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.
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!
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
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
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
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
) 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 . 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,