it.  The dude in the video is serious tapedshut: did not watch it actually)

I should be in the Kansas City Royal forum.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 16, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> vvcarpio said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Joe (Ysarex). Sony outlet when it was still around was OK but didn't suck. Calumet rentals have Sony lenses. I've had two of my Sony bodies repaired by Sony and so far have been working great. (They cost less to fix by Sony than a local and well-known camera repair shop in NYC.) Whether or not you're exaggerating, I think "laughable joke" is uncalled for. We have, after all, clients who would disagree.


Pro's do shoot other things than sports the Sony A7 is perfect for documentary photography


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > vvcarpio said:
> ...



And 90% of documentary photographers are using Sony now, right? Or is that 9%? Or is that .9%? The fact remains that no matter what the specialty, given the odd exception, pros don't use Sony.

The A7 is a great camera. When I downsized last year I considered the A7 as well as the a6000.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> Now I'mma have to come to Schiller's and check everything out...I've been meaning to get over there, just difficult to make the time. (I've actually talked to Ed Crim about some of the Saturday classes but have yet to carve out time in an overloaded schedule...I will though!)



Say hi to Ed for me.

Joe


----------



## vvcarpio (Oct 16, 2014)

Hi, Joe.

Hmm, I'm starting to think we have a different definition of "pro".


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 16, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> vvcarpio said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Joe (Ysarex). Sony outlet when it was still around was OK but didn't suck. Calumet rentals have Sony lenses. I've had two of my Sony bodies repaired by Sony and so far have been working great. (They cost less to fix by Sony than a local and well-known camera repair shop in NYC.) Whether or not you're exaggerating, I think "laughable joke" is uncalled for. We have, after all, clients who would disagree.



Wow look at all those unique perspectives! Oh wait... That's 20 photographers taking the same shot... Yeah... Creative...


----------



## greybeard (Oct 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> In all fairness, he did back up what he said with photos: the little A6000 did a good job with desperate-looking Ehtiophians who sat or stood there and stared blankly into the camera. But I've seen the autofocus tests on the A6000, and the lenses and focus system are not up to what d-slrs can provide for sports or action and nature work. Lenses that are in the f/5~6.3 range are kind of a sticking point in some of the mirrorless systems, so what many people would end up needing is another entirely different system.
> 
> But for social photography, like the Ethiopians sitting around and looking helpless, any camera is going to be up to the task of focusing and metering those shots. If a person needs a light, small, compact camera for walkaround shooting of mostly still or slow-moving stuff, I think the mirrorless options make a lot of sense.
> 
> My issue with Sony is the four different lens mounts within a 10 year period. I'm just not down with that kind of a company, one that treats me as a credit card number. I really DO NOT have any faith in Sony ever sticking with ANYTHING to its true fruition.


Sony has some great ideas and their sensors are the best.  But, like Derrel posted, 4 lens mounts in 10 years?  Sony just doesn't stay with anything long enough to develop it into a system pro's or even serious amateurs have any faith in.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 16, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > vvcarpio said:
> ...


Oftentimes there are designated areas for photographers, and only those designated areas.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 16, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I know. I just don't agree with it. It makes it seem so disenfranchised from ART. But that's my artistic touchy-feely view, I guess.


----------



## vvcarpio (Oct 16, 2014)

Hi, Joe.

Here, for example, is what I'm working on now as we speak so to speak for an architectural firm. When the architect said I was "very professional", I would have to take him at his word and consider myself a professional. But I think when he said that, he wasn't really referring to my gear but rather to the way I conduct myself in business.





Sony A550, Tamron 10-24mm, remote shutter release cable from eBay, and Triopo tripod from PhotoPlus Expo in NYC.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2014)

vvcarpio said:


> Hi, Joe.
> 
> Here, for example, is what I'm working on now as we speak so to speak for an architectural firm. When the architect said I was "very professional", I would have to take him at his word and consider myself a professional. But I think when he said that, he wasn't really referring to my gear but rather to the way I conduct myself in business.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here. Are you telling me that your primary source of income, your livelihood is derived from the photographs you take and sell? Is that the case? Then you're a professional photographer. If your primary income source is not taking and selling photographs then you're not a professional photographer. If you're a professional photographer and you use a Sony camera then you're an exception to the rule. Exceptions don't change rules. I said this: *"The massive majority of pro photographers don't and won't use Sony cameras." *That's a fact. If you're an exception, that's still a fact.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

greybeard said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In all fairness, he did back up what he said with photos: the little A6000 did a good job with desperate-looking Ehtiophians who sat or stood there and stared blankly into the camera. But I've seen the autofocus tests on the A6000, and the lenses and focus system are not up to what d-slrs can provide for sports or action and nature work. Lenses that are in the f/5~6.3 range are kind of a sticking point in some of the mirrorless systems, so what many people would end up needing is another entirely different system.
> ...


There are thousands of manual focus lenses that can be used and the best there is Leica there are pro's using Leica that are manual focus, I don't miss a shot because of manual focus


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2014)

Manual focus lenses work pretty well on static or slow-moving stuff, like the dogs or cats lounging about, or horses jumping over equestrian jumps, where all one needs to do is PRE-focus, and wait, and click.

In the video, the only photos we saw were of starving Ethiopian people, staring ahead at yet another American who had traveled to their country to photograph their plight. Those images could have been shot with any one of 200 cameras. They were unremarkable photos in every way.

Not a lot of real challenges being overcome in ANY of these three types of scenarios.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

We have a chap at are club who thinks he is the world's best wildlife photographer uses a Nikon D4's +600f4 I shot him down when I showed him the shots from the lad from New Zealand who posts on here with his Nex7 and Canon 500 fd manual focus lens


----------



## goodguy (Oct 17, 2014)

We (me included) are all like a group of little boys standing with our "sticks" in our hands shouting who's is better, who's is bigger.
At the end of the day who cares, if you are a pro and you do a job for someone and the customer is happy with the results he or she will not care if it was done with a Sony or a Nikon or a Canon or what ever.
If your camera and accesories deliver the goods then thats what matters.
I used to own a Sony camera and was happy with it, I now own a Nikon and I am very happy with it.
May I remind everybody here (as if you dont know) it really is about the photographer, the skills the photographer brings, the equipment is just the tool to deliver but the true magic is the person and not the equipment.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 17, 2014)

Interesting little piece from Thom Hogan:

A Nail in the DX Coffin? | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## ConradM (Oct 17, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> Interesting little piece from Thom Hogan:
> 
> A Nail in the DX Coffin? | byThom | Thom Hogan



This is one thing that seems like long time DSLR's struggle with -

*Thing is, how would Nikon get someone like Bob Krist back? It’s a long list. Better video with an EVF instead of an LCD.*

Seems like a lot of you guys don't want to let go of OVF's but EVF's are so much more convenient.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 17, 2014)

ConradM said:


> ..........................Seems like a lot of you guys don't want to let go of OVF's but EVF's are so much more convenient.


........until it gets dark. . . . or things are moving quickly. . . . . EVFs have a lot of promise, but lag time kills them for fast moving sports and using them in a poorly lit environment, fuhgedaboutit.    I love the promise. I love using focus peaking.  However, they just don't hold up in challenging conditions.   They also mean the sensor is charged all the time, increasing heat in the sensor which increases noise.  Something you don't want to be dealing with if you're already maxing out your iso.


----------



## ConradM (Oct 17, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > ..........................Seems like a lot of you guys don't want to let go of OVF's but EVF's are so much more convenient.
> ...



What's the last camera you tried with an EVF? All of the things you mention are non-issues. Those are complaints that might have been valid a few years ago. The EVF on my a77 is amazing and is actually a bonus when it get's dark. With an OVF you can't even see when it get's dark.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 17, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...


The Sony A7.   I had a chance to play with one and while it would work great for half of the shooting I do (tripod/studio/daytime walk-around) it's still not there yet.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...



What won't it do ?


----------



## e.rose (Oct 17, 2014)

Too long, didn't watch (past 2:52), looked up his work while he was word vomiting and found that I'm not impressed. At all. Not even a little. I'd even go as far as to say that I don't *like* his work. At all. Not even a little.

Therefore, his opinion is invalid and I could give two sh*t as to why he switched to Sony.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Manual focus lenses work pretty well on static or slow-moving stuff, like the dogs or cats lounging about, or horses jumping over equestrian jumps, where all one needs to do is PRE-focus, and wait, and click.
> 
> In the video, the only photos we saw were of starving Ethiopian people, staring ahead at yet another American who had traveled to their country to photograph their plight. Those images could have been shot with any one of 200 cameras. They were unremarkable photos in every way.
> 
> Not a lot of real challenges being overcome in ANY of these three types of scenarios.



Just like Galleries | Steve McCurry and he is one of the worst photographers


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2014)

99% of McCurry's entire work has not been shot with anything with the name "Sony" on it...some of those pictures are 15 years old...he might be shooting Sony today, but the majority of the stuff in that portfolio is OLD, and was allll pre-Sony.

On the flip side, how about Dave Black: "NOT a Sony shooter".  Sports Image Portfolio

As we say above in that world championships photo...NINE big, black Nikons, and EIGHT big, black Canon 1D series cameras, the shooters all packed together...and the one videographer there? Well, maybe he had a Sony. The vast majority of working professionals across the world use either Canon or Nikon cameras for their "small camera". Medium format rollfilm has been driven to the brink of extinction as a professional staple. It's probably safe to say that 85% of all professionally-made photos today are shot with a Canon or Nikon d-slr. View cameras and rollfilm cameras are almost dead now. It's been only about 15 years since film ruled the roost in areas like architectural photography, but now that tilt/shift lenses are so good, and software can now easily make multi-shot stitches as well as distortion corrections, using 4x5 film cameras even at the high end has almost stopped.

It's pretty hard to argue that today's d-slrs are "bad imagers" or "bad tools". What Lanier argues is that Sony cameras are light and small, and inexpensive, and people will look at you and think you cannot possibly be a professional because you're using a tiny camera like the one they might own, and that by directly uploading from weddings, he will not, "Have people with their iPhones...stealing thunder," by posting first to social media. Wow...some great points he raises. Those are some of his most enthusiastic arguments...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting little piece from Thom Hogan:
> ...





ConradM said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting little piece from Thom Hogan:
> ...



Yeah. Bob Krist: one of the very few well-known professionals who INSISTED on staying with Nikon *DX only*, and refused to use a full-frame camera because DX Nikons are smaller and lighter. Krist carved out a niche for himself as being a "DX-only" Nikon shooter who favored light, small, "amateur-type" equipment and lenses. He was one of the first to be given Nikon's then new 18-200 VR-II, if I recall. One of the big new super-zooms from Nikon...they set him up with one, and allowed him to leak some images early, and it pretty much set off a huge pre-order rush for the thing. Krist was sort of the Popular Photography reader's idolized pro...that was his niche.

When Nikon shocked the world with the D3 and D3s, he struck with the D90 and D300, two poor performers noise-wise and DR-wise, *clinging to small* in the face of the world's best high-ISO and best focusing performance. Even though he could have used the world's best, he clung to smaller, lighter,inferior cameras; that is his money-maker.

As he mentions, he's shooting more and more video, and Sony has always been a video camera maker of high standing. He also complains that he cannot handle 18 pounds of equipment, but he can handle a 12-pound Sony bag. And since he makes his living jetting all over the world shooting travel photography, and he has made a name for himself as a pro who likes using consumer-type equipment (remember, that has been his niche, the_ pro who refuses to go full-frame!_), it makes sense that he'd move partially to Sony. He's the perfect candidate for small,light, consumer-type gear. He's been using that segment of Nikon's product matrix for a long time now. He has been a shill for Nikon for a long time, and his magazine and on-line hawking of Nikon's DX-ONLY and superzoom type gear has made a lot of sales from the Popular Photography crowd that wants to buy what a particular pro endorses through a camera company's "ambassador" program. Thom mentions that amateurs want to buy what "the pros use". As Nikon has moved to an FX-centric line, with five full-frame bodies,I suspect Krist saw the writing on the wall, *as the DX-only, no FX for me* Nikon user base looks kind of doomed.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 17, 2014)

Thanks for sharing the Dave Black link D!  Enjoyed the heck out of his portfolio.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

Look what a Magnum photographer uses What's In Your Camera Bag?: Magnum Photographer Peter van Agtmael - Feature Shoot


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 17, 2014)

OMG! OMG! OMG!!!!

It's contagious! By next week every squirrel across the country will be infected!! OMG! OMG!!!!!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 17, 2014)

Ok, so here's an interesting little experiment.  Ask 100 people randomly off the street if they are going to buy their next camera based off what McCurry shoots.  Or Krist.  Or any of the other professionals named so far in this thread.

If you get more than 1 response that isn't something like, "Who the hell is McCurry" - well honestly I'd be surprised.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2014)

ALBINO SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills!!!!!

Well, doggone it... he's eating dried corn kernels, so that makes me think there';s some evil bast**d trying to fattern him up to make squirrel bacon this winter! so,so sad.

Anyway, this is Conrad's thread, and I know he's a Sony user. And I know Gary's sold on the new Sony A7 paired with some of his Cosina-made lenses in Leica mount. I own three nice Cosina-made lenses in Leica thread mount; the 35/1.7 and 50mm f/1.5 aspherical models, and the nifty little 75mm f/2.5. So far, the BEST digital camera for those would be the Sony A7, the 24MP model, although if I went for a SONY NEX, I could save a lot of money, and get to use them as crop-factor lenses. I think Sony did a pretty good job of proving that it is possible to make a small-bodied, full-frame camera that can accept MANY different lens brands with affordable, glass-free adapters. Right now the A7 series is really kind of a standout offering, and I can totally "get" why people like it. And the A6000 at $599 is a nice body, and the 16-50mm f/2.8 looks pretty decent.

I think if Sony wants to really gain more market share, they need to push that A7 series price down with a sort of economy model. $1699 keeps the 24-MP model in direct competition with very nice d-slr models. An $849 model might change my mind.


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 17, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> OMG! OMG! OMG!!!!
> 
> It's contagious! By next week every squirrel across the country will be infected!! OMG! OMG!!!!!!



Can't we quarantine them or something?  Make sure they can't get on airplanes?  Spray paint them?

Do we need an Albino Squirrel Czar?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ALBINO SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills!!!!!
> 
> Well, doggone it... he's eating dried corn kernels, so that makes me think there';s some evil bast**d trying to fattern him up to make squirrel bacon this winter! so,so sad.
> 
> ...


No because we will be getting all the chav's buying it, at the moment lots of Leica shooters are buying it


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 22, 2014)

I switched from Canon to Nikon. I could give 50 reasons, but only needed one: D800.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I think if Sony wants to really gain more market share, they need to push that A7 series price down with a sort of economy model. $1699 keeps the 24-MP model in direct competition with very nice d-slr models. An $849 model might change my mind.


 Uh-hu.

That might be just enough for Sony to sell you the sensor itself ... with nothing else !

But there was a rumor around that Sony will release a viewfinder-less A7 soon, for 1000 bucks. Nothing came up so far, though.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I think if Sony wants to really gain more market share, they need to push that A7 series price down with a sort of economy model. $1699 keeps the 24-MP model in direct competition with very nice d-slr models. An $849 model might change my mind.
> ...


I would never buy or use a camera without a viewfinder


----------

