# Is a Sony Camera Something to Lust After?  Or Avoid?



## theraven871

Its not secret that Sony has been making most of the waves lately.   The technology they are packing into their cameras is nothing short of awesome.   Despite this, they've done a good job keeping their prices low.

However, are they the next big thing on the horizon?  Or a company that will fade into nothing (like so many others)

For some reason, Canon & Nikon have a near unbreakable stranglehold on this industry.  However, the industry as a whole is suffering.   It really makes me wonder if Sony will abandon all their innovative ideas before they gain enough market share.  The entire DSLR/Mirrorless camera market sounds like an extremely expensive venture these days.

I bring up these points because I really love what Sony is bringing into the industry.   They are gaining more and more momentum and creating additional competition for Canon/Nikon.  I'm extremely tempted to buy a Sony a7 or A99, but I fear that they will abandon their efforts in a few years.   

The best product is almost never the leader in sales.


----------



## tirediron

Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing.  They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling.  Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players?  It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world.  They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.


----------



## Derrel

Sony's on the verge of being rated as junk by three financial services....

Can anything save Sony? - Oct. 30, 2014

According to Thom Hogan, Sony has kept prices low in an effort to ,"*Buy market share*," against Canon and Nikon, and other companies, and they have been mostly unsuccessful. The camera market is mature, so it's difficult for an upstart to just BUY a failed company's (Konica/Minolta) intellectual property and enter a business where the two main competitors are are ranked #1 and #2 by HUGE margins, and have been for over two decades straight.


----------



## goodguy

Seemed you are focused at full frame, I disagree the A7 and A99 are the best product.
I mean dont get me wrong I always said if I would go mirrorless the A7 would be my camera but mirrorless still lags behind DSLR especially in their AF system, the a99 is also a fantastic camera but it really is old and the new FF cameras by Canon and Nikon (especially the D750, D810 and 5D III) are better.
If you want to go full frame, want to have the best system then I would say either go Nikon or Canon, if not for anything else then for the huge array of new and used glass both consumer and pro class.
Maybe if it will make you feel better Nikon is housing in some of its cameras Sony sensors so thats something right ?


----------



## snowbear

tirediron said:


> Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing.  *They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling*.  Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players?  It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world.  They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.



One word: Betamax.

Though, they *did* make the sensor in my Nikon.


----------



## jsecordphoto

I'd be psyched to have a A7s to use for landscape astrophotography. I don't know if I'd make the switch over to mirrorless yet though. If I had a few extra grand I'd be buying one for sure


----------



## goodguy

jsecordphoto said:


> I'd be psyched to have a A7s to use for landscape astrophotography. I don't know if I'd make the switch over to mirrorless yet though. If I had a few extra grand I'd be buying one for sure


If I had the extra money I agree, I would get the A7s for the low light performance, its a BEAST!!!


----------



## theraven871

Derrel said:


> Sony's on the verge of being rated as junk by three financial services....
> 
> Can anything save Sony? - Oct. 30, 2014
> 
> According to Thom Hogan, Sony has kept prices low in an effort to ,"*Buy market share*," against Canon and Nikon, and other companies, and they have been mostly unsuccessful. The camera market is mature, so it's difficult for an upstart to just BUY a failed company's (Konica/Minolta) intellectual property and enter a business where the two main competitors are are ranked #1 and #2 by HUGE margins, and have been for over two decades straight.


I agree with this.   Hence my hesitation buying into their platform.


----------



## theraven871

When all is said and done, I just want to have good pictures.
But, that has much more to do with the photographer than the camera.

That said, I don't want to invest heavily into a platform to have it tank on me in 3 years.
The Sony system sounds amazing, but so other Sony ideas.   I question if they are willing to have the longevity I would need them to have in order to justify a purchase.

Still, its very tempting as they DO know how to make a good and competitive product.
Or maybe I just don't understand why Nikon or Canon don't release a product with an EVF, Focus Peaking, or face tracking auto focus.  
Don't get me wrong, I am impressed with the Canon 7d Mark II and the Nikon D750.   But they feel like incremental upgrades.


----------



## Designer

Selling incremental upgrades at an affordable price will probably beat selling incremental upgrades at a non-affordable price.


----------



## theraven871

goodguy said:


> Seemed you are focused at full frame, I disagree the A7 and A99 are the best product.
> I mean dont get me wrong I always said if I would go mirrorless the A7 would be my camera but mirrorless still lags behind DSLR especially in their AF system, the a99 is also a fantastic camera but it really is old and the new FF cameras by Canon and Nikon (especially the D750, D810 and 5D III) are better.
> If you want to go full frame, want to have the best system then I would say either go Nikon or Canon, if not for anything else then for the huge array of new and used glass both consumer and pro class.
> Maybe if it will make you feel better Nikon is housing in some of its cameras Sony sensors so thats something right ?


I haven't had the opportunity to put the Sony mirrorless cameras through their paces.  However, I haven't heard any complaints regarding the autofocus of the a7.
I have heard some complaints on the a7r.  
All things being equal, there is NO autofocus system I've used that didn't get confused from time to time. 
If there is an autofocus system that is 100% perfect 100% of the time, please let me know.
I try not to worry too much about AF systems.  I grew up shooting film and manual focus.


----------



## JustJazzie

I jumped on the sony bandwagon 2 years ago and bought a nex 7. I know AF has improved some since then, but the AF in it is painfully slow. Between that and the fact that the camera is falling apart (grip fell off, the lcd screen got fuzzy/weird and we had to peel off some sort of film and replace it with a glass cover, Focus (auto and manual) only works 3/4 of the time now for no reason I know of) honestly, it feels like a toy when compared to my FF nikon, and I am so sad to see how quickly it has degraded. I do still love the camera when it works right, but I have found work a rounds for any feature that was a + to the sony side. Focus peaking for instance, can be replaced for me by using live view and zooming in. 

Sorry if that's a bit jumbled, I am pre caffeinated right now.

What I am saying is, if something sounds too good to be true it usually is. I wish I would have spent the $2k+ I have invested in sony into a more "established" brand.


----------



## D-B-J

As others have said, Sony made the sensor in my D800, if that helps. [emoji6]


----------



## KmH

Sony uses steppers made by Nikon for the photolithography process used to make image sensors and other types of integrated circuits.
For many years Sony made image sensors for Nikon that Nikon had designed.

Canon was the first to use a pellicle mirror - back in 1965.
EVF - Electronic Viewfinders - are another feature developed by others, initially for video cameras.


----------



## BGeise

snowbear said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing.  *They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling*.  Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players?  It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world.  They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word: Betamax.
> 
> Though, they *did* make the sensor in my Nikon.
Click to expand...

I don't find the alpha line to be propriety or crippling. They have been out since 2006 and there are lots of third party vendors making products. The e mount is still fairly new but seems to be taking off quite week imo


----------



## theraven871

Something else to consider.
The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.

So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).

If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.


----------



## KmH

The Sony E-mount has a FFD (Flange Focal Distance) of 18 mm.
A lens adapter designed for a different FFD would have to have a lens element in the adapter to maintain an infinity focus capability.
That lens element will eat some amount of light and will cause some amount of IQ loss.
How much of each will depend on the quality of the adapter.

Nikon F-mount FFD is 46.5 mm.
Canon's EF and EF-2 mount FFD is 44 mm.
Sony's A-mount FFD is 44.5 mm.


----------



## JustJazzie

theraven871 said:


> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.


Sure, you can mount anything. But you loose auto focus, and adding a traditionally sized lens really defeats the entire purpose behind mirror-less, no?


----------



## theraven871

JustJazzie said:


> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you can mount anything. But you loose auto focus, and adding a traditionally sized lens really defeats the entire purpose behind mirror-less, no?
Click to expand...

I believe that you are incorrect.  I've seen many videos that show you do NOT lose autofocus when mounting Canon and Nikon lenses to the a7. 
However, this does require an adapter.

There are times I want a small camera for hiking trips and landscape photography.  There are plenty of small lenses that would work for this purpose.
But I also need lenses such as the 70-200 f2.8 and the 85mm for portraits.  There is no getting around how big these lenses are.


----------



## jsecordphoto

You won't lose autofocus, it's just slower. For landscapes...who cares? But for other uses, losing AF speed can be a big deal


----------



## Derrel

Metabones Nikon F Mount Lens to Sony NEX Camera Lens MB_NF-E-BM2


----------



## Gary A.

I find the Sony A7s to be a very interesting camera. Even though I'm a Fuji Fan Boy ... I am still very intrigued by that camera. I am turned off by Sony's track record of less that stellar support for their releases and lack of native glass.


----------



## JustJazzie

Glad to hear I am wrong. I haven't checked into adapters since I first got my camera!


----------



## goodguy

theraven871 said:


> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.


Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?

If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.


----------



## goodguy

jsecordphoto said:


> You won't lose autofocus, it's just slower. For landscapes...who cares? But for other uses, losing AF speed can be a big deal


Interesting, I am not a sport shooter but a slow AF is out of the question for me, I own fast glass that on my D750 is lightning quick AF, I wouldn't be ok with slow AF.


----------



## astroNikon

Derrel said:


> Metabones Nikon F Mount Lens to Sony NEX Camera Lens MB_NF-E-BM2


from that website about the adapter


> Although the lens will fit physically, automatic diaphragm (AE metering), or other auto functions are not retained using this adapter.



If it auto focuses I assume only on Nikon AF-S lenses.  Not AF-D screw drive lenses ??


----------



## gsgary

goodguy said:


> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's


----------



## goodguy

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's
Click to expand...

Because you are young, if you were as old and blind as me you would shake the hand of each and every Japanese engineer that works on these AF systems.
Its nice to have 20/20 vision, sadly I didnt have that even when I was 16 LOL


----------



## gsgary

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are young, if you were as old and blind as me you would shake the hand of each and every Japanese engineer that works on these AF systems.
> Its nice to have 20/20 vision, sadly I didnt have that even when I was 16 LOL
Click to expand...

I'm not that young


----------



## runnah

Their video cameras kinda suck.


----------



## theraven871

goodguy said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't lose autofocus, it's just slower. For landscapes...who cares? But for other uses, losing AF speed can be a big deal
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I am not a sport shooter but a slow AF is out of the question for me, I own fast glass that on my D750 is lightning quick AF, I wouldn't be ok with slow AF.
Click to expand...


I've seen many videos on youtube.   Most instances show the autofocus to be fairly quick.  
Although I've seen some videos that show the autofocus performance slowing down.
There was a major firmware update I'm told that sped this up.  

I think this is something that needs to be tested further before we can say if its fast or slow.   But it should definitely be a concern.


----------



## Gary A.

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's
Click to expand...

Maybe nothing wrong for you. But I find manual focusing a SLR or Film Rangefinder is faster and easier than manually focusing a digital camera. I've manual focused mirrorless MFT (Olympus EM5 and EM1) and mirrorless APS-C (Fuji XP1, XE2 & XT1) using native lenses and legacy glass. After decades of shooting every working day with manual focusing film cameras ... I find modern AF focusing quick and a joy to use. I find depressing a button more more stable than twisting a ring when shooting non-stationary subjects at low shutter speeds. For what I shoot and how I shoot, I see little point in purchasing an expensive auto focusing camera just to toss all that AF-ing monies away for manual focus.

When one is on a tight budget, I can see shooting manual focus glass until the savings are replenished and an AF lens is purchased. Or for specialized lenses and applications. But for normal, day-in and day-out shooting ... I'm AF-ing all day long.

Gary


----------



## gsgary

I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking


----------



## theraven871

Gary A. said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe nothing wrong for you. But I find manual focusing a SLR or Film Rangefinder is faster and easier than manually focusing a digital camera. I've manual focused mirrorless MFT (Olympus EM5 and EM1) and mirrorless APS-C (Fuji XP1, XE2 & XT1) using native lenses and legacy glass. After decades of shooting every working day with manual focusing film cameras ... I find modern AF focusing quick and a joy to use. I find depressing a button more more stable than twisting a ring when shooting non-stationary subjects at low shutter speeds. For what I shoot and how I shoot, I see little point in purchasing an expensive auto focusing camera just to toss all that AF-ing monies away for manual focus.
> 
> When one is on a tight budget, I can see shooting manual focus glass until the savings are replenished and an AF lens is purchased. Or for specialized lenses and applications. But for normal, day-in and day-out shooting ... I'm AF-ing all day long.
> 
> Gary
Click to expand...

You don't lose autofocus on the Sony A7 unless you are using an adapter which doesn't support it.
I grew up shooting on film.   Mostly Olympus, Canon and Pentax cameras.  So I know how to manually focus faster than the average guy.  Or, it may be more accurate to say that I'm more comfortable doing so.
Given the option, I will use autofocus every time.
Understanding how and (more importantly) when to manual focus is a useful skill.
But I personally wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on a camera or lenses that were manual focus only. 

Back to the topic at hand, the Sony a7 system is very interesting.  Performance looks good, and some of the features are ahead of what Canon/Nikon offer.
But, like all photography, it comes down to lenses.   Sony hasn't released any fast zooms yet (24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8) and that concerns me.
I like the idea of using Nikon/Canon lenses on the Sony a7.   But it doesn't make much sense to buy Nikon/Canon lenses unless you plan to use them on Canon/Nikon.
Now, if you were already invested into Canon or Nikon, then this would help you switch to Sony. 
I would imagine that if they started coming out with new lenses frequently, then most peoples concerns would be mitigated.


----------



## theraven871

gsgary said:


> I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking


If you absolutely have to manually focus, the focus peaking feature in the Sony cameras are extremely useful.


----------



## Gary A.

I have Focus Peaking, Magnification and Electronic Split Image on the Fuji's. I still find it easier and quicker to AF. But it is nice to have those options. There are some applications like macro where, for me, the photographic experience isn't diminished by manual focus. But for nearly all that I shoot it's, AF all the way.


----------



## Gary A.

gsgary said:


> I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking


Have you tried auto focusing the A7?


----------



## goodguy

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theraven871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else to consider.
> The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters).  I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.
> 
> So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available.  You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
> This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one.  Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).
> 
> If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
> For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810.   Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test).  I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.
> 
> 
> 
> Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?
> 
> If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
> If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are young, if you were as old and blind as me you would shake the hand of each and every Japanese engineer that works on these AF systems.
> Its nice to have 20/20 vision, sadly I didnt have that even when I was 16 LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not that young
Click to expand...

Apparently you are young enough not to be forced to use AF


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried auto focusing the A7?
Click to expand...

Yes on my friends A7R and it seemed good the A7 is supposed to be better


----------



## ConradM

tirediron said:


> *Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing.  They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling.*  Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players?  It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world.  They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.



What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?


----------



## goodguy

ConradM said:


> What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?


You are correct, it is arguably but I agree the a77 II even the a77 I are good cameras.


----------



## theraven871

ConradM said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing.  They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling.*  Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players?  It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world.  They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?
Click to expand...

The top APS-C cameras are 
Canon 7DmII
Nikon D7100
Pentax K3
Sony a77.

I would take the Pentax K3 over any of them.


----------



## Stevepwns

Has anyone taken into consideration how long it took Nikon and Canon to get their customer base?   Sony has jumped into the camera market and done some pretty damn good things in a short period.  You don't come into a market and just take over.  At some point you have to realize it takes time and getting a very loyal customer base to jump ship from one manufacturer to another doesn't happen over night. Personally I think these conversations keep coming up only because they are actually giving the other camera makers something to fear.  Yeah is Sony getting into a market already heavily dominated by 2 very good product lines. But take into account how far they have come and what they are producing in a short amount of time.  Give it time and look at the R&D that has taken place and has to take place for these products to come to the market.  Sony is doing a lot to the market and has produced some very formidable cameras compared to Nikon and Canon.  In some places, outshines them. I think everyone is being impatient and needs to realize they aren't going to take the industry over in a decade.  The market place doesn't work like that, and when the other 2 companies involved have such a strong line of products it takes even more.  There is nothing to reinvent that's going to make the market do cartwheels, just producing a good product that can compete is hard enough.  Sony is doing that. What more do you want?


----------



## Derrel

Steve, I totally "get" what you are saying, and I agree with almost everything you say. Please let me offer my ideas of what lies on _the other side of the coin_. In some industries, getting people to "jump ship" NEVER occurs in significant enough numbers to benefit a new entrant in the marketplace. Ford vs Chevy, Jim Beam vs Jack Daniels, John Deere versus "the red brands", Macintosh versus PC, Packers vs Bears, Yankees versus Red Sox..there actually are many longstanding allegiances that no amount of marketing, not even hundreds of millions of dollars and literally decades' worth of hype and PR and advertising, can overcome. Some allegiances, formed early, last a lifetime. A head start is worth a hellll of a lot in most races!

The camera market is divided into the traditional "camera maker market" segments, as well as the newer, consumer electronics market segments. For some people, a camera is a cam-er-uh. For others, it is an electronic gadget. Sony has entered a market that has had a number of companies that had been in the camera market segments of the business for many decades. Sony entered a market where Nikon had basically, a fifty year head start in Nikon F-mount lenses, and a legacy. Sony entered the "serious camera market" segment of the business after having been in the lower-end P&S digital business for a few years, when they bought up the serious camera intellectual property and the lens mount of a bankrupt camera maker, the smoldering ruins of Minolta, which went +i+s up and sold out to Konica, which formed Konica/Minolta; Konica had been an old Japan based camera maker-OLDER than Nikon, but it too had gone +i+s up...so...Sony tried to buy its way into a legacy-dominated camera segment with the wreckage of TWO failed traditional camera makers, Minolta, and Konica, neither of which could handle the competition from Canon and Nikon.

Let's say I am Donald Trump, and I want to start my own world-wide soda pop company. I plan to dethrone Coca~Cola brands, and Pepsi~Cola. I have 977 million dollars for advertising. Know what? I have a snowball's chance in hell. This is what Sony is trying to do, in a business where the products are **expensive**, and there are older, more-established brand names, with resale outlets for older, discarded equipment, as well as millions of legacy lenses and accessories for sale. Even though Sony severely cut prices on its d-slr offerings, like the A900 24-MP FF camera at $2499, and the A800 24-MP FX d-slr at $1899, the $7,999 Nikon D3x outsold both of those very,very nice, beautiful Sony cameras. All three cameras used the same Sony-made sensor. Sony has tried to "buy into" a very exclusive, mature camera market dominated by two much older, legacy* camera brands*, with the idea that the industry is just a niche within _the consumer electronics business_. News flash: not all of it is consumer electronics.


----------



## theraven871

Derrel said:


> Steve, I totally "get" what you are saying, and I agree with almost everything you say. Please let me offer my ideas of what lies on _the other side of the coin_. In some industries, getting people to "jump ship" NEVER occurs in significant enough numbers to benefit a new entrant in the marketplace. Ford vs Chevy, Jim Beam vs Jack Daniels, John Deere versus "the red brands", Macintosh versus PC, Packers vs Bears, Yankees versus Red Sox..there actually are many longstanding allegiances that no amount of marketing, not even hundreds of millions of dollars and literally decades' worth of hype and PR and advertising, can overcome. Some allegiances, formed early, last a lifetime. A head start is worth a hellll of a lot in most races!
> 
> The camera market is divided into the traditional "camera maker market" segments, as well as the newer, consumer electronics market segments. For some people, a camera is a cam-er-uh. For others, it is an electronic gadget. Sony has entered a market that has had a number of companies that had been in the camera market segments of the business for many decades. Sony entered a market where Nikon had basically, a fifty year head start in Nikon F-mount lenses, and a legacy. Sony entered the "serious camera market" segment of the business after having been in the lower-end P&S digital business for a few years, when they bought up the serious camera intellectual property and the lens mount of a bankrupt camera maker, the smoldering ruins of Minolta, which went +i+s up and sold out to Konica, which formed Konica/Minolta; Konica had been an old Japan based camera maker-OLDER than Nikon, but it too had gone +i+s up...so...Sony tried to buy its way into a legacy-dominated camera segment with the wreckage of TWO failed traditional camera makers, Minolta, and Konica, neither of which could handle the competition from Canon and Nikon.
> 
> Let's say I am Donald Trump, and I want to start my own world-wide soda pop company. I plan to dethrone Coca~Cola brands, and Pepsi~Cola. I have 977 million dollars for advertising. Know what? I have a snowball's chance in hell. This is what Sony is trying to do, in a business where the products are **expensive**, and there are older, more-established brand names, with resale outlets for older, discarded equipment, as well as millions of legacy lenses and accessories for sale. Even though Sony severely cut prices on its d-slr offerings, like the A900 24-MP FF camera at $2499, and the A800 24-MP FX d-slr at $1899, the $7,999 Nikon D3x outsold both of those very,very nice, beautiful Sony cameras. All three cameras used the same Sony-made sensor. Sony has tried to "buy into" a very exclusive, mature camera market dominated by two much older, legacy* camera brands*, with the idea that the industry is just a niche within _the consumer electronics business_. News flash: not all of it is consumer electronics.


What's disturbing isn't that Sony tried to buy into the market, its that they tried to buy into the market by purchasing Konica/Minolta.
I absolutely mean no offense to long time Minolta fans.....But that company was stagnant for years.  Minolta didn't need money, it needed innovative ideas.
Personally speaking, I don't understand what Sony attempted to gain by purchasing.  They didn't seem to have any technology or R&D teams worth salvaging.  (But, I don't pretend to know everything).  All the Minolta buyout gave them was a lens mount that accepts some old lenses.   But, when I'm shopping for cameras, I don't go looking at how many 30 year old lenses I can mount to it.  I personally look at what new lenses are currently available.  
That said, Sony has done a great job putting buckets of technology into their newer cameras.  
Although, I think they are making bigger waves with their Mirrorless DSLRs than their standard ones (a77, a99, etc).


----------



## gsgary

Minolta have made some of the best lenses you can buy quite a few Leica R lenses were made buy Minolta, and the Leica R camera was co designed by Minolta


----------



## Fred Berg

I would't turn my nose up at an RX1.


----------



## gsgary

Fred Berg said:


> I would't turn my nose up at an RX1.


RX1 is a great camera there is a war photographer that uses one its his favourite camera


----------



## Derrel

There is ONE thing that Sony has the intellectual property rights to that could help them attract some customers, and it's a lens that the other camera makers do not offer, and never have offered: a beautiful 400mm f/4.5 APO (apochromatic) autofocusing lens, which was formerly offered under the Minolta brand in a light, whitish color finish. It used to cost around $1,699, but now on the used market from Japan is around $2200-$2500 with its factory trunk case on e-Bay.

This 400mm f/4.5 (2/3 of a stop faster than f/5.6) would be a good counter to the lens Tony Northrup constantly harps on as being Canon's big "system advantage", the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime lens.

Minolta High Speed APO 400mm F4 5g Excellent Condition from Japan 043325424007 | eBay


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> There is ONE thing that Sony has the intellectual property rights to that could help them attract some customers, and it's a lens that the other camera makers do not offer, and never have offered: a beautiful 400mm f/4.5 APO (apochromatic) autofocusing lens, which was formerly offered under the Minolta brand in a light, whitish color finish. It used to cost around $1,699, but now on the used market from Japan is around $2200-$2500 with its factory trunk case on e-Bay.
> 
> This 400mm f/4.5 (2/3 of a stop faster than f/5.6) would be a good counter to the lens Tony Northrup constantly harps on as being Canon's big "system advantage", the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime lens.
> 
> Minolta High Speed APO 400mm F4 5g Excellent Condition from Japan 043325424007 | eBay


Haven't you read on here where someone said Minolta were rubbish [emoji3]


----------



## Derrel

I shot the Minolta SRT-101a bit, over 35 years ago, in junior high school...it was a nice enough camera, with the 50mm f/1.7 Rokkor lens. I remember that here in the USA, Minolta ran an advertisement in the big photography magazines, Popular Photography, and Modern Photography, in which they had as I recall, a full page showing multiple photographs, all fairly small, but assembled in a grid formation. They had hired a BIG-NAME photographer to shoot basically, the same shot of a model and set, using a bunch of different camera brands, all with as I recall, a 50mm lens. The results were...mostly identical. The idea was to show that Canon and Nikon were not really "superior", and that Minolta gear was right up there with the best of the offerings in 35mm photography. Instead, I think it really showed that Minolta offered no visible advantage over anything else...again, part of the problem with the old Minolta corporation's lack of intelligent marketing in a competitive industry.

Okay: HERE is one of the ads in that campaign. This was not the only ad, there was another one with a Japanese flavor, like a geisha-dressed model.

vintage everyday: Vintage Minolta Camera Advertising

This one was shot by Irving Penn.


----------



## gsgary

One thing minolta did better than most was light meters pros still use them today


----------



## Stevepwns

Derrel said:


> Steve, I totally "get" what you are saying, and I agree with almost everything you say. Please let me offer my ideas of what lies on _the other side of the coin_. In some industries, getting people to "jump ship" NEVER occurs in significant enough numbers to benefit a new entrant in the marketplace. Ford vs Chevy, Jim Beam vs Jack Daniels, John Deere versus "the red brands", Macintosh versus PC, Packers vs Bears, Yankees versus Red Sox..there actually are many longstanding allegiances that no amount of marketing, not even hundreds of millions of dollars and literally decades' worth of hype and PR and advertising, can overcome. Some allegiances, formed early, last a lifetime. A head start is worth a hellll of a lot in most races!
> 
> The camera market is divided into the traditional "camera maker market" segments, as well as the newer, consumer electronics market segments. For some people, a camera is a cam-er-uh. For others, it is an electronic gadget. Sony has entered a market that has had a number of companies that had been in the camera market segments of the business for many decades. Sony entered a market where Nikon had basically, a fifty year head start in Nikon F-mount lenses, and a legacy. Sony entered the "serious camera market" segment of the business after having been in the lower-end P&S digital business for a few years, when they bought up the serious camera intellectual property and the lens mount of a bankrupt camera maker, the smoldering ruins of Minolta, which went +i+s up and sold out to Konica, which formed Konica/Minolta; Konica had been an old Japan based camera maker-OLDER than Nikon, but it too had gone +i+s up...so...Sony tried to buy its way into a legacy-dominated camera segment with the wreckage of TWO failed traditional camera makers, Minolta, and Konica, neither of which could handle the competition from Canon and Nikon.
> 
> Let's say I am Donald Trump, and I want to start my own world-wide soda pop company. I plan to dethrone Coca~Cola brands, and Pepsi~Cola. I have 977 million dollars for advertising. Know what? I have a snowball's chance in hell. This is what Sony is trying to do, in a business where the products are **expensive**, and there are older, more-established brand names, with resale outlets for older, discarded equipment, as well as millions of legacy lenses and accessories for sale. Even though Sony severely cut prices on its d-slr offerings, like the A900 24-MP FF camera at $2499, and the A800 24-MP FX d-slr at $1899, the $7,999 Nikon D3x outsold both of those very,very nice, beautiful Sony cameras. All three cameras used the same Sony-made sensor. Sony has tried to "buy into" a very exclusive, mature camera market dominated by two much older, legacy* camera brands*, with the idea that the industry is just a niche within _the consumer electronics business_. News flash: not all of it is consumer electronics.




I totally agree, You said it much better than I did.  I mentioned building a customer base, which is what they are doing.   But I want you to think about something. Take me for instance,  I have a youtube channel and I made video with a sub 200 dollar handy cam and free software. I like to play with computers......      In the attempted to make better videos I looked into getting a better camera. I heard that DSLR's shot 1080 video so I looked into it.  I also have been studying or practicing some form of art my entire life. So I figured at the least, I could play with some photography when I had the time. I did my research and I found that the old Minolta lenses worked on the new Sony body's.  To ebay I went.....   I made some lists of what I wanted, a couple lenses and a body that suited my needs for as cheep as I could go all things considered.   I found an A33, and 5 lenses for less than 400 bucks, a 1.8, 2.8 and 3 F4.0's.  I tried to do the same thing with Nikon and Cannon. My only stipulation was that it be a camera no more than a couple years old. I couldn't do it with the other 2.  I have since upgraded twice and Sony has an all be it "Loyal" customer. Just my continued business alone took 2 years to gain.  If they keep innovating and putting a strong showing up, in another 10 years, I believe they will have grown even more.  The chances of building their own following are better than getting half of the pro's already invested heavily into the other systems.  Unless they deliver undeniably better systems, they will simply have to last long enough to build their own following. I think the media and social media pushes a less patient opinion. Creating these conversations when its unnecessary.


----------



## Derrel

I think you are correct, that Sony has a good chance of building its brand based mostly on all-NEW customers, people who are entering the market for the first time. Of course, other camera makers offer competition too, and those other companies might innovate too. Right NOW, in late 2014, I think the majority of the camera market is stuck in limbo, as the camera companies are really struggling to find something, ANYTHING< that they can hitch their wagons to. Fuji has gone for the "retro" camera look, with analog-style controls on the lenses and top deck, Sony is trying several approaches, Nikon has like five full-frame cameras and three APS-C models, Canon has a bunch of APS-C Rebels and two FF models, Pentax is sticking with APS-C cameras with loads of weather-sealing and beautiful lenses, and on the other side, the video market has more and more entries, and the m4/3 makers are emphasizing higher-profit expensive SUPERB lenses...but we're still stuck mostly with cameras that work just like they have for years. Meanwhile, smart phone stills and video get better and better and better. You know, if say Apple comes out with a smart phone that has two, or three lenses, and uses a large sensor like the one in the Sony Xperia phones...the "camera makers" could be in some deep,deep doo-doo.

Have you seen any pics from the new Sony Xperia phones, with the f/2.0 lens and the small-camera-sized ( 1/2.3" size sensor, like a compact digital camera) sensor? Because the sensor is so small, the Depth of Field even at f/2 is pretty good, and the low-light potential is as good as a compact camera. Video doesn't require all that much from a lens, so it's possible that in 10 years' time, smart phones will more often have the capabilities of a real camera. And I am not kidding about using two, or even three different lenses in a smart phone: I think it will happen, and so do others. And I think it will come first from Apple. We ALREADY have two lenses on basically every single new smart phone, the front-facing and the rear-facing camera lenses. It's not much of a stretch to add a "telephoto" lens to the main camera, or to design a sliding-switch wide/tele lens array, which was done on the 110 Instamatics 40 years ago.

I honestly do not really see Sony (or Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or Samsung) as having the software or the design background to *lead* anything, but I do see it from Apple. I think the camera business is getting ready for the next big disruption,and I think it might come from Apple. Samsung is a highly-successful follower; that is in fact their corporate strategy and has been for decades: enter the market LAST, after seeing everybody else's efforts and failures, but with with a product that has been (cough cough, stolen!) *inspired by the earlier entrants' failures and successes. *Sony's new A7 series--nice bodies, but everybody buying off-list lenses, using old, adapted lenses...how is that helping Sony? That launch, of an amazing new body, with basically four lenses....was brain-dead. That's not innovation...that's self-immolation.


----------



## goodguy

theraven871 said:


> What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?


The top APS-C cameras are
Canon 7DmII
Nikon D7100
Pentax K3
Sony a77.

I would take the Pentax K3 over any of them.[/QUOTE]

I would go with the D7100, well I did, I owned it.
The K3 is fantastic but yuo pretty much gets stuck there while the D7100 with FX glass is a great starting point to move to FF if you feel like it someday.
Over all the K3 is very close to the D7100 so one vs the other they are both wonderful.
The 7D II they say is good but man its expensive for crop sensor camera so unless you are very serious about sports I would say the D7100 is the best choice.


----------



## theraven871

I've owned both the K-3 and the D7100. They are actually very similar cameras.
Autofocus performance is nearly identical.

Nikon has the ability to upgrade to full frame. Pentax has the most APS-C lenses on the market.
Nikon has the CLS system. Pentax has the best prime lenses (The 77 is simply amazing).
Both of them use the same Sony sensor.
They both have fairly fast autofocus, but I slightly prefer the Nikon's.
The Pentax feels much more rugged and it has far superior weather sealing.
Metering is slightly better on the Nikon.
Auto White Balance on the K3 is the best I've ever used.
Pentax has anti-shake reduction built into the camera body. Nikon does not.
Pentax RAW files have less noise up to 800 ISO. At 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO the Nikon has less noise
At 6400 ISO (and above), they both are about the same.
On and off camera flash performance is identical (for both speedlights and studio strobes)
Off camera TTL/HSS is much better with the Nikon.
The Pentax shoots MUCH faster than the Nikon.   There is a big difference between 8.3 fps and 6fps.    Also, the Pentax has a larger buffer.
The Pentax has a better menu system.
The Nikon has a better rear screen.

They both are very similar feeling cameras with near identical specs.
They both perform nearly identical.

One feature the Pentax has (which EVERY manufacturer needs to copy) is its 'green button' on the back.
It allows you to quickly meter the light, even when you're in manual mode.
So, for example, if you're shooting a wedding (in manual) and something happens on the other side of the room; you can quickly spin and press the green button to meter your camera for that available light. During event photography, this prevents you from missing those shots that you only have a split second to capture.
You can even program this button to lean on the side of a wide apertures, fast shutter speeds, balanced........etc.

The only feature that the Nikon offers over the Pentax is its CLS and better ISO at 1600 and 3200 only. Then Pentax has many more features in its favor.
But you will get ZERO points showing up to a photo-shoot with a Pentax camera. Everyone thinks its a toy camera unless it says Nikon or Canon.
These are both awesome DSLRs and both capable of professional work.


----------



## gsgary

It's the photographer that turns up at the shoot not the camera if I used a Pentax and someone said something about my camera on a shoot I would tell the to stuff it and get another photographer,  pentax also has medium format digital Nikon doesn't


----------



## Gary A.

I often read people say it is the photographer not the camera, but this isn't necessarily true.. (Which is a bit different than what gsgary stated.) 

In truth, the greater skill and experience of the photographer ... better equipment will make a difference in the image. In other words, better equipment in a better photographer will make a better image. Better equipment in a not so very skilled photographer won't make a difference.


----------



## theraven871

Gary A. said:


> I often read people say it is the photographer not the camera, but this isn't necessarily true.. (Which is a bit different than what gsgary stated.)
> 
> In truth, the greater skill and experience of the photographer ... better equipment will make a difference in the image. In other words, better equipment in a better photographer will make a better image. Better equipment in a not so very skilled photographer won't make a difference.


I both agree and disagree with you.
A professional with an entry level DSLR will always take better pictures than an amateur with a professional camera.
But, yes.  A professional will take better pictures with better gear.

Its very similar to a musician.
A professional guitarist doesn't need a $5000 guitar to blow your mind.  In the hands of an amateur, the benefits of a $5000 guitar are lost.


----------



## sashbar

One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.  Ricoh borrowed it and I found it very useful.  I do not know how identical is JPEG  rendition and WB  with Ricoh ( which owns Pentax) and Pentax DSLRs are, but I prefer Ricoh  to Nikon in that respect, especially it's colour rendition. If I had to choose between D7100 and K3 now I would probably go for Pentax for the above reasons, weather sealing and built-in anti vibration. Lenses are another big factor. I was a bit disappointed with Nikon DX glass, which I feel is deliberately dumbed down to make amateurs/ enthusiasts switch to full frame.


----------



## sashbar

theraven871 said:


> A professional with an entry level DSLR will always take better pictures than an amateur with a professional camera.
> .



This is a generalisation that often is far from true.  "Professional" means very little to me unless I see his/her work.  And there are lots of amateurs in some fields of photography who will give many pros a good run for their money.


----------



## photoguy99

sashbar said:


> One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.



Nikon calls this mode "Manual"


----------



## The_Traveler

The new Sony announced may make the decision for me. I look forward to a substantive review about the speed of focus that being the only issue that kept me from buying into the A7 system.
Its small-enough size and a decent 24-70 might lure me back to larger camera.
I'm going to look at an A7 this weekend to see how the dials and knobs would work for my too clumsy hands.


----------



## sashbar

photoguy99 said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon calls this mode "Manual"
Click to expand...



Nope. Nikon Manual mode does not adjust ISO automatically.


----------



## sashbar

The_Traveler said:


> The new Sony announced may make the decision for me. I look forward to a substantive review about the speed of focus that being the only issue that kept me from buying into the A7 system.
> Its small-enough size and a decent 24-70 might lure me back to larger camera.
> I'm going to look at an A7 this weekend to see how the dials and knobs would work for my too clumsy hands.



OK.  I remember your recent post that attracted a lot of praise   Let me quote: 

"Well I thought about it a lot, looked at all the available cameras and thought really hard - and decided not to buy anything now. 
For me it was a triumph over GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and more of a focus on the real purpose of all this effort, which is making pictures.
Lew"

Now, all that it takes is a slightly faster AF?


----------



## photoguy99

sashbar said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon calls this mode "Manual"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nikon Manual mode does not adjust ISO automatically.
Click to expand...


It does if you ask it to.


----------



## astroNikon

sashbar said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon calls this mode "Manual"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nikon Manual mode does not adjust ISO automatically.
Click to expand...


I use manual all the time for specific Shutter and Aperture
And the ISO is set to AUTO ISO ... so the camera can do the ISO work for me
Otherwise, I could also adjust ISO manually if I wanted to.
You can also set the Max AUTO ISO limit if you wanted too.


----------



## astroNikon

sashbar said:


> Lenses are another big factor. I was a bit disappointed with Nikon DX glass, which I feel is deliberately dumbed down to make amateurs/ enthusiasts switch to full frame.


Why not buy FX glass then?
Other than the kit lens, I only bought FX glass for my d7000.
I really don't understand why people complain about DX glass being slower and want something better, when they have an option to get the FX glass which is better.


----------



## sashbar

astroNikon said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Pentax feature that others should copy is its Tv mode, when you can choose both shutter speed and aperture, and the camera adjusts the ISO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon calls this mode "Manual"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nikon Manual mode does not adjust ISO automatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use manual all the time for specific Shutter and Aperture
> And the ISO is set to AUTO ISO ... so the camera can do the ISO work for me
> Otherwise, I could also adjust ISO manually if I wanted to.
> You can also set the Max AUTO ISO limit if you wanted too.
Click to expand...


OK.  Yes, if set to an automatic ISO.  With Pentax it is just a separate mode, I find it more convenient and logical, because Manual with automatically adjusted ISO is not Manual at all.


----------



## astroNikon

Yeah, It's Manual PLUS ++
or you could just use regular Manual


----------



## sashbar

astroNikon said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lenses are another big factor. I was a bit disappointed with Nikon DX glass, which I feel is deliberately dumbed down to make amateurs/ enthusiasts switch to full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not buy FX glass then?
> Other than the kit lens, I only bought FX glass for my d7000.
> I really don't understand why people complain about DX glass being slower and want something better, when they have an option to get the FX glass which is better.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can, of course. BUT. What you get is an awkward focal range with zooms, unjustifyably large size and heavy weight, and you pay for the part of the glass that you actually never use. Economically it does not make any sense if you are not thinking about a FF camera. I just think that a good DX camera needs a good dedicated DX glass.


----------



## enerlevel

i have been jumping systems very often.. just lately i purchased a Sony a7 with the 35mm 2.8 lens. the kit has its pros and cons and for the following few weeks i enjoyed snapping pics with it.  then i picked up a 6D with 40mm pancake lens... and even now i feel excited when shooting with the Sony but if i want to do something more serious, i always go back to 6D. for the price and long term investment, i think i will stick with the usual canon or nikon and not invest too much in sony.  just for comparasion, 
1)  Sony body is little smaller than 6D .. and the A7 cost about £200 less than 6D second hand. 
2) Sony 35mm f2.8 cost £300 more than the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens ... plus the 40mm is much flatter than the sony.
3) Sony 55mm f2.8 would coasr about £500 more than the canon 50mm f1.8..
4) The 6D performs better in almost all aspects..
Therefore if you ask me, the sony A7 *fullframe series have the lust in them .. but i would just avoid the Sony system because their lens are just too expensive plus the lens they making now are just too big and heavy which completely erases the system for being small... 
i got both at the moment and i will keep 6D..


----------



## Solarflare

I view the Sony/Minolta A cameras as rather superflous. Sony should return to DSLR technology, or offer alternative DSLRs to their SLTs, or even think of a combined technology - EVF in lifeview mode, otherwise we get OVF, and in lifeview we get the option of having the mirror still down and getting Phase Autofocus - for example for best video autofocus.

As it goes right now, though, I think sooner or later all that will remain from Sony/Minolta A will be Sony A to E adapters.

Sony E/FE glass suffers from being expensive, and actually desireable choices of lenses are still very limited.


----------



## luckychucky

A photo from my RX100IV 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 totally auto 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dxqcanada

When our love for photography exceeds a little TheNakedCamera


----------



## paul'dee'dowling

Sony seem to have quietly abandoned both DSLR and SLT , which is a touch annoying as I like using old Minolta AF lenses .
I will not buy in to mirror less because I have no idea what they will drop next -
I have done Betamax / APSC film so my record of choosing wisely is not great .
dee


----------



## gsgary

paul'dee'dowling said:


> Sony seem to have quietly abandoned both DSLR and SLT , which is a touch annoying as I like using old Minolta AF lenses .
> I will not buy in to mirror less because I have no idea what they will drop next -
> I have done Betamax / APSC film so my record of choosing wisely is not great .
> dee


Go back to film then you have no worries about change


----------



## paul'dee'dowling

Unfortunately , retirement means no cash for reversal film and processing , so I may have to go back to the Pentax K10D and manual 50f1.7 !


----------

