# Wedding Photography - worth it to invest in the Sony A system?



## andrewdo_2 (Jun 3, 2015)

Hey guys,

These days I've been seeing a majority of Full-Time wedding photographers shoot with Canon/Nikon. Also, browsing through a Flickr Weddings photo group...all I see are either Canon or Nikon. (now I know there are some Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, etc "somewhere in there")

So my questions are: (this is not about the mirrorless a7 series, etc)

Is there a reason why most wedding professionals don't shoot with the Sony A-mount system?
Do you personally find it worth it to invest $10,000 - $15,000 into the Sony system?
Is it something about the Company that Full-Time professionals don't shoot with Sony?
I mean they have everything one needs to get the job done..from a great Full Frame body (the a99) to the selection of fast high quality lenses.

I'm just a little curious because I shoot with two a99s along with the 24/2 Zeiss, 50/1.4 Zeiss, 85/1.4 Zeiss, 24-70/2.8 Zeiss, 100/2.8 Macro, 70-200/2.8 G, and a few F60M speedlites for off camera flash. 

Here's my site: Andrew Do Photography Naples FL Wedding Photographer

Thanks!


----------



## ronlane (Jun 3, 2015)

I went to hear Zabrina talk and her and her husband shoot Sony for all of their stuff. Here is her site.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2015)

There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).

1.  Lack of professional support;
2.  lack of availability; and
3.  use of non-industry standards such as their hotshoe.


----------



## andrewdo_2 (Jun 3, 2015)

ronlane said:


> I went to hear Zabrina talk and her and her husband shoot Sony for all of their stuff. Here is her site.




 I heard that she uses the Sony mirrorless system though.


----------



## andrewdo_2 (Jun 3, 2015)

tirediron said:


> There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).
> 
> 1.  Lack of professional support;
> 2.  lack of availability; and
> 3.  use of non-industry standards such as their hotshoe.





Do you personally (in your opinion) think that things will change?

1) Sony now has professional support like Canon and Nikon
2) Not sure what you mean by this. Borrowlenses.com have Sony rental equipment if you're looking for rentals, etc (availability)
3) They have been using a standard hotshot since 2012


----------



## ronlane (Jun 3, 2015)

andrewdo_2 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I went to hear Zabrina talk and her and her husband shoot Sony for all of their stuff. Here is her site.
> ...



I think you may be right there. I didn't watch the entire presentation and I am not as knowledgeable of the Sony line up as I probably should be.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2015)

andrewdo_2 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).
> ...


1.  To the same degree?  I'm asking, I don't know.  Is there a Sony professional service where I can send my gear for expidited repairs?  Is there a Sony table at the winter Olympics where I can sign out a 600mm f4?
2.  More in terms of accessories and such.  I know if I need a Nikon or Canon remote TTL cord my local bricks & mortar store will have it in stock.  Sony?  Probably not.
3.  Fair enough, but I still think that the decision not to, right out of the gate cost them a lot of business.  Don't misunderstand; I have nothing against Sony, and Zeiss glass is hard to beat, but I don't ever see them taking even a measurable bite out of the pro market.  There will always be pros who use it, but not many.


----------



## MOREGONE (Jun 3, 2015)

tirediron said:


> There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).
> 
> 1.  Lack of professional support;
> 2.  lack of availability; and
> 3.  use of non-industry standards such as their hotshoe.


and I will add
4. Changing directions from DSLR, to SLT to Mirrorless and not giving professionals any confidence to heavily invest in any one of their systems

If you feel you can see their vision and are confident with the equipment go for it!


----------



## MOREGONE (Jun 3, 2015)

tirediron said:


> There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).
> 
> 1.  Lack of professional support;
> 2.  lack of availability; and
> 3.  use of non-industry standards such as their hotshoe.


and I will add
4. Changing directions from DSLR, to SLT to Mirrorless and not giving professionals any confidence to heavily invest in any one of their systems

If you feel you can see their vision and are confident with the equipment go for it!


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 3, 2015)

part of Sony's problem with grabbing more of a "pro" market was the lack of a full frame camera until the a99 in 2012. 
Plus, a completely proprietary hot shoe mount until that time as well.  
Sony, while producing possibly the best sensors on the market, have only recently released DSLR's aimed more towards the professional market. (in the sense of Full Frame sensors)
Canon released the 1Ds in 2002, and the 5D in 2005. 
Nikon released the D3 in 2007. 
Both Nikon and Canon have had a very long time to cultivate a full frame Pro camera client base compared to Sony, and many of those people are still shooting with lenses they used a decade ago. Sony really doesn't offer anything substantial over Nikon or Canon to seriously tempt many pros already heavily invested in a system to move over, so their best chance is to win over new photographers, or photographers that simply have the money and desire to switch. (it happens)


----------



## jaomul (Jun 3, 2015)

Sony did have the a850 and a900 a few years before a99


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2015)

Well, it sounds like you are already invested in the system, so what anybody else thinks is immaterial/irrelevant.

Sony got into the d-slr game by buying up Konica/Minolta's intellectual property when K/M decided to leave the camera business, thus ending the oldest Japanese camera brand's run....Konica started in the camera business in 1908 I believe. But the thing was, K/M got into the d-slr biz late as well.

There was a time when the d-slr business was expanding every year, and Sony got in on that, and then a few years later, the business began to contract, and here we are now, with sales declining each year for ALL types of cameras.

Sony has some nice, solid lenses in their catalog; not as many as Nikon or Canon, but plenty of lenses for "most" kinds of photography, but no tilt/shift, kind of lean on macro lenses,not really big on super-teles, but for regular photography, there are third-party options, and plenty of Sony-branded lenses. I DO think Sony has been remiss in not making the 400mm f/4.5 G APO that Minolta used to sell for $1899...I think that ONE, SINGLE lens could have been a HUGE lever for birders and nature shooters, who tend to be a bit more visible on the web, and a bit more influential than other types of shooters.  af400f45g2.jpg

Sony has decent cameras, but they got into the serious camera bid'ness much later than Canon or Nikon...and that it what has made things tough for Sony. It's a constricting market, and earlier entrants have already established user bases, with user loyalty, used markets, and so on. So far, Sony has clawed its way up to third position, which is not too bad.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 3, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Sony did have the a850 and a900 a few years before a99



OMG!
i completely forgot about the a900. 
I think the 850 actually came out _*after*_ the 900. 
dang. why didn't that camera get better PR? i don't remember much about it. was it not as good as the other FF offerings?  seems like it would have been pretty good with sony's 24MP sensor in it.....


----------



## jaomul (Jun 3, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Sony did have the a850 and a900 a few years before a99
> ...



Not 100% sure but I think I read somewhere they shared the sensor with Nikon, but apparently Sony couldn't get the same performance for some reason. I believe noise crept in at moderate iso levels


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2015)

The A900 came out at the same time as the Nikon D3x, within months of one another. BOTH had the same light-sensitive part, the sensel; the completed sens*or* had different AA arrays, one for Sony, a different one for Nikon. The Sony had 12-bit RAW depth,the D3x was the first-ever 35mm type dslr to offer 14-bit RAW color, and Nikon sunk thousands of dollars into the electronics on the D3x, and so it went to $7999 at intro, up from the $4999 price of the D2x at its intro in late 2004. The A900 premierd at $3999 as I recall. The Sony had odd, variable color at ISO 400 and up...not very good, really; the D3x had the best color of any d-slr ever up- to that point, and pretty decent up to ISO 1250 in my experience. I saw some studio shooter/fashionista side-by-side tests of the A900 vs the D3x...the Nikon thrashed the Sony for color "look" at the mid- and higher ISO levels, and the much more costly electronics in the D3x made it much better in the shadows. Same "sensel", the first-genration Exmor FX, but Sony put it in a cheap system, Nikon spent half the cost of the camera on the sensor and electronics...

There was a huge furor over the price of the D3x, and it never got much attention. The A900 was seen as the low-priced, segment leading "value", and Michael Reichmann and his ilk bought all-new Sony systems that they touted for a year or so, before moving on to better cameras. Sony DROPPED the price of the A900 to $2499 in an effort to try and literally, as Hogan called it, "buy market share", but that failed. They then introduced the A850, which was **almost** identical to the A900...just a little bit less viewfinder coverage. They ended up closing those out at $1899, but still, not many takers.

The SECOND generation Exmor sensors is where the Nikon D600 and D4 came in...with guns blazing...no longer necessary to spend a fortune to get the low-noise performance...game changed right there...

The A900 had a really simple design, almost retro, looked a lot like a plain-prism Nikon F in many respects. Those who bought it LOVED how it shot, but again, the ISO/color/DR issues were not good above 400 ISO, meanwhile the Nikon D3s was killing in the High ISO performance race, the D3x had great images but was too expensive except for high-end, money making shooters, and, well, the A850 despite being the best value of its generation, died when Sony went to the SLT system to, again, try to "buy market share" against Nikon and Canon.

What really killed the A900 and A850 was that they were offered in an era when all the smoke-and-fury was directed toward High ISO performance and frame rate, with the Nikon D3s and Canon 7D and Canon 1Ds Mark III all sort of grabbing the headlines; the sensor technology of 24MP on FF was limited to low to moderate ISO levels unless Nikon threw thousands of dollars into the electronics...the A900 and A850 and D3x were sort of trial balloons: they were good for their era, but the camera industry was in its last good year of sales, and people wanted lower-cost cameras, really.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 3, 2015)

tirediron said:


> There are three reasons, IMO, which have kept Sony out of the professional market (aside from the fact it was already well established between Canon and Nikon before they came along).
> 
> 1.  Lack of professional support;
> 2.  lack of availability; and
> 3.  use of non-industry standards such as their hotshoe.


A7 has same hotshoe as Canon and Nikon I would have no problem shooting a wedding with my A7 and manual focus M mount lenses


----------



## chuasam (Jun 28, 2015)

and you'll spend the rest of your career looking for lenses and justifying to other pros why you use Sony.
honestly, the camera brand is really the smallest part of being a pro. Just pick one of the safe 2 and get on with it.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2015)

chuasam said:
			
		

> and you'll spend the rest of your career looking for lenses and justifying to other pros why you use Sony.
> honestly, the camera brand is really the smallest part of being a pro. Just pick one of the safe 2 and get on with it.



In your absence, the OP has since posted an advertisement here on TPF, wanting to sell some of his Sony gear. I saw his For Sale ad last week for a body and 70-200/2.8.


----------

