# Instead of canons or nikons,can i go for a sony?



## lordshakti (Oct 10, 2012)

A 77 or the upcoming a99... I have heard them saying they are not meant for photographers,Specs wise they look wayy better and nicely priced than nikons and canons..

I am planing ti go for a dslr after using a fckd up fujifilm hs20exr

I dont wanna compromise on picture quality at all,
I do macro and portraits mainly


Help me make up my mind,thanks


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 10, 2012)

Sure you can! They are really up and coming with their technology. I am not sure that I would want to push it for weddings and higher end professional work, but they are excellent, capable cameras that will be outstanding for portraiture and macro work. 
They tend to be chosen last for a few reasons. My biggest one is the availability of used equipment options. You can pick up nearly anything used for Canon and Nikon at a great savings. You have to hunt like hell for  used sony gear. THere just isn't much out there. Surf craigslist or ebay for sony stuff... it's not much when compared to the others.


----------



## skieur (Oct 10, 2012)

Some advantages of the A77 or A99 are:

1. no flipping mirror therefore quieter shutter with less vibration and sharper photos.
2. real time view of the effects of camera adjustments
3. OLED viewfinder is bright, 100% accurate and can display adjustment info. on top bottom and sides.
4. In-camera panorama shooting ie. press the button and pan....camera stitches the shots together.
5. In camera HDR with adjustments for strength and detail.
6. 12 frames per second stills and 60 fps video
7. Full HD video with stereo sound
8. Depth of field preview
9. Automatic fill flash
10. Multi-shot noise reduction
11. Wifi
12. GPS
13. off camera remote flash
14. face recognition
15. object tracking

Other cameras have some but not all of these features too, but at a much higher price.

skieur


----------



## lordshakti (Oct 10, 2012)

Thanks guys for the info..
I wud like to know about lens compatibility for these bodies..the later one is full frame as i have heard..
Price /quality /availibility wise,how do you compare lenses for nikon/canon and sony,n ya,if anyone kno..do they have macro converter lens for a sony?
Tel in detail. 

Thanks


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 10, 2012)

Well, you can use minolta lenses on a sony, so that opens up a whole lot of older lenses. 
As for direct comparisons I  believe Sony's professional lenses had tended to be more expensive until the latest round of newest, biggest and best-which sony hasn't updated to yet. As for comparing to the older versions that are available the sony's are a bit higher. I can't answer for how they compare in quality, but I'd expect it to be close. All of the off brands make copies of their lenses for Sony. There are some excellent ones and there are some pretty crappy ones. 
Yes, there are macro lenses for Sony as well as extension tubes.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 10, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Sure you can! They are really up and coming with their technology. I am not sure that I would want to push it for weddings and higher end professional work, but they are excellent, capable cameras that will be outstanding for portraiture and macro work.
> They tend to be chosen last for a few reasons. My biggest one is the availability of used equipment options. You can pick up nearly anything used for Canon and Nikon at a great savings. You have to hunt like hell for  used sony gear. THere just isn't much out there. Surf craigslist or ebay for sony stuff... it's not much when compared to the others.



LOL, no used stuff. Youre funny dude. Obviously you dont troll ebay much. 

Get the sony dude. Its cheaper and just a good.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 10, 2012)

lordshakti said:


> Thanks guys for the info..
> I wud like to know about lens compatibility for these bodies..the later one is full frame as i have heard..
> Price /quality /availibility wise,how do you compare lenses for nikon/canon and sony,n ya,if anyone kno..do they have macro converter lens for a sony?
> Tel in detail.
> ...



If you have the cash go FF and get the Zeiss lenses or minolta g series.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 10, 2012)

If I was just now getting into photography and didn't readily have a rental house in my area that I could use anything Nikon/Canon from...




...I'd shoot with an A99. 24mm f/2, (soon) 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/1.8 all Zeiss primes? If my Contax 645 is any indication, YES PLZ.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 10, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you can! They are really up and coming with their technology. I am not sure that I would want to push it for weddings and higher end professional work, but they are excellent, capable cameras that will be outstanding for portraiture and macro work.
> ...



Yeah. Sony used stuff is CHEAP AS HELL too. I just got an a700 for less than $350, shipped. The more modern but less beefy a500 series will cost slight more and have better noise performance.

Just don't think of any Sony as a resale investment.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 11, 2012)

skieur said:


> Some advantages of the A77 or A99 are:
> 
> 1. no flipping mirror therefore quieter shutter with less vibration and sharper photos.
> 2. real time view of the effects of camera adjustments
> ...



Why do people keep going on about 12 FPS it will only do it in auto


----------



## skieur (Oct 11, 2012)

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Some advantages of the A77 or A99 are:
> ...



That is auto in quotation marks since you can pre-set what you want manually and then shoot in auto+ mode.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2012)

Read the absolute pan (as in negative review) of the Sony A99 from The Luminous landscape web site...and see what MULTIPLE, experienced shooters think of its* sub-par viewfinder*....they comment that while the SLT non-moving mirror was fine when compared against APS-C cameras, most of which have small, faraway, poor viewfinders, the a99's full-frame finder...basically, SUCKS, compared against quality full-frame pentaprism viewfinders from Canon and Nikon. To some people, a sucky viewfinder image is not that big of a deal; to other people, people who might not have the best vision, or who actually know how to *shoot tight and shoot right*, the sub-par viewfinder is a MAJOR let-down and a real shortcoming of any camera that happens to have a sucky finder image...

Sony A99 Field Report

an excerpt from Michael Reichmann: "When I first picked up the A99 my very first impression (_I'd been using my Nikon D800e the day before_) was that there was something wrong. What it turned out to be was the outcome of virtually a lifetime of using full-frame film and digital cameras with their large and bright viewfinders. Holding up the A99 side by side with a camera like the D800, or new Nikon D600 or Canon 6D, brings the matter to light  so to speak. As good as it is, the Sony EVF just can't compete in terms of realistic contrast, brightness and overall clarity to a full frame glass prism viewfinder."

And from Nick Devlin: "_My view is that there is nothing inherently good about EVFs.  They are at best a necessary evil, chosen for the form-factor advantages they bring and the cameras they make possible.  Sony clearly does not share this view, since they built this camera around an EVF simply for the sake of doing so. It offers no notable advantage of any sort, most notably not in price. I can see no reason to chose an EVF in any context where it does not significantly reduce the size, weight or price of the camera, or substantially enhance its usability.  The case is simply not made out beyond, "It's cool new technology"._

_To me, the experience of viewing the natural world through an EVF is like crashing at a cheap motel, closing the blinds, and turning on the small, fuzzy old cathode-ray tube TV on the dresser.  __It's a shame, because this is otherwise a cracker of a camera, really nice to hold and behold.  Nick"_


----------



## unpopular (Oct 11, 2012)

no matter how great everything else is, no matter how fast and responsive or how high quality the output, a poor viewfinder ruins _everything_.


----------



## KmH (Oct 12, 2012)

skieur said:


> 3. OLED viewfinder is bright, 100% accurate......
> 
> skieur


Huh? 100% accurate? Does that mean it displays the full dynamic range of the scene, and does so in 3D?

Does the OLED display the full range of colors humans can see?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 12, 2012)

while I am not totally convinced by EVF, OVF's don't display in 3D, and having teh OLED calibrated to the camera's gamut would be useful - though I don't think this is even the case.


----------



## Kolia (Oct 12, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Huh? 100% accurate? Does that mean it displays the full dynamic range of the scene, and does so in 3D?
> 
> Does the OLED display the full range of colors humans can see?



100% coverage. 

So, EVF doesn't cover the whole range of color your eye can see. 

Neither does the digital RAW file. 
Neither does your computer screen. 
Neither does the printer used to print the picture. 

Why bother taking any picture if the only time you do see it all is when you shoot it ?

Anybody who actually uses the LCD screen on their camera, either for review or anything, should be able to understand the benefits of have all that information available in the viewfinder at the time they actually take the shoot. 

Personal preference will dictate what we each go with in the end. Both technologies have their pros and cons.


----------



## sapper6fd (Oct 12, 2012)

The viewfinder on the A99 was enough to turn me off Sony DSLR's.  Thee OLED screen inside it made me feel like I was looking through the viewfinder of an early 90's handy cam.


----------



## Kolia (Oct 12, 2012)

sapper6fd said:
			
		

> The viewfinder on the A99 was enough to turn me off Sony DSLR's.  Thee OLED screen inside it made me feel like I was looking through the viewfinder of an early 90's handy cam.



Where did you get to handle an A99 ?


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 12, 2012)

instead of having people play "my camera is better than yours", just go to the store, pick up and play with a few different cameras, pick the one YOU like and can afford, and BUY IT! I am pretty certain that the differences in how much "better" the nikons and the canons are won't really translate to very much when it actually comes down to taking a picture with the Sony. If you really like the sony camera, they get it. you will be able to take great pictures with it, you can get good glass for it, and im sure you will be very happy with the results.


----------



## skieur (Oct 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > 3. OLED viewfinder is bright, 100% accurate......
> ...




You don't read specs much, eh?   100% accurate means in photographic terms 100% of what you see in the viewfinder is what you get in your final image as opposed to less than that in crop body cameras.

skieur


----------



## sapper6fd (Oct 12, 2012)

Kolia said:


> sapper6fd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A local camera store in Calgary had their 10th anaversary last month and invited the Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, Sony and a few other reps to set up display booths.  They had one on display and were allowing people to give it a look over.


----------



## skieur (Oct 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> And from Nick Devlin: "_My view is that there is nothing inherently good about EVFs. They are at best a necessary evil, chosen for the form-factor advantages they bring and the cameras they make possible. Sony clearly does not share this view, since they built this camera around an EVF simply for the sake of doing so. It offers no notable advantage of any sort, most notably not in price. I can see no reason to chose an EVF in any context where it does not significantly reduce the size, weight or price of the camera, or substantially enhance its usability. The case is simply not made out beyond, "It's cool new technology"._
> 
> _To me, the experience of viewing the natural world through an EVF is like crashing at a cheap motel, closing the blinds, and turning on the small, fuzzy old cathode-ray tube TV on the dresser. __It's a shame, because this is otherwise a cracker of a camera, really nice to hold and behold.  Nick"_



This comment from Nick Devlin displays a lot of negative bias toward Sony irrespective of the camera and the viewfinder which severely limits his credibility.

Sure there is something inherently good about SLT viewfinders:

1. real time feedback of camera adjustments and creative choices in the viewfinder including dynamic range adjustments KmH
2. the ability to fully adjust your camera without taking your eye from the viewfinder
3. a quieter shutter release (no mirror flip) which makes street photography much less obtrusive.
4. with no mirror flip there is less vibration, so super slow shutterspeeds are possible handheld.

Oh and by the way, if you don't like the SLT brightness, then for heaven's sakes adjust it to your taste.  It is adjustable and customizable like everything else on the camera, including the buttons.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Oct 12, 2012)

skieur said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



My crop body camera has 100% viewfinder coverage.  BTW, isn't the A77 that you mentioned in your original post about 100% "accurate" (coverage) ALSO a crop body camera?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 12, 2012)

lordshakti said:


> Instead of canons or nikons,can i go for a sony?




No you may not, young man!


----------



## unpopular (Oct 12, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



And really, is 95% accuracy THAT much of a problem?


----------



## bunny99123 (Oct 12, 2012)

Never had a Nikon or Canon DSLR, but I do use a Sony A55.  I looked at specs of the 3 DSLRs in my price range. Then went to a Photography Store and tried them out as best as I could.  Boy, was it a hard decision to make, but I am happy with my camera.  It takes pictures I am satisfied with at this point in my photography.  Who knows what the future will bring, since techno is advancing so rapidly; years later I may switch to another company.  

I have used Maxxium Minolta lens, and they produce very good images.  

My friend has a Nikon D70 (I think?), and my pictures are as impressive as her's when printed.  She is even suprised at the camera's proformance.  

Almost everyone loves the camera that they use.  In my opinion, it is more than a piece of equipment, but an expression of their creativity, so check them all out and choose the on that fits you


----------



## skieur (Oct 12, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Your crop body camera has 95% magnification/coverage which does not cut it against 100%.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 12, 2012)

A less anti-Sony bias in this review related to the viewfinder.

skieur"BLOODY HELL" - Sony a77 - Does it Suck? - YouTube


----------



## skieur (Oct 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



If you are shooting macro, then it certainly is THAT much of a problem.

skieur


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 12, 2012)

this one the one down side to an otherwise glowing review.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 12, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



ehh. I've shot plenty of macro at greater than 1:1, significantly so on the a350. Because I use bellows extension, this early live view isn't terribly useful. 

Never felt it was a big deal.


----------



## cosmonaut (Oct 12, 2012)

Well I agree that if possible to get your hands on an a99 and try it. The EVF is a very personal option that some like and some don't. If you will use any manual focus lenses focus peaking will really help you. I have the Nikon version of the new Sony 50mm and its manual focus. I also have a D800 and I do wish it had an articulating screen. You will hear a lot of trash talk when it comes to the Sony line here at this site but I have used both the a77 and NEX 7 and the only issue I had with the EVF is the picture review in the finder can be annoying if shooting for extended time like during a portrait session, but that can be turned off. It is certainly not for everyone. If you want a good OVF the a850 is the best I have ever looked thru.


----------



## mjhoward (Oct 12, 2012)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



D7000 from Nikon

"Viewfinder Frame Coverage              100% Approx."


----------



## lordshakti (Oct 12, 2012)

Well o well. Thanks a lot eveyone for providing these helpful and speedy answers,seems like SONY has got some loyal owners 

I must tell you all that i have a strange craving for full frame sensor and hv explored the successor of a77 called a99..
This new thing has boggled my mind again as now i am confused between the two,a99 being too much expensive,is..do u think worth the money?

I have never gone fr any kind of dslr so dunno how much difference does it make..

A99 is on the slower side too..so..
Should i settle up with a77?


----------



## lordshakti (Oct 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> lordshakti said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of canons or nikons,can i go for a sony?
> ...



Just a plain statement for suchha serious question?
Ny logics reasons?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 12, 2012)

cosmonaut said:


> If you want a good OVF the a850 is the best I have ever looked thru.



My a700 has a viewfinder almost as good as my Contax RX did, and certainly brighter, if not smaller. DOF preview is more than sufficient indoors at small apertures.

Sony did have some very good viewfinders, probably inherited from Minolta. It's unfortunate that this isn't looking like it will be an option from Sony any longer. As beneficial as EVF might be, you just can't get any more responsive than an OVF. Physics doesn't permit it.


----------



## skieur (Oct 15, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Yes, 95% is 100% approximate.  That is rather a unique spin.

When I said 100%, I did NOT mean approximate.  100% PERIOD.

skieur


----------



## lordshakti (Oct 21, 2012)

Can someone address the questions i have asked


----------



## unpopular (Oct 21, 2012)

Yes. You can use a Sony. The EVF has drawbacks and benefits. If you do a lot of macro, it shouldn't be a problem, since many macro photographers don't use the OVF anyway. If you're using a bellows lens, you may run into some trouble due to dimming - but I doubt it, from my experience the OVF is very difficult to use at long extensions factors, more so than live view, refraction becomes a larger issue.

Sony has not really ever made a "professional" body. Their market was never intended to compete with the D4 or 1D. Sony is very capable of producing a camera in this range, and there is a rumor saying that it will. But that hasn't been Sony's target market as of yet. This doesn't mean that Sony's current cameras are incapable, any more than Nikon and Canon's "prosumer" and "consumer" models aren't: they are what they are. Very frequently lower end bodies have better specifications on paper that appeal to everyone else who doesn't necessarily need the features which the D4 or 1D offer. These cameras naturally have advantages, but not necessarily for all shooters.

But yes. There is nothing inherently inferior about Sony's technology. You have pretty much all the lenses that you'd need, none of which are terribly bad from what I can tell. You also have Minolta a-lenses, and a good number of Sony lenses are just Minolta lenses with Sony's name on them. Having loads of old moldy lenses to choose from is fun if you're a collector, but is hardly a real advantage.


----------



## dxqcanada (Oct 21, 2012)

lordshakti said:


> Can someone address the questions i have asked



Do you mean your question of A77 (APS-C) vs A99 (full frame) ... is full frame worth the additional cost ?


----------

