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
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
.