Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: lapino on September 21, 2014, 04:50:36 am
-
Let me first start by saying I'm not a brand loyalist, neither am I trying to stirr up a discussion which is 'better'. I recently sold my 5D3 + L lenses and in the process of either deciding to invest (further) in Sony by buying the A7 (or its successor), or going the Fuji route with the X-system (mainly X-T1 + primes). My main photography is weddings, indoor events and kids/people.
I currently own a Sony a6000 + 16702 + 24Z + SEL50 and I wonder why it is there seems to be so little 'professionals' choosing Sony for their work. Since I've been investigating different systems for a few weeks now, trying to decide what is the 'good' move for me, I bumped into a lot of blogs of professional photographers who either completely sold their SLR setups to go with Fuji, or who use Fuji extensively together with their SLR. I don't see this (almost at all) with Sony. Even though cameras like the a6000 have amazing AF, very good IQ and lens lineup which (if you pay for it) isn't that bad. Same thing for the A7. A lot of photographers seem to like it, but I see very little pro's going the Sony route.
The main reasons I can think of, is mainly the lens lineup of Sony isn't up to par of Fuji (at least quality-wise), but on the other hand, having first hand experience with some of the best glass Sony has to offer, this might be a misconception. Maybe the Sony support is bad compared to Fuji? (which can be a major factor for pro's). Maybe Fuji marketing is doing a better job reaching out to the pro's and Sony is more focussed on the enthusiast?
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about this. I am still very much debating if the Fuji X-T1 + primes can offer me about the same as my 5D3 did, but on the other hand since I already own a Sony system, investing in the Sony FF might be a better bet. Very hard to decide and I must say, by checking out all these blogs, Fuji is pulling me in more and more. It's also strange to see that the Flickr groups seem to show a lot more creativity when it comes to photographs taken with Fuji, compared to the Sony groups which seem kinda generic. Of course it's just the man/woman behind the camera that makes the difference, but browse flickr a bit, the difference is very easy to see.
-
I think you should focus on proven camera performance.
I have been using an a5100 for a few weeks (same sensor/AF as the a6000) and am amazed by the level of performance.
Now, I am a bit less impressed by the lens line-up and that is one thing that Fuji has gotten very right.
Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.
IMHO. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have to admit when I would walk into a church for a wedding with my a6000 + lenses, I too would kinda feel uncomfortable. As stupid as it is, people tend to associate "big" with "pro".
-
Its always been that way though, you should have seen the down the nose looks the old Hasselblad users used to give the Bronica & Mamiya or Pentax MF users and you should have heard the noise when 35mm for weddings started creeping in.
Just pick something you can use without thinking that is reliable and have two or more outfits just in case something goes wrong on the shoot. Which if you where a Hasselblad CM500 user was quite possible especially with their pre CF lenses that where prone to shutter collapse, but no one talked about that did they or the habit of overlapping frames or losing the top of the viewfinder if you used lenses longer than 80mm, or the accidental multi exposures, oh the joys of owning the Rolls Royce of Medium Format film cameras 8)
Paul
-
I would think that besides lenses the jpeg quality plays a role also.
-
Let me first start by saying I'm not a brand loyalist, neither am I trying to stirr up a discussion which is 'better'. I recently sold my 5D3 + L lenses and in the process of either deciding to invest (further) in Sony by buying the A7 (or its successor), or going the Fuji route with the X-system (mainly X-T1 + primes). My main photography is weddings, indoor events and kids/people.
I currently own a Sony a6000 + 16702 + 24Z + SEL50 and I wonder why it is there seems to be so little 'professionals' choosing Sony for their work. Since I've been investigating different systems for a few weeks now, trying to decide what is the 'good' move for me, I bumped into a lot of blogs of professional photographers who either completely sold their SLR setups to go with Fuji, or who use Fuji extensively together with their SLR. I don't see this (almost at all) with Sony. Even though cameras like the a6000 have amazing AF, very good IQ and lens lineup which (if you pay for it) isn't that bad. Same thing for the A7. A lot of photographers seem to like it, but I see very little pro's going the Sony route.
The main reasons I can think of, is mainly the lens lineup of Sony isn't up to par of Fuji (at least quality-wise), but on the other hand, having first hand experience with some of the best glass Sony has to offer, this might be a misconception. Maybe the Sony support is bad compared to Fuji? (which can be a major factor for pro's). Maybe Fuji marketing is doing a better job reaching out to the pro's and Sony is more focussed on the enthusiast?
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about this. I am still very much debating if the Fuji X-T1 + primes can offer me about the same as my 5D3 did, but on the other hand since I already own a Sony system, investing in the Sony FF might be a better bet. Very hard to decide and I must say, by checking out all these blogs, Fuji is pulling me in more and more. It's also strange to see that the Flickr groups seem to show a lot more creativity when it comes to photographs taken with Fuji, compared to the Sony groups which seem kinda generic. Of course it's just the man/woman behind the camera that makes the difference, but browse flickr a bit, the difference is very easy to see.
Well, Sony used to be Minolta, which had very little to offer for pros even after they introduced the Maxxum auto-focus cameras.
-
Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.
Very true. Had Sony used the Minolta brand, or better still bought the rights to use Contax, things might be very different
-
Now, Fuji's lenses are high IQ, but terrible manual controls. So it is a love hate deal with Fuji.
-
I haven't looked at any Fuji digital but the brand itself is old an trusted with me. In the film days I used almost all Fuji chrome and color neg, no yellow boxes for me. Some of my best prints came from labs printing on Fuji papers, their view camera lenses were (are?) generally on par with Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider, and their fixed lens 6x7 rangefinder cameras were relatively lightweight marvels. In almost any photographic field, Fuji has my trust and would need to work to lose it.
-
I feel the manual controls are ok with the Fujis, if you are not in a rush. If you need to change settings fast the current DSLRs are significantly faster (have no experience with the advanced m4/3). I almost get the idea behind Nikon DF, using classical manual controls but keeping the modern DSLRs controls also, from what I hear the implementation needs some rethinking though.
-
The thing with Fuji is that the lenses are stellar on a small lightweight unobtrusive body. Large prints on the whole surpass the best that the 5D II could manage. Sony didn't have the lens line-up and there was uncertainty surrounding the direction Sony was heading. That could well change dramatically as the range of auto-focus lenses improve.
-
Very true. Had Sony used the Minolta brand, or better still bought the rights to use Contax, things might be very different
You cannot be serious. Sony has a better reputation than Minolta.
-
There's some sort of intangible going on here. Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras. hat's a weird thing to say, but there seems to be some truth to it. They're ugly - that's one problem. The ergonomics and UI are never that great. Keeps it from being an object of desire. Fuji builds sexy cameras. (Also with not so great UI), but there's something attractive about the form. And the images are good (not better than Sony necessarily, but just fine) so people go Fuji.
Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...
- N.
-
There's some sort of intangible going on here. Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras. hat's a weird thing to say, but there seems to be some truth to it. They're ugly - that's one problem. The ergonomics and UI are never that great. Keeps it from being an object of desire. Fuji builds sexy cameras. (Also with not so great UI), but there's something attractive about the form. And the images are good (not better than Sony necessarily, but just fine) so people go Fuji.
Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...
- N.
I think there is some truth to that. Sony took over Minolta, so they don't have the long train of experience of making cameras.
-
There's some sort of intangible going on here. Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras... They're ugly - that's one problem. Fuji builds sexy cameras. Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...
Amusing but interesting sideline.
Never liked the look of the Sony Nex series, but I do like
The A7 series, (reminds me of the Leicaflex, Nikon F/ FM's slimline attraction).
The Fuji X-E2 ( reminds me of the Leica M)
Leica S (and M)
Olympus E-M10 (much preferred to the E-M1)
Nikon D3/D3x ( the last good-looking Nikon camera )
Don't like:
The Fuji X-T1 ( the angles are wrong, doesn't have the simple clean lines of the X-E)
Any of the latest Nikon / Canon plastic blob offerings ( D810 included)
So thinking about it, yup, I do think that some cameras have sex appeal - perhaps enough to at least influence Spock's choice ...
-
For many "pros" availability of rental gear and fast repair trumps everything else. Both companies offer pro programs for loaners and repairs, and because of their market dominance rental houses in big media cities have lots of rental equipment.
If you're not someone who makes their full-time living from photography, and who needs these amenities, then simply buy the system that appeals to you the most. As I've written before.... most cameras are better than most photographers.
Do what makes you happy.
Michael
-
Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.
IMHO. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
If you interviewed people on the street what associations come to mind when the names Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are mentioned, I suggest most would say: Walkman/cassette decks, TV's, and refrigerators/cell phones.
The names Canon, Nikon, Fuji would most probably elicit "photography".
It takes a long time to build a track record of accomplishments.
Personally, I'd be hesitant to look at one of the first three. But I'd also put Olympus into the Fuji category.
There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said: "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".
BTW - he is a pro photographer.
Glenn
-
There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said: "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".
BTW - he is a pro photographer.
I am not surprised, the Fuji line up is impressive. Considering that Fuji uses Sony sensors "base", it would be fairly easy for them to release a 24mp version with excellent DR/noise characteristics.
I guess they are just pacing their releases to ensure a sustainable stream of income in the coming years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you interviewed people on the street what associations come to mind when the names Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are mentioned, I suggest most would say: Walkman/cassette decks, TV's, and refrigerators/cell phones.
The names Canon, Nikon, Fuji would most probably elicit "photography".
It takes a long time to build a track record of accomplishments.
Personally, I'd be hesitant to look at one of the first three. But I'd also put Olympus into the Fuji category.
There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said: "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".
BTW - he is a pro photographer.
Glenn
Would Sony have been better off to retain the brand name Minolta, assuming this was an option? I don't think so.
-
Sont to me dont seem a good pro choice for so many reasons.
They are an electronics company not a camera company - this comes out a lot in their designs and in limited lenses
Many many bodies , mostly lower end and aiming upwards rather than starting at the pro end working down. Their pro bodies are few and far between and often dont have the feature set needed to keep up
Headline features win over usability. If sony can give you 14fps in a useless way they will because it looks good on the box. A pro doesnt like to find out that 14fps is for 12bit files with no metering or autofocus when they unpack the gear
No developed pro network for support. Canons CPS service will do its best to help you get your job done. Where is sonys support. where is sonys room full of gear at big events etc?
I doubt anyone would say you cant shoot pro with sony but they make it much harder to have a convincing argument to try , than canon or nikon.
-
Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?
The photo sensor unit if the last few generations of the iPhone is from Sony and it seems that in the iPhone 6 the combination of software and hardware is very close to really justify dumping most P & S cameras - so ?
Canon can be described as a photocopier company or a printer company - so ?
-
as we all know when you buy camera, especially lens-intercahngeable ones. we are buying into a system and not just a mere camera body.
sony, since they took over, has made a few reboots of the whole system. first, they did well with the A900 and A850, it was at the time a big step up. but unforunately, not enough to tempt other away from nikon/canon. Then they introduce the SLT and completely discontinued the DSLR line. Especially at that time, EVF technology wasnt really up that it. then they did it again, this time even changing the mount and come up with this LA-EA cccc. also the hot shoe as well, all changed.
pro needs stability, they have enough cccc to deal with on a daily basis, like arranging logistic, commerical, budget etc etc, they dont want to worry about having to change out their whole kit again and again every few years just because Sony's business isnt working out.
i dont think it's pro (((prefers))) fuji over sony. more like they just dont want sony fullstop. it's not like they have to have one or the other. many pro picks m43 too. :)
(disclaimer: i use sigma DP2/3m, Fuji S5pro, XE1, Sony A77, A7, A6000. and im not into pro business.)
-
Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?
So their emphasis is on whizy electronics, and yes great sensors. Not so munch on things like practical ergonomics, optics and many choices they go with are more for engineers than photography, time and again I look at their cameras and wonder why. Why didnt they ask just a hand full of real shooters to try them out..?
Canon can be described as a photocopier company or a printer company - so ?
Who were originally called precision optics company limited and have made cameras and optics since 1934, yes they make other stuff but photography is at the heart of their business. not so sony.
Whoever started this thread asked why, thats my reasons why I dont look at sony as such a good choice for a professional. If you dont like them suck it up. They are mine.
-
Fuji have a long history in photography both with film, medium format and large format lenses. Sony’s commitment to photography has been in doubt, they are an electronics manufacturer and though they have been around a while their previous cameras have not made much of an impact and smaller cameras were distinctly non-pro (NEX). Sony’s strategy and systems seem a bit all over the place while Fuji (while having tons of models) has built their cameras around one system and given a roadmap for lenses which gives more confidence investing.
For most pros most of these small cameras are still ‘second’ cameras to a canon, nikon dslr system and fuji are just a lot more appealing/familiar with rangefinder looks, controls and marketing.
-
Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?
I think what was meant is not that Sony makes electronic devices but more importantly that they don't do anything else (than the electronic stuff, that is). A camera is not only about specs, its about user experience and being able to communicate your intentions to your tool in a timely and confortable manner. IMO Sony failed on all other points until the A7, and even then you still see its an electronic device and no so well built (that's a personal opinion of course but hey, look at the cables behind the tilting screen when you tilt it up, and all the stories about the shutter vibration and so on...), also the A7 line has not been out long enough to restore confidence.
(disclamer : I'm not a pro, and my opinion are mostly based on my investigations during the time I was looking for a mirrorless system to switch to, and since I didn't needed the high pixel count or the focusing speed, the X-t1 was a no-brainer.)
-
Probably off topic, but I was shooting at a classical guitar concert the other night. I used my Fujis, as they are close enough to silent that I could shoot without bothering anyone. Another photog was shooting with a Sony A7, and I was honestly surprised at how loud the shutter was. I was thinking that one advantage to mirrorless bodies was that the shutter sound was significantly muted (or sometimes gone altogether with an electronic shutter.)
Returning to the topic, I use Canon at work, and have gone through a number of mirrorless options for personal work. I had Panasonic for awhile, and didn't feel any angst due to Panny being an "electronics company." The cameras were pretty good, the lenses very good. But the Fuji cameras hit all the right buttons for me -- the old school user interface, excellent lenses, good color quality, excellent high ISO image quality, and an unquantifiable feeling while shooting. I've spent far too much on my Fuji system, but I shoot about 80% of my "work" work with them, and all of my personal work.
-
I think what was meant is not that Sony makes electronic devices but more importantly that they don't do anything else
Actually, they make movies and gear that's used to make movies. They have more street cred there than most of their competition in the still camera division (Except Fuji, because of their film and lens heritage). So it's not like they were making walkmans one day and went straight into camera gear the next.
Besides, most of the Minolta guys went to Sony after the acquisition. From what I know, their current R&D is bigger than what Minolta's has ever been.
I really get what Sony is doing. They can't compete with Canikon offering the same stuff, so they are looking for the next disruption. This means abandoning some projects after a while. They want to get marketshare and mindshare. Fuji isn't very keen on gaining marketshare and are happy doing evolutionary things. They appeal to different people.
Regarding the pro argument though, Not Sony, not Fuji, not anyone can touch CPS and NPS. This is a fact and thus makes all these brands non viable to the sports/ event shooter. But if you're a pro who's more into portraiture/ landscaping/ fine art etc. any of the brands will work just fine. I know and know of several who do great work with Sony and Fuji. e.g. David Hobby shoots Fuji, Frank Doorhof shoots Sony. Both do amazing work.
"Street cred" can only go so far. The rest is all about how the system appeals to your personal use.
-
Hi,
I would say your analysis is probably pretty good.
What I would add that it takes a lot of consistency to build a reputation. The NPS and CPS is important stuff.
The A7/A7r seems to be a pretty smart move, but not enough for me jumping on that train, but it is quite possible that I will do that with a later model.
Just to mention, I have an Alpha 99 which shares sensor with the A7. The A7r has an older sensor that lacks on sensor phase detection, so it relies on contrast detecting AF and it also lacks electronic first curtain. The lack of EFC means that the shutter needs to be closed pre exposure. I always use EFC on the Alpha 99.
The third aspect for me is that I always carry some long lens, so camera size is not really an issue for me, because the long lens decides the size.
Finally, I have a P45+ giving me a bit more pixels, so I am not starved for resolution. Besides that, 24MP is fine for what I am doing.
But give me 50MP, on sensor PDAF, subsampled video, raw histograms a larger battery, a few more good lenses and an OLP filter and I may be glad to climb on that train.
The lenses may come from Sigma, Zeiss, Zony or some firm in China as long as they are good optically and allow manual focus.
I would add that I am not a pro, just and engineer taking pictures. Some of those are shown here:
http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Added:
One thing to note is that Fuji made attractive cameras, sort of retro well made, some even having an optical view finder. But they did not venture into full frame. It can be that APS-C with enough MP, excellent lenses and Fuji's non Beyer CFA are good enough for demanding customers. So, they don't need full frame.
Best regards
Erik
Actually, they make movies and gear that's used to make movies. They have more street cred there than most of their competition in the still camera division (Except Fuji, because of their film and lens heritage). So it's not like they were making walkmans one day and went straight into camera gear the next.
Besides, most of the Minolta guys went to Sony after the acquisition. From what I know, their current R&D is bigger than what Minolta's has ever been.
I really get what Sony is doing. They can't compete with Canikon offering the same stuff, so they are looking for the next disruption. This means abandoning some projects after a while. They want to get marketshare and mindshare. Fuji isn't very keen on gaining marketshare and are happy doing evolutionary things. They appeal to different people.
Regarding the pro argument though, Not Sony, not Fuji, not anyone can touch CPS and NPS. This is a fact and thus makes all these brands non viable to the sports/ event shooter. But if you're a pro who's more into portraiture/ landscaping/ fine art etc. any of the brands will work just fine. I know and know of several who do great work with Sony and Fuji. e.g. David Hobby shoots Fuji, Frank Doorhof shoots Sony. Both do amazing work.
"Street cred" can only go so far. The rest is all about how the system appeals to your personal use.
-
as we all know when you buy camera, especially lens-intercahngeable ones. we are buying into a system and not just a mere camera body.
sony, since they took over, has made a few reboots of the whole system. first, they did well with the A900 and A850, it was at the time a big step up. but unforunately, not enough to tempt other away from nikon/canon. Then they introduce the SLT and completely discontinued the DSLR line. Especially at that time, EVF technology wasnt really up that it. then they did it again, this time even changing the mount and come up with this LA-EA cccc. also the hot shoe as well, all changed.
pro needs stability, they have enough cccc to deal with on a daily basis, like arranging logistic, commerical, budget etc etc, they dont want to worry about having to change out their whole kit again and again every few years just because Sony's business isnt working out.
i dont think it's pro (((prefers))) fuji over sony. more like they just dont want sony fullstop. it's not like they have to have one or the other. many pro picks m43 too. :)
(disclaimer: i use sigma DP2/3m, Fuji S5pro, XE1, Sony A77, A7, A6000. and im not into pro business.)
Bingo! I think this is a big part of it. Sony seems very prone to dumping an entire line of products in pursuit of "the next thing" and that produces instability and a reluctance for professionals to commit to a "system" that might be extinct in a couple of years. I think the success of the A7 series is due, at least in part, to the ability to adapt legacy lenses from other systems onto the body at nominal cost. That lowers the "buy in" cost to something truly nominal for a professional and doesn't require one to marry the system for the long haul. I also think that a lot of Canon users in particular have bought the A7r as a stop gap measure until Canon comes through with a D800e equivalent or greater.
Rand
-
I have been trying to work these smaller cameras into my workflow. Last year I got the A7 when it came out. I used it with manual focus glass and got some decent results (http://iantaylors.blogspot.com/2013/11/sony-a7-voigtlander-lenses.html). Ultimately I couldn't really connect with it so I sold it.
This year I started using the Fuji XT1 and I like it much better. I have done a few small projects with it, like this (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.808797565848900.1073741861.171846589544004&type=3) and this (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.763066710421986.1073741855.171846589544004&type=3). I prefer the old school dials which allow me to adjust everything I need without taking my eye from the viewfinder. And the lenses are great. (I have 2 primes.)
Ultimately I was hoping to use the Fuji to replace my M9 for travel projects, but I think I will use them both the time being. As for my regular job as a candid kids photographer (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.222396367822359.55989.171846589544004&type=3), the focus on these isn't the speed I need for day to day action shooting. I think they are getting there though.