Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: fretsch on January 16, 2011, 07:15:49 am
-
Hi everybody.
This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.
I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.
My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?
Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.
I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
Best regards
Niels
Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.
-
You're in the range of individual opinions. So here's mine:
Nikon benefits:
Extensive lenses and accessories
Probably better at high ISO
Sony benefits:
Some rave about the "look" of the files esp. low ISO
Feature set @ a given price (?)
All the above is trumped by picking up each camera and seeing which one feels better, seems more intuitive to you and has the functions you want readily available when you are shooting. I would find a good, pro camera shop near you and check out both. You might pay more for the first purchase vs. buying on-line, but I believe it is well worth it when you are just starting with a new system. Another option is to find friends who have the cameras and go shooting with them to try them out.
First decide what you want to do with the camera: Family shots, landscapes, sports, wild animals, street, etc... That will help you figure out what feature set is important to you.
Dave
-
Hi,
The Alpha 900 lacks "live view" and the lens line is both limited and expensive. I'm not really sure that the Zeiss lenses are any better than the lenses of the competition. I have the Alpha 900 myself and I am pretty satisfied. Live view is a godsend for accurate focus, have it my Sony Alpha 55. So Live View on the Alpha 900 I miss.
Best regards
Erik
Hi everybody.
This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.
I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.
My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?
Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.
I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
Best regards
Niels
Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.
-
Hi everybody.
This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.
I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.
My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?
Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.
I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
Best regards
Niels
Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.
The A900 (or A850) has twice the pixel count than the D700, it's essentially a quite different camera. Something like choosing between a D700 and a D3x.
-
Hi everybody.
Thank you for your replies!
I have a little add on question.
Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.
I'm thinking built and image quality?
-
Check out the Sony product reviews on this site.
-
I've read it, and as I can see nothing really talk against buying it, except that it's a SONY :(
It's a tough decision.
-
I've read it ...
?? What do you mean by you've read "it"? There are more than one. You may want to do a little homework. There is a ton of info on this site about the Sony cameras.
-
Yes,
The price!
Other than that, no difference.
Best regards
Erik
Hi everybody.
Thank you for your replies!
I have a little add on question.
Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.
I'm thinking built and image quality?
-
My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?
But then I noticed that for example my notebook is already a Sony (Vaio).
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
Isn't the Nikon D700 waiting for a successor ?
Whereas Nikon's newer D7000 may see some competition from Sony's successor of the A700 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/11011110sonyinterview.asp). ???
Peter
--
-
Hi everybody.
Thank you for your replies!
I have a little add on question.
Is there any difference between A900 and A850 except 98% viewfinder vs. 100% and 3FPS vs. 5FPS.
I'm thinking built and image quality?
Up until now I haven't found any other difference, well except the 850 <-> 900 number itself, but that's obvious.
-
...except that it's a SONY :(...
Nothing wrong with it.
Back in the late '90s, when pro-digital cameras were, like, 1-2 Mpx, I told Kodak's management that the only way forward is to partner with an electronics company, as cameras moved from being almost exclusively mechanical devices, to sophisticated electronic toys (for better or worse). The response was that film still has many years of bright future in front of it. The rest is history. Should I mention that I was probably the only (serious amateur) photographer among them at the time?
Smarter companies, like Leica, saw the writing on the wall and went to Panasonic. Sony acquired Konica/Minolta and added "legendary" Zeiss lenses (I put it it quotation marks as I do not believe they are so much better than Canon/Nikon etc. today, but legends die hard ;))
EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.
-
+1
... added "legendary" Zeiss lenses (I put it it quotation marks as I do not believe they are so much better than Canon/Nikon etc. today, but legends die hard ;))
-
?? What do you mean by you've read "it"? There are more than one. You may want to do a little homework. There is a ton of info on this site about the Sony cameras.
Sorry. English is not my first language. I have probably expressed me wrong.
I have indeed done my homework. Have have searched the internet thin for the past week. I have read every single review and comparison I could find.
I'm not asking questions here to be yelled at. I'm asking my question here because I know that most of the readers and writers in here know what they are talking about, and have tried lots of different equipment.
I have received a lot of good answers, thank you! It really is a hard choice. As I understand the A850 is very good camera. I was just curious how it would work for every day use, if it would break or simply just work as good as a Nikon or a Canon.
Thank you once again. Any input is appreciated.
-
No it won't break. Have a look at what lenses are available new and/or used (including Minolta). If you can get everything you want then buy one. Dyxum (http://www.dyxum.com) is a good place to look for Alpha lens reviews.
-
I have an Alpha 850. 900 price seemed like a waste of money to me. I don't need a 100% viewfinder and don't care about 3 vs 5 fps. My reason for buying the Sony was for studio table top that needed a bigger file than my previous camera and it has been just fantastic for that. Downside for me is no tilt-shift lenses. Had to purchase a Mirex adapter. Now I can put some Mamiya 645 lens's on. Sony has their own proprietary flash shoe connection also. If you need to put a radio slave transmitter on you'll have to buy their adapter. Well made but $90. Not many auto focus points in the viewfinder. I don't see this camera as a particularly good one for action shooting.
-
Hi,
I'd agree on that. Actually I have the impression that the many of the Zeiss lenses are very good. Also, it may be that Zeiss has tighter tolerances on lenses than other makers, we actually don't know. Putting a Zeiss label on a lens doesn't make it a star performer. Sony's Zeiss lenses have dual serial numbers and are personally signed by a quality control engineer.
I have two of the Zeiss lenses, the 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and the 24-70/2.8 ZA. They certainly work well in the field at medium aperture, both are pretty ugly in the corners at the shortest focal length unless stopped down. The 28-75/2.8 may outperform the 24-70/2.8 at large apertures. The 28-75/2.8 is a Tamron design. Oddly enough there is no "Tamron" label on the Sony lens, that's life.
Best regards
Erik
EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.
-
I'll repeat what others have said and add a bit more:
There's four differences between a900 & a850
1) a900 VF has 100% coverage, a850 VF has 98% coverage
2) a900 has 5fps, a850 has 3
3) a900 has remote control, a850 has none
4) a900 is a few hundred $ more than a850
in terms of a900 vs d700:
a900 benefits
lotsa minolta lens
autofocus zeiss lenses (+ supposedly 85ZA is better than 85ZF)
supposedly nicer low ISO quality
in body image stabliziation
higher resolution
body is less expensive than d700
sony lenses are generally less expensive than nikon lenses
marginally more options for adapting/converting lenses
d700
lotsa nikon lenses and supposedly more options
great AF
ZF lenses
clean high ISO
standard hot shoe
higher certainty of nikon committing to FF DSLRs
more liquid market for used lenses
-
And I would add that Nikon has the most sophisticated flash system on the planet.
-
Hi,
I'd think the proper comparison for the Alpha 900 is the Nikon D3X. Both use similar, Sony made, sensors. It seems that the Nikon utilizes it better, albeit at three times the price. The D700 has another sensor that excels at high ISO but has half of the megapixels of the Alpha 900. Nikon doesn't have a >20 MP camera below 3000 USD, unfortunately.
Best regards
Erik
I'll repeat what others have said and add a bit more:
There's four differences between a900 & a850
1) a900 VF has 100% coverage, a850 VF has 98% coverage
2) a900 has 5fps, a850 has 3
3) a900 has remote control, a850 has none
4) a900 is a few hundred $ more than a850
in terms of a900 vs d700:
a900 benefits
lotsa minolta lens
autofocus zeiss lenses (+ supposedly 85ZA is better than 85ZF)
supposedly nicer low ISO quality
in body image stabliziation
higher resolution
body is less expensive than d700
sony lenses are generally less expensive than nikon lenses
marginally more options for adapting/converting lenses
d700
lotsa nikon lenses and supposedly more options
great AF
ZF lenses
clean high ISO
standard hot shoe
higher certainty of nikon committing to FF DSLRs
more liquid market for used lenses
-
There have been alot of good points. The A900 is an excellent camera and well worth comparing to the D700. Here's another thing to consider. Sony has indicated that they intend to innovate the type of digital cameras. They're currently replacing their APS-C DSLRs with the new translucent mirror cameras (DSLTs). Chances are if these cameras are very popular then Sony will replace the full-frame DSLR with a DSLT. Assuming that these cameras have the features you want, this would be okay. But if you buy the A900 and prefer to continue with the DSLR type camera then you might be unhappy about the direction of that Sony is going. I have the A850 and am very happy with it and I'm willing to wait and see how the Sony cameras progress. But some folks are extremely worried about this.
Regards
John
-
Hi,
In my view there are a lot of advantages to EVFs. I have an A55, and I freely admit that the OVF on my Alpha 900 is larger and brighter, but on other hand I can enlarge the view 15 times for critical focusing on the A55. Also the A55 has niceties like a virtual horizon and pre capture histogram. EVFs are at an early stage of development, I see no reason that EVFs would not improve a lot in a couple of years.
With an OVF there are a lot of variables in focusing. Viewscreen and mirror must be adjusted within perhaps 20 microns with sensor. Similarly the secondary mirror and AF assembly needs to be aligned with sensor. AF depends on two rapidly moving and rotating parts (mirror and secondary mirror) to be in "perfect" alignment with sensor.
Best regards
Erik
There have been alot of good points. The A900 is an excellent camera and well worth comparing to the D700. Here's another thing to consider. Sony has indicated that they intend to innovate the type of digital cameras. They're currently replacing their APS-C DSLRs with the new translucent mirror cameras (DSLTs). Chances are if these cameras are very popular then Sony will replace the full-frame DSLR with a DSLT. Assuming that these cameras have the features you want, this would be okay. But if you buy the A900 and prefer to continue with the DSLR type camera then you might be unhappy about the direction of that Sony is going. I have the A850 and am very happy with it and I'm willing to wait and see how the Sony cameras progress. But some folks are extremely worried about this.
Regards
John
-
There's four differences between a900 & a850
1) a900 VF has 100% coverage, a850 VF has 98% coverage
2) a900 has 5fps, a850 has 3
3) a900 has remote control, a850 has none
4) a900 is a few hundred $ more than a850
One more additional detail on 3) The A850 is fully equiped for the remote control drive option, however the controller is not in the box. A few dollars with an ebay shop in Hong Kong solves that.
Despite what some others have said about the Zeiss lenses you'll be hard pressed to find any lens with the quality of the CZ 135/1.8 in any other mount, let alone with full AF/aperture functionality.
Agree with what others have said:
Nikon D700 is for action and low light shooting (better AF, and better high ISO noise, better flash control)
Sony A850/900 is for shooting more quietly in better light (better resolution with great DR and very high colour fidelity)
But, the above comparison is not black and white. I've seen great colour landscape shots with the D700 and with proper exposure/processing have seen very clean ISO 3200 shots from the A850/900 as well as good action shots. So you really can't go wrong with either, as the differences aren't as big as you might sometimes conclude from reading test and user stories on the internet.
-
Yes John. Good point and one that I have been concerned about. Where is Sony going with this line of camera? They come out with a kick ass 24mp camera and its immediately in doubt as to whether or not it will be the last version of it you'll ever see.
-
Yes John. Good point and one that I have been concerned about. Where is Sony going with this line of camera? They come out with a kick ass 24mp camera and its immediately in doubt as to whether or not it will be the last version of it you'll ever see.
I really don't think anyone doubted that until probably 24 months after it was released. hardly "immediately".
-
A lot of the downplay of Pentax and Sony is due to advertising hype and fanboy dedication from snobish Canikons. They are all good, with assets and liabilities according to intended use. Canon and Nikon are comparatively more expensive, because you are also paying for name recognition and advertising budgets.
It took me decades to discover that the glass is what really makes a difference, and Zeiss glass is hard to beat. Sony makes sensors for many manufacturers, and when you combine that with a Zeiss eye, Sony become a serious IQ consideration.
I don't happen to shoot Sony. When I decided to drop Nikon a few years ago, I considered them, but decided against them, but that was before they made a deal with Zeiss.
The body gets you there, but it is the eye (lens) that sees.
-
I have a Sony A850 and my lenses include Pentax M42, Sigma, Minolta and Sony G. Its a great camera - especially for landscape work and there is really a huge range of lenses. Just think outside of the Sony lens line up box.
I have a Sigma 24mm f1.8 that outperforms the Zeiss equivalent.
Cheers
-
I laughed when I saw this post, because in the LL forum community, asking whether to consider a Sony is akin to being in the Vatican and openly pondering whether Catholicism is a worthwhile religion.
That being said, being the equivalent of an orthodox jew in a seventh day adventist church and thus totally out of favor given I'm a Nikon user in a foreign land here, I will offer my answer and it's real simple: No, I won't buy a Sony. They're not horrible cameras by any means, but I have my own reasons, based upon a multi-decade experience with many brands and formats.
a) I don't like and never liked Minolta reliability. Guess who Sony bought. I've been shooting for over 30 years. Over that time, without question, the number one brand that repeatedly time and time again seems to give people reliability issues that myself and my colleagues have witnessed is Minolta. If it had been just once or twice that I had to listen to your basic mom and/or pop who saw me with my expensive gear and tell me how their Minolta (of anything from SRT vintage to Maxxum and beyond) broke down, I'd say it's just luck of the draw, but when you hear it consistently over a few decades, I tend to think that's a trend. You don't see the guys whose living depend on the gear shooting Sony, and I think that's part of the reason. That doesn't mean it's junk, but I do think it means they've got reliability issues when the gear is pushed. Perhaps Sony has addressed these and I hope for the Sony fans they do, but this is one aspect I'm not interested in dealing with. I need a reliable system and Nikon, in 30+ years, has never let me down, and I've beat the hell out of their gear. My colleagues with Canon tend to feel the same way. In my mind, if you're serious, it's a two player race, and it's for a reason. Proven performance and reliability over time.
b) You buy into a camera system, not a particular body. Even if the Sony stuff were to be perfectly reliable, I still find their system limited. Sure, the Zeiss glass is nice, but so is other glass (see item 'c' coming next). But I need a 200/2 for stage and theater work when I get it. Oops. Can't find that in Sony (or Pentaxes) system. It is in both Nikon and Canon systems though. Top tier tilt-shift lenses. Same thing. Got a few choices in Nikon and Canon. A fully evolved flash system. Once again, a Nikon strength. Over time I need to know that the system I buy into is going to be around, and produce the gear I need. Two players have a dominant position in the marketplace, and frankly, those are the only two players I consider for this reason. Sony hasn't even gained substantial market share even after cutting the prices of their 24mp full frame bodies. They haven't publicly committed to growing their full frame bodies. Sorry, but I want no part of this. I need someone who is going to be there in the future for me, not the "alternative" camera for the folks who sneer at the major players and want to play contrarian.
c) Lenses? Sure - for a while, the Zeiss stuff might have held an edge - if they had a lens in the focal length range you needed, which isn't always the case. This has started to change. Newer glass like the Nikon 85/1.4G or the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 G lenses will match up quite well, and IMO in some aspects, particularly OOF rendering, are superior to, anything Zeiss (or anyone else) currently offers. The new Canon 17 TS is amazing, and the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-II is a monster, a wonderful, wonderful lens. Thing is, the big boys know that the limiting factor in the equation with all these high resolution bodies that have come down the pike, even bodies like the affordable Nikon D7000 or the Canon 7D, is the quality of the lens. It's no surprise that the latest efforts from Nikon have been supremely excellent, as have several of the latest "L-II" options from Canon. The newer glass from the two major players is simply better, as it needs to be, than the older stuff. This diminishes the supposed "Sony/Zeiss" advantage.
Plus I laugh at all these folks who pixel peep comparing sharpness of their Zeiss vs Canon or Nikon lenses, looking for tiny bits of sharpness advantage, never realizing that a) the dot gain of the printing process often masks much of this supposed advantage, and b) unless they are shooting in lab-like conditions on a top tier tripod/support system, have learned how to sharpen and post process properly, and are shooting in clear atmosphere, that this sharpness obsession isn't going to be realized in real life shooting. It's funny - just to take a non Nikon guy so I don't appear too Nikon biased - look at what Art Wolfe (A Canon shooter) shoots with - and the results he gets out of it - and tell me straight to my face that he needs to dump all his gear and only shoot Sony/Zeiss or Zeiss glass? I call Bulls**t on that. Most pros do well with the basic configuration of the pro 2.8 zooms and a few selected primes plus a long exotic or two, and produce excellent work from this. I'm not arguing that good glass isn't essential - but at the current time, there is no significant across the line advantage to the Sony/Zeiss lineup that makes it uniformly better than the best Nikon or Canon has to offer, particularly when real life usage is taken into account. Maybe if you're into photographing resolution charts and comparing review graphs to prop up your self esteem of what camera brand you bought, but not for those out there taking real images.
So you want to buy a Sony - go ahead, they're not bad cameras at all, and heck, they're reasonably priced. A couple of those Sony/Zeiss lenses are really special (the 135/1.8, if you can get it focused spot on). But you asked if I would ever buy one, and the answer is no. They're not a major player, aren't likely going to be one in the professional space, and thus, I want no part of them. I'm a Nikon guy, but if I had to, I'd go Canon and not lose a whole lot of sleep over it. Both of those brands have complete systems, are dedicated to their lineups and advancing them, and have been proven over time. Sony can't claim that. Perhaps when the Art Wolfes, Jay Maisels, Bill Frakes, Walter Iooss's of the world are all shooting Sony and Nikon/Canon has been relegated to the bit player role, I'll have a different opinion. But it hasn't happened, probably isn't going to happen, so I'll stay with the big players for now.
(As an aside, do you know why the D700 is so popular amongst Nikon users? It's because it's a balanced design that has enough resolution for most real world applications, can shoot in a damned cave if you need to, has an AF system that can track whatever it has to, has files that can be manipulated and massaged to no end in post processing, and ultimately is a camera that lets you concentrate on creating images as a photographer instead of being a gear head - it gets out of your way the way a truly good car lets you concentrate on the road you happen to be driving on. I wouldn't give mine up if you gave me a pair of A900's for free)
-
The low-down on the Sony brand is really this:
1 - Sony bought Konica/Minolta. They basically didn't understand anything about SLR cameras and decided to leave the Minolta people as-is and just have corporate oversight. Same workers, same plant, same everything, other than where they could cooperate with other divisions in Sony, of course. They aren't advertising it, but the "big three" Canon/Nikon/Minolta choice of old still is there - just it's now Canon/Nikon/"Sony". Quality is the same. The Lens/image specialties(strengths) issues are identical as well. (Canon is better for telephoto and action, and so on) Nobody that I know who has bought one has had an issue with it - it's a proper professional SLR camera. YMMV, naturally, but my three old Minoltas were problem-free throughout their lives(barring abuse and accidents, naturally), as were most people who I knew who had Canons and Nikons.
2 - All of the old Minolta AF (full-frame/35mm) lenses will work and 90%+ of them are re-branded but the identical product with a Sony label on them. This gives you a plethora of options for alternate used and NOS OEM lenses as well as 3rd party options like Sigma and so on, which in some cases will make better specific offerings.
3 - There are two giant lens databases online devoted to the line, which makes a lot of the guesswork fairly easy to do.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp - All 3rd party lenses ever made for Minolta (plus some OEM data).
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php - OEM/Sony list. Notice the direct copy/overlap in virtually all cases.
4 - It's the least expensive full-frame camera on the market. Unlike Canon, Sony/Minolta decided to keep their mount system backwards compatible (like Nikon). This alone pushes it ahead of the Canon line for me. Price does the rest. I just can't fathom Nikon's pricing structure after the last two years of economic slowdown. Nikon does make a better camera, but is it worth that much more? I don't think so, considering that none of this is really medium or large format anyways. It's almost always to get a job done at a reasonable price and have a decent picture to show for it. Not to do esoteric artwork.
-
Some people will buy Sony, some people won't buy Sony. There are very legitmate reasons to and not to (NashvilleMike has valid points). Since 2007 I have bought two Sonys and no Zeisses and am happy but I would also be more than happy with a D700. Besides the Zeiss ZF line is more appealing than the ZA line.
I don't doubt Minoltas break down, but my dad's Minolta XG-1 produced before 1980 still works perfectly today.
I find it a bit odd that if Art Wolf, Jay Maisel, Bill Frake, Walter Iooss world be all shooting Sony, then one would affect one's purchasing decision. If it makes any difference, Michael Reichmann shoots Sony.
The Minolta autofocus mount however isn't backwards compatible with the Minolta manual focus mount.
-
Let me react on NashvilleMike's points, because I think slightly different about some of the points he raises:
a) Typical Canikon FUD stories. Just read the LL Arctic stories (as well as many more references) about how Sony holds up in harsh conditions and how 25% of the Canon 5d2's failed to keep working. Wouldn't say Sony is more reliable but it being systematically worse is b**ls**t
b) True, but for a different reason. It's not the typical gearhead "the lineup or flash system is not complete" argument. It's the lack of a pro support organisation and broad availability of spares in remote places where as a pro shooter you need to be able to find a back-up if something breaks.
c) If lenses don't matter (printers blur it all up anyway ???) why rave about all the new Canikon glass having caught up with CZ. Also it might not be an advantage, the CZ and G line lenses for sure don't have any disadvantage vs. the competitive offerings of Canikon
d) Lemmings do miss opportunities because they follow without fully considering broader options
OK I fess up, I'm a Sony shooter but let me also say that I have no problem admitting that Canikon has stellar bodies and line ups that people prefer over Sony. Everybody makes their own choices based on their needs, preferences and the strength of the system they buy into, but I don't understand why some people then need to justify their choice with spreading FUD on other brands.
@ Plekto, just checked the lineup, there's 16 rebranded Minolta lenses and 16 new offerings since Sony took over. So it's more like 50/50 and not 90%+ rebranded lenses
-
@ Plekto, just checked the lineup, there's 16 rebranded Minolta lenses and 16 new offerings since Sony took over. So it's more like 50/50 and not 90%+ rebranded lenses
If we just look at stuff that was last produced by Minolta just before it was bought by Sony, virtually all of those lenses are being offered today with a different label on them. And NOS/used "Minolta" lenses are very inexpensive as most people think that they are all but useless. They have added some new lenses as well, which is great, but using NOS or used lenses with a Minolta label on them is essentially the same at lower cost.(my point was that this is a viable option to save a lot of money, since nothing really changed)
-
OK Plekto, I understand now what you're saying. I thought you meant that 90% of the current line-up were rebranded Minolta's but you mean that 90 % of the "last" Minolta lenses are still available as rebranded Sony's. Sorry for the confusion.
For those members that will only switch brands if "big names" pave the way this might also be an interesting review: Review link (http://photocinenews.com/2011/01/06/3734/)
-
Two things to think about: Sony's very, very expensive repair costs, and (what has been for me) their poor customer service. $540 flat rate for a lens, $500 flat rate for the body, post-warranty. See my post http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50496.0
This experience with Sony has pushed me back to Canon and now to the Pentax 645D
-
This experience with Sony has pushed me back to Canon and now to the Pentax 645D
I hope you will never have a dismal experience like the one you describe with Canon or Pentax service outfits. It's indeed very frustrating and far below any reasonable standard. Did you follow-up on the tip I put in the thread you started to check this other authorised Sony repair center I put in there?
Because if you switch brand after every bad service experience I'm afraid you might not have made you last switch yet. The internet fora are filled with good and bad service experiences on many brands and also vary country by country. So for me the trick would be to find a reputable and trustworthy outfit for the repairs and continue to use the equipment of your choice, whatever the brand may be. Also one "bad" experience makes a company totally bad (but the reverse is equally true, one "good" experience doesn't make a whole company good).
-
The range of old Minolta 'Beercan' lenses were excellent/very good also the Minolta pro series were brilliant. Go to dyxxum.com to see the range of Minolta lenses.
I had use of an a850, 24/28/35-70 and a 70-210 and got very respectable results.
The focal lengths of 28-80 and 35-70 are not popular but these old Minolta lenses on a FF DSLR are great...£50/$75 for the 35-70 and £1000/$150 for the 70-210 f/4 for example.
The above is true.... not an opinion..............
-
Pegelli
Thank you for the tip on the other authorized Sony repair center. I did give them a look. I may use them, but I wanted to give Sony the opportunity to positively respond first, and I'll probably try to do the service myself if Sony does not respond. My gear is insured, so worst case is I file an insurance claim if my own service attempt goes awry.
Also, I don't switch every time I have a bad customer service experience. I actually really like the product (a900, 2 Zeiss lenses: 24-70mm f2.8, and 135mm f1.8, and the Sony G 70-400mm lens), but if I had known the magnitude of the repair costs and the type of experience that I would have dealing with Sony, I probably would have waited for the Nikon D3x. Remember, they quoted a total of $1040 to clean the mirror on my Sony a900, and to glue the MF/AF switch back into place on my 24-70mm lens. $1040 for those simple 2 things.
The only effective way to change bad customer service practices and pricing is to apply pressure and to create awareness within Sony's customer base - enough pressure will cause them to change, or it will cost them customers. Either outcome is fine with me. I went through all the customer service escalations that they were willing to make available to me, and in the absence of resolution, my only recourse is to make people aware of what Sony has done.
I think it is important that potential and current Sony camera customers know the life cycle costs that Sony is pushing into the market. If I had known this, like I said, I probably would have not bought Sony. Since this thread is about "would you ever buy Sony", my post and my experience with Sony seemed relevant.
-
I've read it, and as I can see nothing really talk against buying it, except that it's a SONY :(
It's a tough decision.
Something to bear in mind is that Sony makes the sensors for a lot of cameras including Pentax and Nikon. And, as others noted, the Sony camera division is basically Minolta. Now, the downside of that is the non-standard flash shoe makes it a pain to get 3rd party flash gear, but the upside, as with Pentax, is that you get access to a lot of old lenses that can be bought inexpensively on sites like Craigslist and they're stabalized in the body.
-
Hi,
The more advanced models have standard PC sync contacts and there are a lot of different adapters from both Sony and third part for the Sony specific flash shoe. A non Sony/Minolta flash would not be electronically/logically compatible anyway, so I don't really see the issue, unless you want to use a Elinchrom Skyport or similar.
Best regards
Erik
Something to bear in mind is that Sony makes the sensors for a lot of cameras including Pentax and Nikon. And, as others noted, the Sony camera division is basically Minolta. Now, the downside of that is the non-standard flash shoe makes it a pain to get 3rd party flash gear, but the upside, as with Pentax, is that you get access to a lot of old lenses that can be bought inexpensively on sites like Craigslist and they're stabalized in the body.
-
Zeiss isn't necessarily about sharpness, but rather a "look." Some prefer it and see it as a reason to buy into the Sony system, while others don't. Minolta was similar with their first incarnation of AF lenses up through the early nineties. With those lenses, careful consideration was taken by Minolta to maintain similar color across the whole range.
p.s. to answer an earlier poster, Zeiss Jena m42 lenses, ZS lenses and ZF lenses adapted through Leitax also work on Sony.
-
Yes,
The price!
Other than that, no difference.
Best regards
Erik
FWIW, according to Joakim over on Fred Miranda, who works in the industry, Sony improved the power conditioning lines of the A850 over the A900, and that accounts for slightly better IQ.
-
Make your choice wisely...once you decide on a system, it will cost a fortune to replace glass if you change your mind at a later time.
-
Zeiss isn't necessarily about sharpness, but rather a "look." Some prefer it and see it as a reason to buy into the Sony system, while others don't. Minolta was similar with their first incarnation of AF lenses up through the early nineties. With those lenses, careful consideration was taken by Minolta to maintain similar color across the whole range.
p.s. to answer an earlier poster, Zeiss Jena m42 lenses, ZS lenses and ZF lenses adapted through Leitax also work on Sony.
Yeah, but these four elements cannot be escaped with Sony, which is why I personally stuck with Canon:
1. There are nowhere near as many Zeiss lens options as Canon lens options. Not by a longshot. (This is especially true with macro and telephoto, but even w/ tilt-shifts, etc.);
2. Not all of the Zeiss lenses are as good as Canon's anyway (and most of the other 3rd party lenses suck by comparison);
3. On the few Zeiss lenses that really are spectacular (21 Distagon, etc.), I can still buy them and use them on my Canon, without limiting myself in other ways :)
4. Buying a Sony means that I have almost ZERO true advantages ... but a whole host of limitations and disadvantages.
Therefore, to me (at this point anyway) I would never want to commit myself to a "no real advantages but a ton of disadvantages" commitment, especially as a nature photographer. Maybe if I were a wedding photographer, with limited lens requirements, it wouldn't bother me ... but no way as a macro/telephoto photographer looking to build a whole system and wide range of specialized lens options.
Jack
.
-
Zeiss isn't necessarily about sharpness, but rather a "look."
You mean the 'look' of the lenses itself ?
Peter
--
-
You mean the 'look' of the lenses itself ?
Peter
--
No, with certain Zeiss lenses (e.g., the 21 mm Distagon), there is a kind of "3D look" to the image that other lenses simply can't match. Also, the contrast/color rendition of certain Zeiss lenses are superior to common lenses. But that is with Zeiss' best. Even when compared to the Nikkor 14-24, the 21mm Distagon rivals the sharpness, but equals or exceeds the contrast/color rendition, with a more 3-dimensional "look" to it ...
Not all of the Zeiss lenses are like this however.
Jack
.
-
No, with certain Zeiss lenses (e.g., the 21 mm Distagon), there is a kind of "3D look" to the image that other lenses simply can't match...
Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?
-
Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?
No, yet another "Slobodan is a prick" syndrome (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?
Right....Im sure your Canon G10 is everybit as good as the Zeiss glass....I cant see any difference at all, especially on Flicker Thumbnails !
-
Right....Im sure your Canon G10 is everybit as good as the Zeiss glass....I cant see any difference at all, especially on Flicker Thumbnails !
Fair enough... feel free to show me the difference in your own examples.
For the record, I have nothing against Zeiss. I owned (or still do) the following Zeiss glass: 18/4, 35/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 180/2.8 for Contax; 50/4 CF FLE, 120/4 CF Macro and 180/4 CF for Hasselbad.
-
No, yet another "Slobodan is a prick" syndrome (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Ah, John, my friend, moonlighting again as a shrink? Or just demonstrating your superior decorum skills? ;)
-
Yeah, but these four elements cannot be escaped with Sony, which is why I personally stuck with Canon:
1. There are nowhere near as many Zeiss lens options as Canon lens options. Not by a longshot. (This is especially true with macro and telephoto, but even w/ tilt-shifts, etc.);
True
2. Not all of the Zeiss lenses are as good as Canon's anyway (and most of the other 3rd party lenses suck by comparison);
Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8
3. On the few Zeiss lenses that really are spectacular (21 Distagon, etc.), I can still buy them and use them on my Canon, without limiting myself in other ways :)
So it's not a disadvantage either
4. Buying a Sony means that I have almost ZERO true advantages ... but a whole host of limitations and disadvantages.
How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)
How about the highest colour fidelity 24 MP FF sensor
So you're right, as a system it's not as complete as Canon or Nikon, but as an individual camera for users who don't want or need the whole system it certainly has significant advantages that cannot be met by Canon or Nikon. Maybe they're not sufficient or important for you, and that's OK, but for some others they might be enough to swing their decision in that direction.
.
-
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
I could have bought a D700. I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead. After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again. For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.
-
Hi,
No doubt the A850 has a resolution advantage over the D700.
- If you need the best camera go Nikon D3X.
- If you want to shoot low light go Nikon D700 or D3s
- If you want the best camera for least money the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 850/900 are good options.
Nothing wrong with Sony Alpha 900 (which I happen to have as my main camera). Lens selection is small compared with Canon. I wouldn't base my choice on a few excellent lenses, those lenses may not be what I need. For instance I don't think that I would put the 135/1.8 ZA to good use, and by the way, how do you focus that thing? Some lenses like the Sony SAL 300/2.8 APO G are incredibly expensive.
Best regards
Erik
I could have bought a D700. I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead. After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again. For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.
-
No doubt the A850 has a resolution advantage over the D700.
With proper technique, yes.
- If you need the best camera go Nikon D3X.
Not necessarily, and that's not even taking value into consideration of what is "best." Iliah Borg prefers the A900 to the D3x. If you want the best 135mm option bar none, you would definitely choose Sony. Also, the ZA 85/1.4 appears to soundly beat both Nikon and Canon's 85/1.4 lenses, and you get in-camera stabilization on all of Sony's lenses whereas none of Canon's or Nikon's mid-range or shorter primes or f/2.8 zooms have IS or VR.
- If you want to shoot low light go Nikon D700 or D3s.
Still, my A850 is no slouch at shooting in low light. After I have downsized the files to 12 MP they hold up pretty well, and the extra detail also allows some extra latitude in applying NR. Also, there is nothing wrong with the AF on the A850 as far as acquiring focus in lowlight is concerned.
- If you want the best camera for least money the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 850/900 are good options.
Nothing wrong with Sony Alpha 900 (which I happen to have as my main camera). Lens selection is small compared with Canon. I wouldn't base my choice on a few excellent lenses, those lenses may not be what I need.
It would be fairer to say you base your choice on what lenses you want or need and what lenses the system offers you. The vast majority of D700 users will have a kit that consists of primes and zooms that can be easily duplicated by the Sony system.
For instance I don't think that I would put the 135/1.8 ZA to good use, and by the way, how do you focus that thing?
It is a big and expensive lens with a limited purpose, but if you are shooting portraits then it simply can't be beat. As for focusing it, when I had one I didn't have any issues nailing focus with it.
Some lenses like the Sony SAL 300/2.8 APO G are incredibly expensive.
At $6300 the Sony 300/2.8 is the most expensive choice, but the $5800 Nikon choice is only $500 cheaper; clearly the better choice would be Canon's option which costs $4635. Indeed, you could buy the Canon 300mm lens and a 7D for just $300 more than the Sony 300/2.8, so that might justify having two systems (ouch, neither of them would necessarily be Nikon, especially if cost is a primary consideration). What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time.
-
Pegelli said,
"True"
RESPONSE:
And since nature photography happens to be my bag, the Sony would have been a very poor choice for me (or anyone else).
Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."
RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss, better bokeh, and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss. So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens. But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:
What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon Super Telephotos (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, etc.)?
What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses (17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm)?
What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?
And what Zeiss lens can compare to the peerless Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Super Macro lens, that goes up to 5x magnification?
You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it. And, once again, on those rare and flashing isolated instances of Zeiss superiority, I can always put that Zeiss on the end of my Canon if I like (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Pegelli said,
"So it's not a disadvantage either."
RESPONSE:
Yes it is a disadvantage. By going with Sony, I cut myself off from SO MANY superior lens choices that Canon offers ... only to get no real advantage whatsoever. So, in point of fact, that is a monumental disadvantage ... all so I can get no real lens exclusivity or positive advantage.
Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"
RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too? Canon's IS technology is better than Sony's and they already give it to you in their lenses, so there is no advantage to Sony here either. Further, Canon gives BY FAR more versatility in-camera (Live View, etc.) also, so really the Sony body is itself yet another disadvantage IMO.
Pegelli said,
"How about the highest colour fidelity 24 MP FF sensor."
RESPONSE:
That sounds good on paper, but in real life Canons put out fantastic photographs. Period. And, with the best and broadest lens selection, they give you BY FAR more ways in which to produce fantastic photographs. Period.
So, if, while pixel-peeping on a monitor, the Sony has a slight advantage in color rendition ... when you go back out into the real world, nobody is going to notice the difference in print, and there you are stuck with a VERY limited lens system compared to the Canon. Which is precisely why most pros would not choose a Sony system, and which is why this thread topic got started. At the end of the day, the Sony's very limited advantages are negligible, while its very broad and considerable DISadvantages are deal-breakers for most.
Pegelli said,
"So you're right, as a system it's not as complete as Canon or Nikon, but as an individual camera for users who don't want or need the whole system it certainly has significant advantages that cannot be met by Canon or Nikon. Maybe they're not sufficient or important for you, and that's OK, but for some others they might be enough to swing their decision in that direction."
RESPONSE:
Well, as I said in my original post, only a photographer with a very LIMITED need for equipment would opt for a Sony system ... whereas anyone looking to build a full system will immediately see the HUGE disadvantages to Sony and will not be swayed by the very minor and negligible "advantages" ...
Take care,
Jack
.
-
Pegelli said,
"True"
Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."
RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens
No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens. If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens.
with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss,
Not according to Photozone's testing, it's not even close.
better bokeh,
Nonsense, the Zeiss 135/1.8 has great bokeh. I experienced it firsthand, I have to wonder what your experience with it is (none at all I expect).
and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss.
The camera has SSS, which is applied to all the lenses you use on it including the Zeiss 135/1.8. Also, since the Zeiss is a full stop faster, it's more feasible to not use any stabilization with it.
So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens.
It's an apples to oranges comparison, but in the way you seem to intend the comparison you are deluding yourself.
But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:
What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?
The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle.
You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it.
If Canon meets your needs better, great; however, Sony has the lenses to meet perhaps 90% of photographer's needs, and to do it very well. Also, I simply prefer my A850 to anything Canon has at this time (again, YMMV).
Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"
RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too?
Many of Canon's lenses do not have IS. Does the aforementioned 85/1.2 have IS?
Well, as I said in my original post, only a photographer with a very LIMITED need for equipment would opt for a Sony system ... whereas anyone looking to build a full system will immediately see the HUGE disadvantages to Sony and will not be swayed by the very minor and negligible "advantages" ...
Actually, the limited need is those that wouldn't be satisfied with a 300/2.8 or the coming 500/4. Schneider is about to offer T/S lenses that will work on the Sony system, that will cover another limited need. The vast majority of photographers shoot with classic primes and/or wide/mid-range/telephoto zooms, and Sony has all of those and they have image stabilization on all of those.
Unlike you though, I'm not a fanboy. If you need something Sony doesn't have, choose another system.
-
No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens. If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens...
You are referring to depth-of-field (DOF) and background blur, not exposure, I assume? You are basically saying that a 100/2.8 lens on a crop body has the same DOF and background blur like a 160/4.5 lens on a FF body?
-
Thanks Tony, I think you covered most points I would have brought up, so won't repeat the.
Just a few additions:
Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."
RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss, better bokeh, and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss. So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens. But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:
The Canon 100/2.8L is on par with the Sony 100/2.8 and nowhere comparable to the Zeiss 135/1.8 All of these lenses can be used on APS-C or FF so what's your point ?
What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon Super Telephotos (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, etc.)?
What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses (17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm)?
What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?
And what Zeiss lens can compare to the peerless Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Super Macro lens, that goes up to 5x magnification?
Why do they need to be Zeiss? the 300/2.8, 500/4 (to be released) and heritage Minolta 600/4 are excellent alternatives.
The Zeiss 85/1.4 is already mentioned
T/S you'd have to go 3rd party but there's good choices (also the Kiron T/S adapter)
For extreme macro look at the Minolta 1x-3x (granted, it's not 5x)
You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it. And, once again, on those rare and flashing isolated instances of Zeiss superiority, I can always put that Zeiss on the end of my Canon if I like (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Don't think it's as extreme as you say, but if Canon is right for you I have no problem with that.
Pegelli said,
"So it's not a disadvantage either."
RESPONSE:
Yes it is a disadvantage. By going with Sony, I cut myself off from SO MANY superior lens choices that Canon offers ... only to get no real advantage whatsoever. So, in point of fact, that is a monumental disadvantage ... all so I can get no real lens exclusivity or positive advantage.
Any brand or mount will cut you off from SO MANY superior lens choices. Not worth loosing sleep over
Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"
RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too? Canon's IS technology is better than Sony's and they already give it to you in their lenses, so there is no advantage to Sony here either. Further, Canon gives BY FAR more versatility in-camera (Live View, etc.) also, so really the Sony body is itself yet another disadvantage IMO.
Typical Canon fanboy FUD, and even if it were true I'd take all my lenses stabilized 3 stops any day over just a few lenses stabilized 4 stops.
I think Tony covered many other points much more eloquently than I could
-
No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens. If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens.
As I said, I have no specific need or desire for a 135mm lens, especially non-macro.
Not according to Photozone's testing, it's not even close.
The 100mm f/2.8L has outstanding resolution by any yardstick. Perhaps not as high on the Imatest as the Zeiss 135, but high enough to qualify as "excellent." Further, the 100mm f/2.8L bests the Zeiss in several areas: lack of barrel distortion, bokeh, speed of AF, weather sealing, as well as the best IS in the business, all for less money.
Meanwhile, though the Zeiss does produce outstanding results in some areas, Photozone still says, "Unfortunately there're no seals against dust and humidity - something which should be standard in this lens and price class ... as well as "the Zeiss lens does still rely on the rather outdated classic focusing system driven by the camera (via a slotted drive screw) ... As a consequence of the conventional AF system the lens produces a moderate degree of noise during operations ... the AF speed is fine but not great."
Nonsense, the Zeiss 135/1.8 has great bokeh. I experienced it firsthand, I have to wonder what your experience with it is (none at all I expect).
Well, I wonder what experience you have with the bokeh on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L? Since you like to quote Photozone so much, here is what your own reference point states of the Canon: " the Canon lens does truly shine here (bokeh). Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far," as well as "The AF performance is ... vastly better than third party alternatives." So you're the one who's talking nonsense here.
The camera has SSS, which is applied to all the lenses you use on it including the Zeiss 135/1.8. Also, since the Zeiss is a full stop faster, it's more feasible to not use any stabilization with it.
Good point.
It's an apples to oranges comparison, but in the way you seem to intend the comparison you are deluding yourself.
You're right in a sense about the apples to oranges, but I am not deluding myself in overall perspective. You are deluding yourself into trying to elevate a limited system to the same playing field as Canon over one lens. As I said in the beginning, if I were only doing wedding/portraits, then maybe ... but for someone looking to build a full system, the Sony doesn't make much sense.
The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle.
Speaking of self-delusion, Tony, this is flat-out balderdash you're spewing. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much peerless.
Once again, since you like Photozone so much, here is a direct refutation of your position by your own reference point: Of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Photozone says, "The rather long min. focus distance of 1m is a bit disappointing compared to other lenses in this class ... the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is still a tad better (with bokeh) especially with respect to the foreground blur ..."
Meanwhile, of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Photozone says, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is a lens where Canon "shows off" - it's ... a marvel within the lens lineup ... you're getting quite some glass for your bucks here ... The (bokeh) potential is more than extreme! If required this lens will smoothen even the most difficult back- and foregrounds ... Out-of-focus highlights are rendered perfectly and the blur is very smooth ... The center (resolution" performance is nothing short of breathtaking and the borders are only slightly weaker ... All-in-all an exceptional lens!"
So your own reference material rates the Canon 85mm better than the Zeiss, pretty much across the board.
If Canon meets your needs better, great; however, Sony has the lenses to meet perhaps 90% of photographer's needs, and to do it very well. Also, I simply prefer my A850 to anything Canon has at this time (again, YMMV).
The Canon does meet my needs better, which is why I answered the topic question, "Would I ever buy a Sony?", with a resounding NO.
Many of Canon's lenses do not have IS. Does the aforementioned 85/1.2 have IS?
Neither does. But the Canon is faster, has better AF, better resolution, better bokeh, etc.
Actually, the limited need is those that wouldn't be satisfied with a 300/2.8 or the coming 500/4. Schneider is about to offer T/S lenses that will work on the Sony system, that will cover another limited need. The vast majority of photographers shoot with classic primes and/or wide/mid-range/telephoto zooms, and Sony has all of those and they have image stabilization on all of those.
The Canon offers better super-telephoto lenses, for less money, and has more of them to choose from. And, by all accounts, the Schneider cannot in any way compare to the Canon T/S lenses. Thus, in buying the Sony, you commit yourself to having less choices, in many cases inferior choices, and in virtually all cases you're stuck having to pay more money for them. So whatever short money you saved buying the Sony body ... costs you more in the end ... both in terms of versatility as well as overall lens prices.
And, again, if I want a Zeiss I can buy one too ... but meanwhile you can't buy the vast array of superior Canon lenses for your system.
Unlike you though, I'm not a fanboy.
You are a fanboy Tony. Take a peep through your pom-poms, look closely in the mirror, and realize you're just cheerleading another system: Sony.
If you need something Sony doesn't have, choose another system.
And I did, thank you.
Jack
.
-
Thanks Tony, I think you covered most points I would have brought up, so won't repeat the.
Hope you enjoyed my responses then.
Just a few additions: The Canon 100/2.8L is on par with the Sony 100/2.8 and nowhere comparable to the Zeiss 135/1.8 All of these lenses can be used on APS-C or FF so what's your point ?
The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is superior to the Sony 100mm macro on pretty much every level, and is superior to the Zeiss 135 with regards to bokeh, AF speed, weather sealing, IS, etc. ... while retaining exceptional resolution in its own right. Even though the Canon 100mm lags a bit behind the 135 in resolution, meanwhile the Zeiss lags behind the Canon in multiple respects.
Why do they need to be Zeiss? the 300/2.8, 500/4 (to be released) and heritage Minolta 600/4 are excellent alternatives.
LOL, and how is the price/availability/quality of these compared to the Canon offerings ;)
The Zeiss 85/1.4 is already mentioned
And it too falls short of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II
T/S you'd have to go 3rd party but there's good choices (also the Kiron T/S adapter)
Right. Go to 3rd party, pay more, and get a lousy lens by comparison to the Canon ... oh, and pay for an adapter too ... which is precisely my point. NO THANKS!
I would rather stay in-company, spend less, not have to buy an adapter, and get a better lens ... while retaining more options in my other lens choices as well.
So, tell me, where is my benefit by going with Sony? So far, you've only shown me unwanted prices/limitations that I have to live with.
For extreme macro look at the Minolta 1x-3x (granted, it's not 5x)
Exactly right again: it's not quite as good or versatile if the Canon offering.
And, once again, how is the price/availability of this comparatively second-rate Minolta lens item by comparison to the ubiquitous and unparalleled Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens?
Don't think it's as extreme as you say, but if Canon is right for you I have no problem with that.
Well, I am certainly glad you have no problem with me making my own choices (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
It is as extreme as I say, the disadvantages to going with Sony, which is why so few people looking to build a truly serious system opt for the Sony as of now.
Any brand or mount will cut you off from SO MANY superior lens choices. Not worth loosing sleep over
Not so. Canon offers the most lenses, and generally for the most economical prices. Especially within my interest range. If I were going to change systems, it would NOT be to Sony (or Pentax) or any other limited system ... it would be to Nikon. For precisely the reason they have more options, and can use the Zeiss lenses too. Nikon just doesn't have as many options as Canon, and they (like Zeiss) tend to be FAR more expensive also.
Typical Canon fanboy FUD, and even if it were true I'd take all my lenses stabilized 3 stops any day over just a few lenses stabilized 4 stops.
Why do you fellas (who take the losing argument) always like to resort to the word "fanboy," when you run out of rebuttal material to stand on?
Like Tony, take a look at your own pom-poms and realize you are likewise doing nothing but cheerleading your own preference "team" here. You just happen to be on the losing team. At least right now.
I think Tony covered many other points much more eloquently than I could
Tony used to cheerlead Nikon a few years back, now he is cheerleading Sony.
He did make some good points, but what you brand-blind cheerleaders can't see is do did I. Hell, even Tony straight-out admitted the Sony system sucks for anyone interested in a full gamut of nature photography options when he said, "What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time." So why are either one of you even arguing this point?
Maybe down the road Sony will be "the" full system to own, quality-wise and option-wise, but right now it certainly is not.
Jack
.
-
Wow, what a read ... "horse-fly" comes to mind.
db
-
Wow, what a read ... "horse-fly" comes to mind.
db
Did you think up that one-liner response all on your own, or did you need to get outside help with the presentation?
I notice you made several "edits" to your complex post, so I am curious to know how many "revisions" you had to do before you felt in your heart that you worded it all perfectly (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Thanks for any insight,
Jack
.
-
Well, I am certainly glad you have no problem with me making my own choices
Ironic :-)
-
It was a simple edit. I added a hyphen to eliminate confusion.. I guess it didn't help.
-
The 100mm f/2.8L has outstanding resolution by any yardstick. Perhaps not as high on the Imatest as the Zeiss 135, but high enough to qualify as "excellent." Further, the 100mm f/2.8L bests the Zeiss in several areas: lack of barrel distortion, bokeh, speed of AF, weather sealing, as well as the best IS in the business, all for less money.
Shifting your arguments I see, you wrote that the 100/2.8 L has "as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss," and now you have to obviously abandon that argument. Now you want to argue that .15% barrel distortion is an issue on the 135/1.8? Perhaps you should be worried about the .98% barrel distortion on the 85/1.2 L. Bokeh on the 135/1.8 is outstanding and there is nothing to complain about there, and I never had a problem with AF using it either. Want to pay less? Sure, we all do, I've got a Sony 85/2.8 that is featherlight in my bag and works great on my A850 and it cost me $250. As for the weathersealing, I agree that's something Sony should address, but it's not a deal killer for me.
Well, I wonder what experience you have with the bokeh on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L? Since you like to quote Photozone so much, here is what your own reference point states of the Canon: " the Canon lens does truly shine here (bokeh). Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far," as well as "The AF performance is ... vastly better than third party alternatives." So you're the one who's talking nonsense here.
Funny that you would say I "like to quote Photozone so much," since I only mentioned it once and you have proceeded to base almost your entire response to me on it. OTOH, since you seem to be the one fixated on Photozone and are now citing it extensively, I'll play along. To wit, Photozone says of the 135/1.8 bokeh that its qualities are "outstanding" and that its "blur is exceptionally smooth and uniform."
You're right in a sense about the apples to oranges, but I am not deluding myself in overall perspective. You are deluding yourself into trying to elevate a limited system to the same playing field as Canon over one lens. As I said in the beginning, if I were only doing wedding/portraits, then maybe ... but for someone looking to build a full system, the Sony doesn't make much sense.
It's not about one lens, it's about whether the system has the lenses to meet my needs or not. I mostly do landscapes with a lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure. I would be happy with Canon, Nikon, or Sony as all three meet my needs; you feel otherwise and that's your prerogative, but that is not a license to distort facts. For me Sony has been missing the T/S lenses, but some have been working around that with the Mirex adapter. I am currently getting outstanding results using my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-micro with a non-optical adapter for close-ups and my Schneider 28/2.8 PC for architectural and landscapes, and I'm looking ahead to using the Schneider 50mm and 90mm T/S lenses when they become available and when I have the money to spend on them.
I wrote:
"The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle."
Speaking of self-delusion, Tony, this is flat-out balderdash you're spewing. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much peerless.
Once again, since you like Photozone so much, here is a direct refutation of your position by your own reference point: Of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Photozone says, "The rather long min. focus distance of 1m is a bit disappointing compared to other lenses in this class ... the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is still a tad better (with bokeh) especially with respect to the foreground blur ..."
Meanwhile, of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Photozone says, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is a lens where Canon "shows off" - it's ... a marvel within the lens lineup ... you're getting quite some glass for your bucks here ... The (bokeh) potential is more than extreme! If required this lens will smoothen even the most difficult back- and foregrounds ... Out-of-focus highlights are rendered perfectly and the blur is very smooth ... The center (resolution" performance is nothing short of breathtaking and the borders are only slightly weaker ... All-in-all an exceptional lens!"
So your own reference material rates the Canon 85mm better than the Zeiss, pretty much across the board.
Since you are so enamored of relying on Photozone, perhaps some screenshots are in order here.
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/Photozone%2085mm%20Reviews.jpg
It is also worth noting that the ZA 85/1.4 costs $720 less than the Canon 85/1.2 L, and I will have more on that below.
The Canon offers better super-telephoto lenses, for less money, and has more of them to choose from. And, by all accounts, the Schneider cannot in any way compare to the Canon T/S lenses. Thus, in buying the Sony, you commit yourself to having less choices, in many cases inferior choices, and in virtually all cases you're stuck having to pay more money for them. So whatever short money you saved buying the Sony body ... costs you more in the end ... both in terms of versatility as well as overall lens prices.
Well, I've already written that Canon is the better choice for fast telephoto lenses, hardly the kind of thing a fanboy of another system would say.
Regarding Schneider not comparing in any way to Canon's T/S lenses, there are no accounts of that and you are fabricating that to bolster your argument that Canon is the best and greatest system ever.
As for the price of Sony lenses being too high relative to Canon (or Nikon for that matter), lets add it up:
Fast primes:
Sony 24/2 $1250 v. Canon 24/1.4 $1661 My verdict: I can live with f/2 and pocket the $400.
Sony 50/1.4 $369 v. Canon 50/1.4 $379 My verdict: No difference.
Sony 85/1.4 $1369 v. Canon 85/1.2 $2089 My verdict: I'll definitely pocket the $720 here, and that's a total savings of $1130 for these three primes using the Sony system.
f/2.8 zooms:
16-35 Sony $1900 v. Canon $1614 My verdict: I'm not sure, Canon has a bad reputation in this category, if pressed I would look for other options for both brands and Nikon kicks butt here with their 14-24/2.8
24-70 Sony $1600 v. Canon $1329 My verdict: Canon saves you $271 here, but I am not a fan of this zoom range anyway even though many are.
70-200 Sony $1800 v. Canon $2374 My verdict: A lot of photographers use all three of these zooms in their kit, adding it up it's a dead heat in terms of overall price with both systems costing about $5300 for these three lenses.
100mm f/2.8 macros:
Sony $679 v. Canon $996 My verdict: I've seen the bokeh of the Minolta 100mm macro, and I regret somewhat not spending the extra $200 I saved buying the Sigma 105/2.8, but I solved that by buying the Sony 85/2.8, so in the end whatever works for you here. Personally, I prefer T/S for close-up photography (I'm not a macro shooter anyway), and Canon has that whereas I have solved this by using my Nikkor [see above in this reply], so given that the Schneider isn't here yet and is going to cost a lot, I would give this one to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want a good 100mm macro then there's nothing wrong with the Sony option.
Tony used to cheerlead Nikon a few years back, now he is cheerleading Sony.
Well, I see good things in all three systems being discussed here and am willing to say as much. I've opted for the A850 because it meets my needs better than any other option out there right now, and I am not feeling limited by lens options right now (finances due to the Great Recession are a different matter though). OTOH, you have been a die-hard Canon fanboy for years now, and that along with your abrasiveness just makes your posts loathsome to read.
I just realized it's time to update my profile here, the page where I show my photos disappeared due to some re-organizing of the site where I keep my online photos, so I'm addressing that now (in case anyone is interested, I would be). I'll let my photographs speak for themselves; in the end the system we choose is rarely the thing that prevents or enables us to get photographs, and as I said in my first post in this thread, I'm content with Sony for now.
-
Hi,
Here in Sweden the Sonya Alpha 300/2.8 is 91890 SEK that is about 14000 USD
The Nikon 300/2.8 VRII is 49900 SEK -> 7600 USD
The Canon 300/2.8 is 72950 SEK -> 11200 USD
It's nice to be able to use old Minolta lenses if you can find any. I have the 300/4G APO and the 400/4.5G APO.
Best regards
Erik
At $6300 the Sony 300/2.8 is the most expensive choice, but the $5800 Nikon choice is only $500 cheaper; clearly the better choice would be Canon's option which costs $4635. Indeed, you could buy the Canon 300mm lens and a 7D for just $300 more than the Sony 300/2.8, so that might justify having two systems (ouch, neither of them would necessarily be Nikon, especially if cost is a primary consideration). What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time.
-
Why do you fellas (who take the losing argument) always like to resort to the word "fanboy," when you run out of rebuttal material to stand on?
Like Tony, take a look at your own pom-poms and realize you are likewise doing nothing but cheerleading your own preference "team" here. You just happen to be on the losing team. At least right now.
I see you ran out of arguments Jack, just too many unstabilised lenses in the Canon line up and that's what we were discussing here. And who talks about "winning" or "losing", we're just trying to show that the Sony system isn't as bad or small as you want people to believe. If Canon is better for you because it has advantages over other systems that's cool and I see you take some wonderful shots with it. However it's typical fanboy behaviour to bash the other brand with crazy and exagerated arguments just to bolster your own ego. Fine with me if you believe yourself, but I don't buy it.
Hope you enjoyed my responses then.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh ;)
-
To me, it's like comparing Lexus and Mercedes. But you can't really bag on either one since they are a major step up from the cheap rental and commuter car fodder. Nikon is a bit like Porsche - excellent and better than both by far, but unreasonably expensive. Still, some people spend the money on one, and that's their choice.
Would I buy a Sony? Sure, because at this level all I'm really concerned with is price. Any of these three brands will do a more than adequate job for any photo shoot or project that I have in mind (large format black and white is another thing, though - heh). What I do like about Sony is that the majority of Sony branded lenses are identical to lenses sold under the Minolta brand - only the label is different. This means very attractive NOS and used prices for harder to find lenses. Often people are literally giving away Minolta lenses without realizing that it's not a dead and worthless product.
Ebay search right now -
Canon 85mm 1.2 $1400 used (best I could find in good shape)
Sony 85mm 1.4 $1200 used
About a wash, IMO. Not a terribly large difference versus new, as you'd expect.
"Minolta" 85mm 1.4 version - $950 used.
That's a lot of money for a different logo stuck on the side.
Sony has a huge advantage here, IMO, in that if you are a cheapskate and penny-pincher, you can build a system using used lenses for far less than Canon or Nikon. I consistently recommend it to people as a first serious DSLR or to students and the like as they can build a complete system for well under $4K and possibly $3000 if they look really hard and limit it to a few good lenses. This is impossible with Nikon and difficult for Canon.
New, it's kind of a wash between Canon and Sony. Buy whatever makes you happy. But I'm not one bit afraid of used lenses, either. ;D
-
Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.
Rubbish.
The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.
-
Ebay search right now -
Canon 85mm 1.2 $1400 used (best I could find in good shape)
Sony 85mm 1.4 $1200 used
About a wash, IMO. Not a terribly large difference versus new, as you'd expect.
"Minolta" 85mm 1.4 version - $950 used.
That's a lot of money for a different logo stuck on the side.
Sony has a huge advantage here, IMO, in that if you are a cheapskate and penny-pincher, you can build a system using used lenses for far less than Canon or Nikon. I consistently recommend it to people as a first serious DSLR or to students and the like as they can build a complete system for well under $4K and possibly $3000 if they look really hard and limit it to a few good lenses. This is impossible with Nikon and difficult for Canon.
New, it's kind of a wash between Canon and Sony. Buy whatever makes you happy. But I'm not one bit afraid of used lenses, either. ;D
It certainly is not impossible with Nikon! What's your definition of a complete system? You can easily build a "complete system" with Nikon for less than $4000. My complete system (for me) cost me less than this and comprises of 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and a D700. Oh and an Ebay search shows Nikkor 85mm f1.4 for as little as $1000 new, albeit on grey import but in my experience good camera equipment insurance negates the lack of Nikon support for grey import. Even used, Ebay shows completed listings for 85mm f1.4 lenses at under $1000.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-AF-85mm-f-1-4D-IF-Lens-f1-4-d-/180619483679?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a0dc29a1f#ht_4444wt_1141
Another Ebay completed listing search shows Nikon D700s going for as little as $1800. That gives you $2200 for the rest of your system. If you went for a cropped sensor camera, you'd have oodles of spare dollars for a complete serious DSLR system.
-
Rubbish.
The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.
It's not rubbish for me and don't quote me out of context and then try to distort what I said based on that. I wrote that, "I could have bought a D700. I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead. After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again. For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x."
As far as I'm concerned, the A850 files are not huge, and since the most often proposed solution to getting more resolution with 12 MP DSLRs is to stitch, it ends up being easier for me to handle fewer 24 MP files than more 12 MP files. I rarely shoot above ISO 1600, and the A850 does just fine up to that level. I have a D300 with its CAM3500DX and while I do like how configurable it is, my A850 AF matches it in lowlight acquisition. Since I mostly shoot landscapes, the exquisite detail I get from my A850 fits me perfectly whereas I would be practically no happier with a D700 than I was when all I had was my D300 (also a very good camera BTW).
My next camera will likely be an A900 (which was what the OP was specifically asking about). I never felt limited by the 5 fps I got from my D200, so in that regard I think I will be back to having everything I want in a camera when I have that and use my A850 as a back-up to it.
-
Rubbish.
The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.
Fully agree, better is in the eye of the beholder. There is no camera or system simply "better" than another, one camera or system might meet one individuals' needs "better" but I think that's all. I think they call it "horses for courses"
-
I've been using Nikon since Jan 1980 and have by and large been very happy with the system. No system is perfect though; all have their strengths and weaknesses. Trying to convince the other guy that your system is better by rubbishing his choice or trying to play the pseudo intellectual on this or any other forum doesn't help anyone as far as I can ascertain.
Personally, I wouldn't purchase Sony as a work system because it hasn't the range of lenses, accessories and back-up that I need. If I were using a camera strictly for pleasure, I would probably be perfectly happy with Sony as there's certainly nothing wrong with the images that I've seen from that brand.
As for Zeiss, recently, I have purchased a Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2, a Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 ZF.2, Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 ZF.2 and lust after a Zeiss 21/2.8 ZF.2 (a friend has one and I'm truly impressed by it's IQ). I would encourage any Nikon diehard out there to try one of these Zeiss lenses I mentioned. Build quality aside, which is in a different league to most Nikon lenses, (I own many Nikkors, old and new) you'll be impressed by the colour, sharpness and overall pleasant quality of the images that are somehow different to what Nikon glass produces. Very hard to put a finger on it, nevertheless, it's apparent. All manual focus, of course, which isn't for everyone. Very, very smooth with perfect feel though. The new Nikon primes are not superior to Zeiss in my experience, except for being faster.
-
no :-)
-
It certainly is not impossible with Nikon! What's your definition of a complete system? You can easily build a "complete system" with Nikon for less than $4000. My complete system (for me) cost me less than this and comprises of 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and a D700. Oh and an Ebay search shows Nikkor 85mm f1.4 for as little as $1000 new, albeit on grey import but in my experience good camera equipment insurance negates the lack of Nikon support for grey import. Even used, Ebay shows completed listings for 85mm f1.4 lenses at under $1000.
I was excluding obvious gray market and "like new"(can see the scuffs in the picture) and pawn shop stuff. In any case, the Minolta label lenses are almost always less expensive used, just because people don't realize that they still are useful on current cameras.
But to address your main point, I wasn't talking about "a bunch of lenses" - A "system" in my mind is 3-5 high-grade or pro level IS lenses, plus the body of course. A $150 lens is almost certainly not worth spending the money on, new, and while you can make a system for cheap that way, it's really not worth it. Besides a D700 is going to not compete with the Canon and Sony 20+MP full frame cameras. Even a D700 will run you 2K+ for the body - Nikon has a serious problem with its price structure.
-
The marrage of Sony and Zeiss is relatively new. Does anyone know if the Zeiss lenses will work the same on models made before the marrage?
-
The marrage of Sony and Zeiss is relatively new. Does anyone know if the Zeiss lenses will work the same on models made before the marrage?
All the CZ AF screw drive lenses (85 & 135) will work on even the oldest AF film bodies.
The CZ SSM (AF ringmotor) lenses (16-35, 24-70, 24) will only work on all DSLR's and on later film bodies that support this technology. This is a good reference (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/bodies.php) to see which film bodies take SSM lenses.
-
Nikon has a serious problem with its price structure.
That's because they're better made. :D No, just kidding.
I do think the Nikon bodies like the D300, D700 feel a lot more solid than the Canon bodies such as the very good 5D Mk11.
-
True, they are built a little bit better. But, the difference between the levels of markup is worse every year. Canon makes an entry level 12MP camera (the Xsi) that I can buy the body for $499 or so. In terms of the pictures, there's not a huge difference between the D700 and the Xsi. Yes, there is some, but $1500 worth? I'm not so sure.
Then again, if you have money to burn, like Leica, they do make very good cameras. Just that working Joes like myself just want something inexpensive that gets the job done most of the time. There's simply no need to buy an Aston Martin to commute to work in when a Lexus or similar luxury car will suffice. (but yes, I do dream of some day owning an Aston Martin... :) )
-
... There's simply no need to buy an Aston Martin to commute to work in when a Lexus or similar luxury car will suffice. (but yes, I do dream of some day owning an Aston Martin... :) )
Heck, I dream about a Lexus, but would settle for an Avalon :(
P.S. If the guy above, in charge of my dreams, is extremely preoccupied, a new Camry model would suffice. ;)
-
Yeah, most of use would settle for the commuter box as well, though a used GS350 isn't that insane. I can get a 2007 GS350 for about 25K, or the price of a Camry ;) Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to hold true for used Nikon 3DX bodies. Sigh.
-
For strictly studio use the Sony cameras are a good choice. Problem comes from wanting more lens options, like a perspective correction lens, or primes, or super telephotos with optical stabilization, or macro, or defocus control, or pro quality zooms, or wanting flash compatibility with multiple flash including easy wireless TTL control (as with the Nikon macro and normal flash) or compatibility with 3rd party gear like Pocket Wizards, or Quantum TTL, etc.
With Canon or Nikon it is easy to add new items and not need to switch systems to have a particular capability.
-
For strictly studio use the Sony cameras are a good choice. Problem comes from wanting more lens options, like a perspective correction lens, or primes, or super telephotos with optical stabilization, or macro, or defocus control, or pro quality zooms, or wanting flash compatibility with multiple flash including easy wireless TTL control (as with the Nikon macro and normal flash) or compatibility with 3rd party gear like Pocket Wizards, or Quantum TTL, etc.
With Canon or Nikon it is easy to add new items and not need to switch systems to have a particular capability.
Huh? I really don't know about all the rest you mentioned, and I don't own a Sony, but it has SR, so every lens you put on it has optical stabilization, and while I don't know about Sony lenses, surely one can find good primes and zooms and macros with Zeiss.
-
Hi,
The Sony Alpha 900 is a good camera. It's quite robust. In camera stabilization is a real advantage. In lens stabilization adds an extra movable lens group in the lens and is subject to wear. The worst omission on the Alpha 900 is in my view the lack of live view.
Lens options on the Alpha are somewhat limited and some of the lenses are very expensive, like the 300/2.8.
My suggestion would simply that you write down what you need and add the prices. You may find that some system offers benefits over others.
If you need > 20 MPixels than Sony Alpha 850/900, Canon 5DII/1DsIII and Nikon D3X are the only choices. D3X is best to my best knowledge but it is also horribly expensive.
Sony does not have TS lenses and lacks some other extreme glass, like 14 mm and 600/4, although a 500/4 have been on it's way for a couple of years. Sigma and Tamron lenses are options but some lenses may not be available on the Sony, like the Sigma 300-800 zoom.
If you don't need full frame Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 may be nice options. Those cameras use Sony sensors and it seems it's by far the best sensor available right now (Check DxO-mark). Sony Alpha 580 uses same sensor but is not a semipro body. Sony is rumored to have a new Alpha 77 coming with "incredible performance" but little is known about it. Body design seems similar to Alpha 700. Next generation Alpha full frame is more than one year out.
Best regards
Erik
Hi everybody.
This is my first post on this forum, though I have been reading it alot the past year.
I'm out to buy a semi serious DSLR, and I felt over Sony A900. I have read alot of positive reviews about it, and the compatible zeiss lenses.
My first thought was "It's a Sony, I'm not gonna buy it", but why?
Everybody seems to have this thing against Sony, even though many test shows that it's better than it's competitors (canon 5dII, Nikon D700) in terms of image and built quality.
I know that many of you guys in here are PROs, and I would like your view on my situation.
Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?
Best regards
Niels
Note: Last week I didn't really knew the Sony and I was sure that my choice would fell on Nikon D700. But now I think it's a really hard choice.
-
For strictly studio use the Sony cameras are a good choice. Problem comes from wanting more lens options, like a perspective correction lens, or primes, or super telephotos with optical stabilization, or macro, or defocus control, or pro quality zooms, or wanting flash compatibility with multiple flash including easy wireless TTL control (as with the Nikon macro and normal flash) or compatibility with 3rd party gear like Pocket Wizards, or Quantum TTL, etc.
With Canon or Nikon it is easy to add new items and not need to switch systems to have a particular capability.
Have you actually read this thread and/or done some research. Because all your points seem more hearesay FUD than something else
Perspective control lens: get a Mirek adapter and after that your lens choices are multiple, only no AF
Primes+macro+super telephoto:16/2.8FE, CZ24/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/2.8 macro, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, 135/1.8, 300/2.8, 500/4(coming "soon") + a rich choice of excellent heritage minolta glass ALL STABILIZED
Defocus control: I don't think there is any lens that even comes close to the 135/T4.5 STF
Pro quality zooms: CZ16-35, 24-70, Sony G 70-200 and 70-400
Wireless TTL flash built into every Sony camera and Flash, compatible with many hMinolta camera's and flashes
For compatibility with other remote systems a 10$ shoe adapter from e-bay does the trick and there's a PC socket.
Granted, it's not as large a system as Canon or Nikon and you don't have to like it, but pls. don't spread FUD that is not based on any facts
-
To further blur the lines, Sigma is coming out ... FINALLY... with their next generation camera. It's 15MP(actual MP - should compare to 25MP easily due to no Bayer pattern) and is APS-C sized. (4800X3200) - Converted to Bayer dimensions, that's roughly 6400X4260, or ~26MP equivalent) *minor quibble, Sigma needs to just drop the pixel inflation - 46MP this isn't.
Of course, the image should be clean as a tack. The few slipped previews of it have reviewers jaws dropping at the actual output. My guess is roughly 30MP DB quality and virtually no moires or artifacts.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092129sigmasd1.asp
If this doesn't cost more than $3K or so, it's a game changer. Sigma lenses usually cost a good deal less as well.
Not trying to hijack the thread so much as point out that it's not just "Canon or Nikon" any more. Other players, like Sony and now Sigma, are catching up and offer compelling alternatives.
-
Not trying to hijack the thread so much as point out that it's not just "Canon or Nikon" any more. Other players, like Sony and now Sigma, are catching up and offer compelling alternatives.
According to this (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-first-foveonlike-camera-by-early-2012/) Sony is also working on a Foveon like sensor for release in 2012. I won't hold my breath and it's still not more than a rumour, but there seems to be a lot of activity that will foster competition and improvements in every brand, and that's good for all of us :)
-
I would never buy a Sony. Used to be a Pentax shooter, but their endless foot dragging on making a FF dSLR put an end to that. I have no interest in experiencing the "they don't make it in my mount" issues (as respects 3rd party lens support) ever again, which is an issue for Sony as it is for Pentax. I also seriously question Sony's long term commitment to the 35mm format dSLRs. The recent rumor about them going with all semi-transparent mirror cameras in the future is also a concern. The experience of someone who was quoted a flat minimum service charge equivalent to 1/4 the price of an A850 is not encouraging either. At that rate, four minor repairs would buy you a whole new camera. Disposable SLRs, anyone?! Yikes!
-
Shifting your arguments I see, you wrote that the 100/2.8 L has "as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss," and now you have to obviously abandon that argument. Now you want to argue that .15% barrel distortion is an issue on the 135/1.8? Perhaps you should be worried about the .98% barrel distortion on the 85/1.2 L. Bokeh on the 135/1.8 is outstanding and there is nothing to complain about there, and I never had a problem with AF using it either. Want to pay less? Sure, we all do, I've got a Sony 85/2.8 that is featherlight in my bag and works great on my A850 and it cost me $250. As for the weathersealing, I agree that's something Sony should address, but it's not a deal killer for me.
1. And you can't escape the argument that I could buy a Zeiss for my Canon, if I wish, while you canNOT buy a MPE-65 for your Sony if you wish ;)
2. Outstanding bokeh isn't the BEST bokeh;
3. TRANSLATION: you've agreed to settle for mediocrity.
Funny that you would say I "like to quote Photozone so much," since I only mentioned it once and you have proceeded to base almost your entire response to me on it. OTOH, since you seem to be the one fixated on Photozone and are now citing it extensively, I'll play along. To wit, Photozone says of the 135/1.8 bokeh that its qualities are "outstanding" and that its "blur is exceptionally smooth and uniform."
And, of the Canon 100mm f/2.8L, Photozone says, "The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
So you lose again ;)
It's not about one lens, it's about whether the system has the lenses to meet my needs or not. I mostly do landscapes with a lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure. I would be happy with Canon, Nikon, or Sony as all three meet my needs; you feel otherwise and that's your prerogative, but that is not a license to distort facts. For me Sony has been missing the T/S lenses, but some have been working around that with the Mirex adapter. I am currently getting outstanding results using my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-micro with a non-optical adapter for close-ups and my Schneider 28/2.8 PC for architectural and landscapes, and I'm looking ahead to using the Schneider 50mm and 90mm T/S lenses when they become available and when I have the money to spend on them.
Exactly right. It's not about one lens, it's about the whole system, and you just clearly articulated YET ANOTHER missing element in the Sony system (where Canon again has the best to be had), which reinforces my position, not yours. You just gave me yet another area where you've "settled" ... rather than chosen the best alternative.
Since you are so enamored of relying on Photozone, perhaps some screenshots are in order here.
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/Photozone%2085mm%20Reviews.jpg
It is also worth noting that the ZA 85/1.4 costs $720 less than the Canon 85/1.2 L, and I will have more on that below.
Yep. And, once again, the Canon had BETTER field quality and better mechanical quality ... the Zeiss just beat it on "price/performance" ...
Well, I've already written that Canon is the better choice for fast telephoto lenses, hardly the kind of thing a fanboy of another system would say.
In other words, you listed yet another area where Canon wins ;)
As for being a fanboy, if I were primarily a landscape photographer I already said would own a Nikon ... not a Canon or a Sony ... so why do you call "me" a fanboy, when I freely admit the superiority of another system within certain contexts? What I said was, as a nature photographer (macro and, soon, telephoto) ... as well as for archetecture ... nothing matches the Canon system. So I am not a fanboy either. I just gave my reasons why I would NOT choose Sony for a system ... regardless ... and all you have done so far is apologize and make excuses for what "you" have ...
Regarding Schneider not comparing in any way to Canon's T/S lenses, there are no accounts of that and you are fabricating that to bolster your argument that Canon is the best and greatest system ever.
It is universally-agreed that Canon has the best and widest-range of T/S lenses ... but if you want to argue this fact that is your choice ... yet it has nothing to do with reality.
As for the price of Sony lenses being too high relative to Canon (or Nikon for that matter), lets add it up:
Fast primes:
Sony 24/2 $1250 v. Canon 24/1.4 $1661 My verdict: I can live with f/2 and pocket the $400.
Sony 50/1.4 $369 v. Canon 50/1.4 $379 My verdict: No difference.
Sony 85/1.4 $1369 v. Canon 85/1.2 $2089 My verdict: I'll definitely pocket the $720 here, and that's a total savings of $1130 for these three primes using the Sony system.
f/2.8 zooms:
16-35 Sony $1900 v. Canon $1614 My verdict: I'm not sure, Canon has a bad reputation in this category, if pressed I would look for other options for both brands and Nikon kicks butt here with their 14-24/2.8
24-70 Sony $1600 v. Canon $1329 My verdict: Canon saves you $271 here, but I am not a fan of this zoom range anyway even though many are.
70-200 Sony $1800 v. Canon $2374 My verdict: A lot of photographers use all three of these zooms in their kit, adding it up it's a dead heat in terms of overall price with both systems costing about $5300 for these three lenses.
TRANSLATION: Canon has the better lenses across the board. Sony has "cheaper" lenses in 4 out of 6 cases, and inferior lenses in every case.
100mm f/2.8 macros:
Sony $679 v. Canon $996 My verdict: I've seen the bokeh of the Minolta 100mm macro, and I regret somewhat not spending the extra $200 I saved buying the Sigma 105/2.8, but I solved that by buying the Sony 85/2.8, so in the end whatever works for you here. Personally, I prefer T/S for close-up photography (I'm not a macro shooter anyway), and Canon has that whereas I have solved this by using my Nikkor [see above in this reply], so given that the Schneider isn't here yet and is going to cost a lot, I would give this one to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want a good 100mm macro then there's nothing wrong with the Sony option.
Once again you vascilate and refuse to acknowledge Canon superiority. The Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro has 1) better resolution, 2) better AF, 3) better IS, 4) better bokeh, and 5) better weather sealing than the Minolta ... but (AGAIN!) all you can say is "you're willing to settle for less" ... while not actually stating any advantage to your choice. All you can do is make excuses for your "settling" nature ...
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
I see you ran out of arguments Jack, just too many unstabilised lenses in the Canon line up and that's what we were discussing here. And who talks about "winning" or "losing", we're just trying to show that the Sony system isn't as bad or small as you want people to believe.
I haven't "run out of arguments," friend, I just haven't bothered to read this thread in awhile :)
I never said Sony was "bad" ... I stated why I personally wouldn't invest in the system ... which is the fact is offers virtually ZERO actual advantages ... yet carries with the commitment a whole host of DISadvantages. I have never said (or implied) that doesn't mean you can't take nice photos with the Sony system.
If Canon is better for you because it has advantages over other systems that's cool and I see you take some wonderful shots with it.
Yes it is better for me and yes I have taken some wonderful shots. You too have taken some exceptional shots with your camera, that I have enjoyed viewing very much.
The argument here is overall value within the system NOT individual vision or artistry within the images.
However it's typical fanboy behaviour to bash the other brand with crazy and exagerated arguments just to bolster your own ego. Fine with me if you believe yourself, but I don't buy it.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh ;)
I have not "bashed" the Sony system ... I merely listed its REAL limitations ... which is WHY most professionals have NOT invested with Sony. If you choose "not" to believe these realities, that is fine with me also, but that doesn't change the actual realities one bit.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh ;)
I really don't think you're laughing at all ... I think you're stuck with your decision and making the best of it. Don't get me wrong: again, I think you've shared some wonderful photos and I admire your work. I just don't think you've chosen the best (or most complete) system to work with.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
That's because they're better made. :D No, just kidding.
I do think the Nikon bodies like the D300, D700 feel a lot more solid than the Canon bodies such as the very good 5D Mk11.
Rubbish. The Canon 7D is by far the better body than the D300. Better ergonomics; better preformance across the board; better period.
Jack
.
-
We have two DSC-W350s bought as Xmas presents in 2010.
My advice is to check out the cost of all the proprietary stuff you need to use with these Sony devices.
First, our cameras didn;t have any memory cards - and wanted Sony's Pro Duo memory sticks.
Second, my little boy lost the battery somehow (he's only 10!) and I bought a cheap replacement from the internet - the camera actually warned me about using 'compatible batteries only' and switched itself off! You can't buy a replacement battery unless Sony say it's ok!
Thirdly, I visited THREE camera shops looking for a cable to allow us to watch the HD films on the telly and got told that they didn't stock "Sony cables". What's that? Yes, you have to buy a really expensive cable (NOT the one supplied in the box) to watch your HD movies!!!
I will NEVER buy another Sony product because I feel they have robbed me by stealth - there is nothing on the box or in the literature that tells you about this being locked in to proprietary accessories and consumables - you only find out after you have made the purchase.
I have two Kodak EasyShare cameras - they use rechargeable batteries from the pound shop and mini-USB cables, also from the pound shop. The memory they take is normal SD card types you can get for a few pounds. Image quality is excellent, but the video is a bit under par.
Why do I need special Sony memory, cables and batteries?
Don't get ripped off like I did.
Oh, the pictures from the Sony are truly exceptional and the product is superb, but my complaint is this terrible policy of forcing you to buy their own brand replacement parts.
Imagine if your car only accepted Ford petrol...
-
Sony are generally asses when it comes to consumer-grade cameras and electronics, but they are very good for professional equipment. The Alpha series, though, being that it's really a re-badged Minolta, is fairly normal to use. No major issues or surprises. I'm not saying it's the best, just that it works as advertised.
I like it because it's inexpensive and is a good alternative for those wanting a full-frame camera.
But the Sigma SD1 is my current toy I lust after. I can't wait until it comes out. Whispers on the Net are indicating that it will be under $2000 and possibly as low as $1500 as a loss-leader to get market share. Selling the body at or near cost and making money on the lenses is a very smart move.
It's supposed to come out this month and will probably blow a hole the size of a Buick through the competition unless it's got some massive glitch or defect. Better pictures than any other (non DB) DSLR and half the price? It's going to be one long waiting list to get one. We've been saying for years that Nikon's pricing structure is completely nuts given the advent of technology and cost reductions. And Sigma looks like it will make it happen very soon.
BTW, you have to love the RAW file size of 50MB per photo. That's some serious data. Even the JPEG is a whopping 7-8MB.
-
Hi John
That kind of discussion is pretty insane. You are entitled to your opinion and so are other posters.
Reality is that most equipment will do a decent job. Some stuff is better than others but there is also a lot of sample to sample variations.
Little doubt that Canon and Nikon have a wider selection of accessories than the smaller vendors, but if both alternatives cover your needs it matters little.
Best regards
Erik
1. And you can't escape the argument that I could buy a Zeiss for my Canon, if I wish, while you canNOT buy a MPE-65 for your Sony if you wish ;)
2. Outstanding bokeh isn't the BEST bokeh;
3. TRANSLATION: you've agreed to settle for mediocrity.
And, of the Canon 100mm f/2.8L, Photozone says, "The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
So you lose again ;)
Exactly right. It's not about one lens, it's about the whole system, and you just clearly articulated YET ANOTHER missing element in the Sony system (where Canon again has the best to be had), which reinforces my position, not yours. You just gave me yet another area where you've "settled" ... rather than chosen the best alternative.
Yep. And, once again, the Canon had BETTER field quality and better mechanical quality ... the Zeiss just beat it on "price/performance" ...
In other words, you listed yet another area where Canon wins ;)
As for being a fanboy, if I were primarily a landscape photographer I already said would own a Nikon ... not a Canon or a Sony ... so why do you call "me" a fanboy, when I freely admit the superiority of another system within certain contexts? What I said was, as a nature photographer (macro and, soon, telephoto) ... as well as for archetecture ... nothing matches the Canon system. So I am not a fanboy either. I just gave my reasons why I would NOT choose Sony for a system ... regardless ... and all you have done so far is apologize and make excuses for what "you" have ...
It is universally-agreed that Canon has the best and widest-range of T/S lenses ... but if you want to argue this fact that is your choice ... yet it has nothing to do with reality.
TRANSLATION: Canon has the better lenses across the board. Sony has "cheaper" lenses in 4 out of 6 cases, and inferior lenses in every case.
Once again you vascilate and refuse to acknowledge Canon superiority. The Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro has 1) better resolution, 2) better AF, 3) better IS, 4) better bokeh, and 5) better weather sealing than the Minolta ... but (AGAIN!) all you can say is "you're willing to settle for less" ... while not actually stating any advantage to your choice. All you can do is make excuses for your "settling" nature ...
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
I haven't "run out of arguments," friend, I just haven't bothered to read this thread in awhile :)
I never said Sony was "bad" ... I stated why I personally wouldn't invest in the system ... which is the fact is offers virtually ZERO actual advantages ... yet carries with the commitment a whole host of DISadvantages. I have never said (or implied) that doesn't mean you can't take nice photos with the Sony system.
Yes it is better for me and yes I have taken some wonderful shots. You too have taken some exceptional shots with your camera, that I have enjoyed viewing very much.
The argument here is overall value within the system NOT individual vision or artistry within the images.
I have not "bashed" the Sony system ... I merely listed its REAL limitations ... which is WHY most professionals have NOT invested with Sony. If you choose "not" to believe these realities, that is fine with me also, but that doesn't change the actual realities one bit.
I really don't think you're laughing at all ... I think you're stuck with your decision and making the best of it. Don't get me wrong: again, I think you've shared some wonderful photos and I admire your work. I just don't think you've chosen the best (or most complete) system to work with.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Rubbish. The Canon 7D is by far the better body than the D300. Better ergonomics; better preformance across the board; better period.
Jack
.
-
Hi John
That kind of discussion is pretty insane. You are entitled to your opinion and so are other posters...
You know Erik, reading John's long diatribes once is usually enough for me. You quoting him fully again constitutes... a cruel and unusual punishment! ;D
-
I haven't "run out of arguments," friend, I just haven't bothered to read this thread in awhile :)
That's fine and I'm glad you're back. I never assumed you agreed with me anyway ;)
I really don't think you're laughing at all ... I think you're stuck with your decision and making the best of it.
There you're wrong John, I'm always highly amused by your relentless and unwavering logic of "what's best for me is best for everybody". Contrary to Slobodan it doesn't irritate me, and your predictable reactions never fail to bring a big smile to my face ;D
I stated why I personally wouldn't invest in the system ... which is the fact is offers virtually ZERO actual advantages ...
This is where I really disagree with you.
Let me tell you what for me the big advantages of the Sony system are that makes me very happy I'm into this system:
1) No other system lets me shoot with stabilized primes like Sony. (20/24/35/50/85/100/135/300 and 500 mm)
2) All Zeiss lenses in the system are AF and stabilized
3) Availability of the bokeh "king" 135 STF and an AF 500 mirror lens
4) Availability of probably the best value for money telezoom, the 70-400G
I'm sure others are won over to Sony for different reasons then for me and you're won over to Canon. I just don't think there is "one size fits all".
Last remark which has nothing to do with brand, but with the type of body you have chosen. You're very liberal in pointing out the mediocricy of a marginal reduction of l/mm of certain lenses vs. their Canon counterparts but then you shoot with an APS-C camera which reduces the resolution for the same output size by a factor of 1.6 :o. I would never call APS-C "mediocre" (it's actually a nice size with certain advantages that I enjoy using), but if resolution is so important to you why not get the real "best of the best" by pairing these high resolution lenses with a FF sensor, so you preserve the maximum of this resolution you seem to value so much.
-
Hi John
That kind of discussion is pretty insane. You are entitled to your opinion and so are other posters.
Insane Erik? You believe it is insane for me to discuss why "I" would not own a Sony on a thread entitled "Would You Ever Buy a Sony?"
To me the insanity is your own position ... essentially saying other posters are entitled to "their" opinion, while saying I am not entitled to mine.
Reality is that most equipment will do a decent job. Some stuff is better than others but there is also a lot of sample to sample variations.
I understand that reality Eric.
But the other reality is the limitation of the Sony system compared to the Canon system, which is why "I" would not invest in the Sony system.
You and Pegelli have merely accepted those limitations; I however have not.
Little doubt that Canon and Nikon have a wider selection of accessories than the smaller vendors, but if both alternatives cover your needs it matters little.
Best regards
Erik
TRANSLATION: Canon and Nikon have more options, which is precisely "why" I chose Canon, and is "why" most pros choose either Canon or Nikon, which (again) has been precisely my point.
______________________________________
______________________________________
You know Erik, reading John's long diatribes once is usually enough for me. You quoting him fully again constitutes... a cruel and unusual punishment! ;D
Yet, Slobo, despite what you say, we can always count on you following me ... like the ankle-biter you were born to be ... wherever I go (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
______________________________________
______________________________________
That's fine and I'm glad you're back. I never assumed you agreed with me anyway ;)
LOL, well, nice to see you too Pegelli (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
There you're wrong John, I'm always highly amused by your relentless and unwavering logic of "what's best for me is best for everybody". Contrary to Slobodan it doesn't irritate me, and your predictable reactions never fail to bring a big smile to my face ;D
LOL again, I am glad you're having as much fun with this as am I :)
This is where I really disagree with you.
Let me tell you what for me the big advantages of the Sony system are that makes me very happy I'm into this system:
1) No other system lets me shoot with stabilized primes like Sony. (20/24/35/50/85/100/135/300 and 500 mm)
2) All Zeiss lenses in the system are AF and stabilized
3) Availability of the bokeh "king" 135 STF and an AF 500 mirror lens
4) Availability of probably the best value for money telezoom, the 70-400G
1. Good point sir.
2. Yes, but even points 1 and 2 are dwarfed by the myriad other benefits, advantages, and multiple lens choices of the Canon system.
3. Again, the 2 lens alternatives you mention are dwarfed by the myriad superior lenses Canon offers (from macro, super-macro, T/S, to super telephoto). There is no point in even re-listing all the superior lens choices available to Canon users, there are that many of them. So your point here is sqashed.
4. Yawn. But the quality of the 70-400mm is going to be dwarfed by the Canon zooms. If a person buys the new-generation Canon 70-200 IS-II, and the new-generation Canon 200-400 IS-II, yes it will be expensive ... but the quality and flexibility will be unsurpassed by any system, from 70m to 400 mm. You can get the "cheaper" lens, if you'd like, but even I refused to buy the Canon 100-400 because I personally don't want to buy a second-class telephoto. I have been waiting for an upgrade to this lens, and was counting on Canon to come through soon, and with the newly-announced 200-400 f/4.0 IS-II, Canon has come through ... and I am sure this lens will more than exceed my expectations ... and so (once again) Canon offers a product of the kind and quality for which Sony has no answer.
I'm sure others are won over to Sony for different reasons then for me and you're won over to Canon. I just don't think there is "one size fits all".
I agree with you good sir. Remember, I am giving my reasons why "I" (as in me, myself (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif) ) would NOT choose a Sony camera. You have stated your reasons why you did so. The fact of the matter is the advantages you speak of work for "you," but they do not wash for me. One thing I do agree on is that you have produced some very nice images with your camera, and I sure do enjoy it when you post them :)
Last remark which has nothing to do with brand, but with the type of body you have chosen. You're very liberal in pointing out the mediocricy of a marginal reduction of l/mm of certain lenses vs. their Canon counterparts but then you shoot with an APS-C camera which reduces the resolution for the same output size by a factor of 1.6 :o. I would never call APS-C "mediocre" (it's actually a nice size with certain advantages that I enjoy using), but if resolution is so important to you why not get the real "best of the best" by pairing these high resolution lenses with a FF sensor, so you preserve the maximum of this resolution you seem to value so much.
I have the EOS 7D, which is the finest APS-C camera available at the moment. I chose this camera over a FF camera because I tend to shoot macro more than anything else (and plan eventually to shoot birds with super-telephoto), and so THE REACH of the 1.6x conversion was more important to me than anything else. The HD video of the 7D was also superior to the 5D MkII, as is the 7Ds AF capability as well as its ergonomics and weather sealing. The kinds of photos I am shooting do not merit "huge" prints beyond 16x24, so quality beyond that point is moot with me.
I have always said that if LANDSCAPE were my primary interest, and if I had larger printing needs, I wouldn't have chosen Canon as my camera at all ... but (here again) I wouldn't have chosen Sony either ... I would have opted for a Nikon D3x and probably the 14-24 f/2.8 as these options are (currently) better than Canon.
Still, I have every confidence that (fairly soon) Canon will be coming out with a new FF body that will trump the Nikon ... as their macros, T/S lenses, super-telephotos, trump Nikon ... as their 7D trumped the D300 ... and as (soon) Canon's 200-400 will trump Nikkor's 200-400.
Maybe someday Sony will trump everybody, I don't know. They're a big company. But right now IMO I think it will be a MUCH longer "wait" for a person to get all the advanatages with Sony that Canon has right now, and continues to come up with.
Maybe this makes me "insane," as Erik suggests, for for looking at (pardon the pun) "the whole picture" and choosing as I did. But considering the fact that more people choose Canon than any other brand, maybe the insanity lies in not simply seeing and admitting all of the advantages that in fact do exist with Canon.
If the particular (and minimal) advantages of Sony are "for you," that's great. But they are negligble and unacceptable "for me."
Anyway, I think we have beaten and kicked this poor dead horse for long enough my friend, so I will sign-off for good on this matter.
Have a good one,
Jack
.
-
Maybe someday Sony will trump everybody, I don't know. They're a big company. But right now IMO I think it will be a MUCH longer "wait" for a person to get all the advanatages with Sony that Canon has right now, and continues to come up with.
I'm betting on Samsung, Fuji, and the like to eventually start offering 25-30MP cameras for $499. If the SD1 comes in at $1500 like rumors say it will, the new players will have simply won while the others are busy sitting on their old achievements. It's a bit like how GM was in the 90s. Stodgy, slow to react to market forces, and generally overpriced. It's no wonder that Hyundai came along and ate them for lunch. Much lower prices, similar quality, and more interesting designs by far.
I wonder what would happen if a major electronics manufacturer made a 25MP DB for $2995? I fear that the days of boutique prices for digital cameras are very quickly running out.
-
... Yet, Slobo, despite what you say, we can always count on you following me ... like the ankle-biter you were born to be ... wherever I go (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Just as we can always count on you resorting to name calling. Besides, between you and me, I was first on this thread (page 1, post #12)... you?... page 3, post #43... so who is following whom? ;)
Anyway, I think we have beaten and kicked this poor dead horse for long enough my friend, so I will sign-off for good on this matter...
Pheeeew! What a commendable power of observation and restraint! And self-criticism! And not a moment too soon... or shall I say not a bandwidth too soon? I was beginning to worry that your bandwidth hogging is being detrimental to the Twitter/FB revolutions in the Arab world. I hear that Gaddafi just recaptured a rebel town because of you. ;D
-
Just as we can always count on you resorting to name calling.
Everything is called by some sort of "name." Names help us all correctly categorize what we're dealing with. I did not swear at you, but if your feminine emotions were "miffed" by my name-choice for you, maybe that's because it came a little too-close-for-comfort to the truth about you.
After all, the "name" I chose for you was "ankle-biter," which IMO very accurately depicts your propensity to follow me around yappin that mouth, much like the kind of small meaningless mutt we have all seen before on every little old lady's porch.
That is pretty much all you ever do is follow me around and yap that mouth.
Besides, between you and me, I was first on this thread (page 1, post #12)... you?... page 3, post #43... so who is following whom? ;)
Stop lying to yourself.
The truth is my original post was a non-inflammatory response which was not directed to you; it was a sincere response to this thread topic and was directed to another gentleman. I never even addressed you.
In point of fact, on page 3 (Feb 04, 2011 @ 11:21am), it was you who once again came to me running your yapping mouth ... just like the ankle-biter I very accurately pegged you to be. You almost never sincerely try to stick to the actual topic, but instead you invariably take-up the stance of a yapping, sarcastic prick and just ramble-on about nothing.
Pheeeew! What a commendable power of observation and restraint! And self-criticism! And not a moment too soon... or shall I say not a bandwidth too soon? I was beginning to worry that your bandwidth hogging is being detrimental to the Twitter/FB revolutions in the Arab world. I hear that Gaddafi just recaptured a rebel town because of you. ;D
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/jackoff.gif)
Case in point.
.
-
...so I will sign-off for good on this matter...
Damn... for a moment I thought you mean it! ;)
-
I agree with you good sir. Remember, I am giving my reasons why "I" (as in me, myself (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif) ) would NOT choose a Sony camera. You have stated your reasons why you did so. The fact of the matter is the advantages you speak of work for "you," but they do not wash for me. One thing I do agree on is that you have produced some very nice images with your camera, and I sure do enjoy it when you post them :)
I wish there was an applause emoticon, because you got my point. In your previous posts you stated the "ZERO advantages" as an absolute, universally true for everybody. I have no problem seeing them as your personal advantages as everybody is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. The world would be pretty boring without them 8). For me my advantage #1 is even the reason that without Sony I'd probably look at Pentax or Oly before considering Canon or Nikon. On the other hand I can see why you see more advantages in Canon, but they either are not important for me, or are too expensive for me to even consider.
-
... After all, the "name" I chose for you was "ankle-biter," which IMO very accurately depicts your propensity to follow me around yappin that mouth...
Coming from a gentleman who surely knows a thing or two about yapping, I'll take it as a compliment. And to stay with canine metaphors, what would that make you: a mad dog? ;D
... The truth is my original post was a non-inflammatory response which was not directed to you; it was a sincere response to this thread topic and was directed to another gentleman. I never even addressed you.
In point of fact, on page 3 (Feb 04, 2011 @ 11:21am), it was you who once again came to me running your yapping mouth ...
So, let me get this straight: if you do not address me directly, I am not allowed to comment on your threads? I thought this is a public forum, and that is what members do all the time: comment on each other's threads. Or that commenting on your general statements with a general statement of my own constitutes "coming to you yapping"?
Oh, wait. You actually do not understand the meaning of the phrase "emperor has no clothes", do you? It was not directed at you personally... I did not call you "emperor" (God forbid)... I did not mean you have no clothes (eeew!).
So, here is the meaning: it applies to all situations in which someone claims certain things (i.e., emperor's new cloths) have certain qualities that are invisible to those stupid and incompetent. You see the trap? If you see and say that 'the emperor has no clothes", you automatically label yourself as stupid and incompetent, as per the fairy tale plot.
What is then the connection with Zeiss (or Leica, or whatever else some people claim to have "mythical" qualities)? Well, some people claim that certain Zeiss lenses have that "3D look", or "something special", "certain aura", "mystique", blah, blah... Like you did in the statement I addressed. Those people also do not bother to demonstrate the difference visually, claiming that if you do not see it, it must be because you are "stupid and incompetent". And that is the parallel with the "emperor has no clothes" tale.
And every time someone claims something similar, I will stand up against it. Why? Because I strongly believe statement like those are detrimental to becoming a better photographer. As long as someone believes that acquiring a lens with "mythical" qualities will give his own photography the same "mythical" status, they will not be stimulated to look for the real ways to improve their photography: learning to see, learning to feel, studying composition, classics, etc. Why all that hard work when they can simply buy a "mythical" lens?
And just in case you missed it in my earlier post: this comes from a guy who has more Zeiss lenses than you can dream of. I am also a Canon user for several decades, but I find your Canon fanboy-ism simply over the top.
-
Btw, forgot my "technical" rebuttal", so here it is
1. Good point sir.
2. Yes, but even points 1 and 2 are dwarfed by the myriad other benefits, advantages, and multiple lens choices of the Canon system.
3. Again, the 2 lens alternatives you mention are dwarfed by the myriad superior lenses Canon offers (from macro, super-macro, T/S, to super telephoto). There is no point in even re-listing all the superior lens choices available to Canon users, there are that many of them. So your point here is sqashed.
4. Yawn. But the quality of the 70-400mm is going to be dwarfed by the Canon zooms. If a person buys the new-generation Canon 70-200 IS-II, and the new-generation Canon 200-400 IS-II, yes it will be expensive ... but the quality and flexibility will be unsurpassed by any system, from 70m to 400 mm. You can get the "cheaper" lens, if you'd like, but even I refused to buy the Canon 100-400 because I personally don't want to buy a second-class telephoto. I have been waiting for an upgrade to this lens, and was counting on Canon to come through soon, and with the newly-announced 200-400 f/4.0 IS-II, Canon has come through ... and I am sure this lens will more than exceed my expectations ... and so (once again) Canon offers a product of the kind and quality for which Sony has no answer.
1) Thanks
2) Not true: an advantage doesn't get dwarfed by a completely different advantage you find in another system
3) Not true: an advantage doesn't get squashed by a completely different advantage you find in another system
4) Yawn, Have you even bothered to check the quality of the 70-400?. At 5x the weight and 10x the cost your suggested combo is not a practical alternative for most people, and I don't think the quality is comparable to the Canon 100-400
So bottom line, Canon has some advantages for you, but these are irrelevant for me and exeeded by several advantages in the Sony system that make Canon unattractive for me.
So throwing more superlatives at us in bold or capitals really isn't helping your case. If you're in a hole stop digging ;)
-
Wow, this pissing match is still going on. What a shame.
-
Damn... for a moment I thought you mean it! ;)
1. I was talking to Pegelli, not you.
2. I was referring to the matter of Sony vs. Canon, not your own unending and perpetual yapping/taunting posts towards me genius.
Is there anything you can understand correctly?
Jack
.
-
I wish there was an applause emoticon, because you got my point. In your previous posts you stated the "ZERO advantages" as an absolute, universally true for everybody. I have no problem seeing them as your personal advantages as everybody is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. The world would be pretty boring without them 8). For me my advantage #1 is even the reason that without Sony I'd probably look at Pentax or Oly before considering Canon or Nikon. On the other hand I can see why you see more advantages in Canon, but they either are not important for me, or are too expensive for me to even consider.
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/appl.gif)
:)
.
-
Coming from a gentleman who surely knows a thing or two about yapping, I'll take it as a compliment. And to stay with canine metaphors, what would that make you: a mad dog? ;D
As previously mentioned, "you almost never sincerely try to stick to the actual topic, but instead you invariably take-up the stance of a yapping, sarcastic prick and just ramble-on about nothing."
All you do is repeatedly prove my point.
So, let me get this straight: if you do not address me directly, I am not allowed to comment on your threads? I thought this is a public forum, and that is what members do all the time: comment on each other's threads. Or that commenting on your general statements with a general statement of my own constitutes "coming to you yapping"?
There is nothing you "get straight" ... on the first try ... but, yes, you're now beginning to see and come to terms with the fact that (once again) you originally addressed me in this thread, and with a yet another sarcastic comment.
Oh, wait. You actually do not understand the meaning of the phrase "emperor has no clothes", do you? It was not directed at you personally... I did not call you "emperor" (God forbid)... I did not mean you have no clothes (eeew!).
So, here is the meaning: it applies to all situations in which someone claims certain things (i.e., emperor's new cloths) have certain qualities that are invisible to those stupid and incompetent. You see the trap? If you see and say that 'the emperor has no clothes", you automatically label yourself as stupid and incompetent, as per the fairy tale plot.
No genius, once again you invent things (and beliefs for other people) that never actually existed.
What is then the connection with Zeiss (or Leica, or whatever else some people claim to have "mythical" qualities)? Well, some people claim that certain Zeiss lenses have that "3D look", or "something special", "certain aura", "mystique", blah, blah... Like you did in the statement I addressed. Those people also do not bother to demonstrate the difference visually, claiming that if you do not see it, it must be because you are "stupid and incompetent". And that is the parallel with the "emperor has no clothes" tale.
Jesus H. Keeriiist ... you really do have a severe disorder where that really does cause you to ramble on about nothing.
Shake your head and clear-out your idiotic daydreams. For a moment.
I merely made a statement about the Zeiss lens.
I never claimed is was either mythical or magical.
I never digressed to any of the things you invented in your head just now.
All I claimed (with quite a bit of support) was that the Zeiss lens had superior qualities in certain respects, producing images than have what many people as having a "3D" look.
Please put the pipe down and stop with your rambling-on about nothing that was actually said.
And every time someone claims something similar, I will stand up against it. Why? Because I strongly believe statement like those are detrimental to becoming a better photographer. As long as someone believes that acquiring a lens with "mythical" qualities will give his own photography the same "mythical" status, they will not be stimulated to look for the real ways to improve their photography: learning to see, learning to feel, studying composition, classics, etc. Why all that hard work when they can simply buy a "mythical" lens?
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/tragic.jpg)
And just in case you missed it in my earlier post: this comes from a guy who has more Zeiss lenses than you can dream of. I am also a Canon user for several decades, but I find your Canon fanboy-ism simply over the top.
I do not "dream" about Zeiss lenses. There are precisely 2 that I plan on getting in the future.
I care nothing for "you," what lenses you have, nor for your misguided tangents to which you repeatedly digress.
The only thing "over the top" are your perpetual and bizarre digressions into the world of fantasy, where simple statements about a lens' superiority somehow get transposed into "Emperors with no clothes" ... or "detriments to improving one's photography" ... while at the same time YOU YOURSELF hilariously bought the very same lens precisely because you too thought it was better (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Now then, do you have the strength not to respond to me anymore?
Jack
.
-
... Now then, do you have the strength not to respond to me anymore?...
YES!
Ooops! I did it... again... Damn!
-
EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.
[/quote]
With the emphasis on "at least"
-
Jack,
Your name calling, rudeness and just plain bad manners have reached a limit.
You've now been banned and this thread is closed.
Lesson to all. We don't tolerate such behavour here. Not when it is repeated without remorse.
Michael