Why does everyone overlook Sony?

[finbarqs]

I know sony endorses massive amounts of Zeiss glass... but hey, Zeiss makes glass for Nikon and Canon... Give me a Sony, and i'll use it. I'm not loyal to neither Nikon nor Canon. I've used both systems (D100, D300), (XTi, 5D, 5D Mark 2) and it's all good. The only thing that "superior" is the low light capabilities of nikons and canons. Sure, Sony probably makes the sensor for Nikons but some how, nikon is still able to bust out the low light images as if its life depended on it.

 

[blastingcap]

The simple answer is either people have another reason to choose Nikon/Canon or they don't consider these to be advantages.

I fall in the later category. Consider image stabilization and reasons why people might consider lens-shift superior to sensor-shift:

1. Corrected finder image makes photo composition easy.
Because camera movement is compensated within the lens in use, you can see a clear finder image. This makes it easier to capture your subject in the focus frame and confirm composition. With a camera that corrects image blur inside the camera body, the image in the finder remains blurred.
2. Each lens is optimally tuned to achieve reliable correction.
Unlike cameras that only provide an internal image-blur function, every lens is optimized. As a result, you can shoot at shutter speeds up to three or four stops slower than would otherwise be possible.
3. Image information captured by the AF and metering sensors is corrected with in-lens VR.
This is a major difference from the in-camera VR. The result is faster and more accurate autofocusing and exposure metering.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]4. Patterns of image blur are not the same with all lenses.[/FONT]
Image blur caused by camera movement differs with each lens used. This phenomenon is more noticeable when you use a lens with a longer focal length. So each lens should be finely tuned.



Likewise a lot of folks, like me, see the lens AF motor as superior to an in-camera Af motor. I also consider OVF to be superior to a DVF.

All that being said, I do understand why people hold the opposite opinions.

JR

The OIS vs. IBIS thing used to be true, but google E-M5 or OM-D and you may be impressed by what Olympus has done. In-lens stabilization (aka OIS) can't correct rolling motions. Furthermore, Oly's new IBIS compensates shake everywhere, including the viewfinder and even during videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT2XVHccqfo

Anyway, to OP:

The main reason is because CaNikon have unrivaled after-market support. Accessories like flashes, underwater housing, grips, you name it. And of course CaNikon lens selection is miles ahead of almost everyone else.

So it's not just Sony that suffers, everybody else that makes SLRs or anything similar to SLRs suffers. Sony, Sigma, Pentax, Olympus, etc. all suffer. Fuji didn't even want to direct compete with them so they are trying to be a poor man's Leica and Leica of course just wants to keep their rangefinder niche.

In Sony's case, I don't care about them. I flacking hate Sony's stupid DRM policies, the rootkit fiasco, and incessant attempts to create proprietary standards, whether minidisc or their own music format or Blu-Ray or Betamax or Memory Stick. They may be changing their ways under new management but only in areas where they know they are at a huge disadvantage, like the E-mount vs. CaNikon.

 

[Sp12]

Biggest issue for me is the Sony-hotshoe and inability to flip up the mirror for even single shots on their SLTs. Ideally I would like to use it as a mirrorless with MF lenses anyway. It's especially lame for astro/landscape where you know it's eating IQ without any benefits.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Huh? Sony's SLT series is 10FPS or faster now.

Personally, I almost never shoot burst (actually, in 2004, I did a client shoot using burst, but that's an exception). I think of it like the assault rifles in the military. One shot is accurate. Seven all miss. But I do see it being useful in some situations, so it's not an invalid point. 10FPS is the new "top end" standard. It used to be 8FPS ever since the Nikon F5 came out in the mid 1990s. (before that it was 5FPS from the Nikon F4).

But the shutter lag is huge for sports and action, as well as general "feel".

The 37ms shutter lag of the D2H has never been beat on any camera. Not on the F6, not on the D3 or D4, not on the 1DMk4.

Sure, it's partially because it was the last pro-grade camera using a 1.5x crop, but it's still noticeable to me when I pick up and use my old D2H.

The D700 and Canon 1D series are in the 70ms range and the D4 is in the low 40ms range. Still great, but the best Sony cameras are in the ~120-140ms range and apparently vary noticeably from one body to another (not sure why). Of course, the 5dMkII was a notably slow camera and was almost 200ms shutter lag, which is *terrible* if you were a shooting competitive sports, for example.

But, for many things, it's probably just fine. It just doesn't "feel" quite as quick. I hate to be the guy that goes on feel, but I've just gotten so used to one speed, and going back feels like it's covered in maple syrup! :-D

Still good cameras, no doubt. Honestly, lens (and flash) selection is still the biggest thing to me, but the others also mattered when comparing the "in my hands" feel when I tried out the Sony.

 

[Throckmorton]

The A65 has a shutter release time of 50ms... pretty good.

World’s shortest release time lag3

Helps ensure that the image you want is the image you get. Once auto focus occurs, release time lag is the delay between fully pressing the shutter release and when the camera actually starts taking the picture. Long lag makes it harder to capture fast-moving objects. The Sony A65 boasts the world’s shortest release time lag at only 0.05 seconds.3

 

[Throckmorton]

Biggest issue for me is the Sony-hotshoe and inability to flip up the mirror for even single shots on their SLTs. Ideally I would like to use it as a mirrorless with MF lenses anyway. It's especially lame for astro/landscape where you know it's eating IQ without any benefits.

I think that would have been a good feature--- allow flipping the mirror and using contrast detect autofocus instead, like the NEX cameras that use the same sensors.

 

[natto fire]

For me, I already had Canon lenses, and I have never seen Sony SLRs used in a professional setting. Same reason I don't use Cutco knives in my kitchen.

 

[vbuggy]

For me, I already had Canon lenses, and I have never seen Sony SLRs used in a professional setting. Same reason I don't use Cutco knives in my kitchen.

Not really an accurate analogy, and I'll refer anyone reading your post back to post #12.

Established pros learn and adapt slowly, and are conservative in their choices. Sony has only been in the SLR game 6 years. That the bulk of established pros don't use it is not necessarily an indication that it's not as effective a tool.

 

[RobDickinson]

Sony cant find pro users who use sony cameras to shoot sony promo stuff...

Its also taken them years to make a 300/2.8 and its $15000...

 

[Throckmorton]

Not really an accurate analogy, and I'll refer anyone reading your post back to post #12.

Established pros learn and adapt slowly, and are conservative in their choices. Sony has only been in the SLR game 6 years. That the bulk of established pros don't use it is not necessarily an indication that it's not as effective a tool.

6 years because that's when they bought Minolta. It's just a brand name change.

Would Sony cameras be more popular if they kept the Minolta brand? Did pros use Minolta in the film days?

 

[corkyg]

Sony makes excellent TVs and video equipment. Harking back to the days of Betamax vs. VHS, I have always found Sony to try and be as proprietary as possible. Same for their Vaio laptops. And, since I have invested in 6 Canon lenses, I simply don't care to look at their DSLRs. And, I endorse Rob's sentiment above. \

BTW, my first 3 SLRs were Minoltas. That was circa 1965 as I recall.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

The OIS vs. IBIS thing used to be true, but google E-M5 or OM-D and you may be impressed by what Olympus has done. In-lens stabilization (aka OIS) can't correct rolling motions. Furthermore, Oly's new IBIS compensates shake everywhere, including the viewfinder and even during videos.

SuperCool. Thanks.

"The company has also totally reworked its built-in image stabilization system. The new design is described as 5-axis (translational movement vertically and horizontally, and rotational movement around 3 axes - shown below), in contrast to the previous system that only corrected for up/down and left/right rotation. If it works, the ability to correct for rotation around the lens axis caused by pressing the shutter button offers a clear advantage over in-lens stabilization systems. Meanwhile, correction for translational movements promises more effective stabilization for macro photography at high magnifications. The system continues to work in video. Although none of these systems is inherently original, this is the first camera we've seen to incorporate them all at once, so we'll be interested to see how well the system works."

JR

 

[Sp12]

Sony cant find pro users who use sony cameras to shoot sony promo stuff...

Its also taken them years to make a 300/2.8 and its $15000...

First claim seems preposterous. No real pros use anything but Hassy and P1. Second is false. The Sony 300/2.8 is a bit less than the Canon/Nikon versions.

 

[RobDickinson]

First claim seems preposterous. No real pros use anything but Hassy and P1. Second is false. The Sony 300/2.8 is a bit less than the Canon/Nikon versions.

Plenty of pro's use canon and nikon....

http://www.photographybay.com/2010/...tures-sonys-official-cyber-shot-promo-images/

ooops...

Sorry it was the 500/4 I was thinking of, announced 2007, delivery ... soon... built to order...

 

[corkyg]

Here's the word of a recognized pro sports photog . . . I could not find any images or references to Sonys.

http://scottkelby.com/2009/its-guest-blog-wednesday-featuring-mike-olivella-2/

 

[Throckmorton]

Are there really none of those massive lenses for the AF mount aside from the one made by Sony?

 

[Throckmorton]

Apparently not based on Adorama's selection. The huge Sigma is only for Nikon, Canon, and Sigma

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...sf=Price&st=de

 

[vbuggy]

Well, going by this thread at least I know in the Sony camp there are far fewer armchair 'Pro's'

Apparently not based on Adorama's selection. The huge Sigma is only for Nikon, Canon, and Sigma

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...sf=Price&st=de

There is an A-mount.

 

[ultimatebob]

I don't know about everyone else, but my reasons are:

* I already have a pretty big investment in Canon flashes and lenses.
* Sony's lens selection seems a bit weak.
* Sony's business practices overall seem shady to me. I think back and remember Sony doing stupid things in the past like putting rootkits on their music CD's and disabling Linux support on the PS3... and I wonder if they'll do something equally stupid with their camera firmware in the future.

 

[Cattykit]

Regarding EVF, check Luminous-Landscape's article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_six_month_on.shtml

I do like the idea of EVF but it still sucks for me to really like it. The only reason I'd use it is because OVF is useless when shooting video. For stills, EVF simply sucks and hurts your eyes in the long run.

The problem with Sony is that they like to release new models instead of fixing existing problems via firmware update.

I also do not like their JPEG processing. Out of all the DSLR,T makers, they're the only one that utilizes the kind of processing you'd expect from P&S and cell-phone cameras - smearing pixels to the point it becomes a watercolor paintings instead of pictures.

Stability issues. Out of so many cameras with their own problems and QC issues, A77 and A65 were the worst. So many general problems and bugs here and there.

The worst is their UI system. I was speechless when they released a mid-range DSLT(A77) with a horrible aperture and shutter menu delay. I don't know what to expect from Sony DSLT when it can't even show aperture and shutter speed value in real-time.

 

[Throckmorton]

His complaint about the EVF in low light is based on a situation where he had the camera set to 100 ISO! The EVF is set up so it approximates what the shot will look like, so it's no surprise the girls' faces weren't visible.

Why would EVF hurt your eyes in the long run?

 

[RobDickinson]

On some sony's you cant switch exposure simulation OFF with the EVF. Makes studio work next to impossible.

I had a play with an A77 at the weekend, 50/1.4 mounted (very small!), viewfinder looked ok in half decent light but very laggy. Controls and menus were terrible.

 

[vbuggy]

His complaint about the EVF in low light is based on a situation where he had the camera set to 100 ISO! The EVF is set up so it approximates what the shot will look like, so it's no surprise the girls' faces weren't visible.

Why would EVF hurt your eyes in the long run?

I'd agree with that assessment of the EVF actually - that it lacks dynamic range in terms of what you would be able to see if it was an OVF. I'll definitely like to see an improvement (and obviously we will likely be seeing it) in this regard.

The key is though, and what those without shooting experience with the EVF dismiss, is seeing what is captured. By the photog's admission he had to massage the shadowed image to get the 'what I would have seen' image. i.e. he was seeing pretty much what the photo would come out like. And for me, becasue I don't have pretentions about being this super-pro, that is actually a plus.

Two things you should however obviously realise that SLT's are not suited for: consistently fast action and low light - these bring to the fore the disadvantages of the EVF. But in regular portraiture, street and landscape I find the plusses outweight the minuses.

Why would EVF hurt your eyes? No idea. The location of the viewfinder and possibly the diopter correction on the NEX-7 does weird things to my eyes though - it just feels wrong in a bizarre way. No such problems on the A65 weirdly enough.

On a tangential note, am I the only one in this thread who actually has owned a regular DSLR and an SLT and isn't therefore talking out of their ass (in the vein of the 'it's different and I know everything so it sucks when I went into the shop for a 30-second biased try')?

 

[Throckmorton]

I've only used SLRs when tourists have asked me to take their picture. I don't like it. The image is dark and seems distorted. There's no relationship between what you see and what the photo ends up looking like, the exact opposite of an EVF.

I'm used to EVFs though, because I've been using one since I got a Fuji 2800Z in 2002. Then it died in 2006 and I got a Minolta A1 from eBay. Last year I got a Sony HX1 and decided to learn actual controls instead of using "auto". So to me an optical viewfinder just feels wrong.

 

[vbuggy]

Yeah - there's a reason why there isn't a flagship SLT yet. It's not a 'true pro' - aimed platform at this time for sure. And you are more likely to feel comfortable with it if you didn't e.g. look down your nose at a P&S bridge.

It works both ways though. A good number of photographers, perhaps if not the majority of those who make their living at it, edit on Macs - and the computer being pretty much half the game these days, they presumably don't think that they're any less 'professional' despite buying into the 'my ego is bigger than my ability' platform. It's more about if you can pick the right tool for you and the specific need, or whether you know the compromises involved in picking one.

For me, if I need a true pro camera there are plenty of decent options, and none of them involve SLT. In fact the best camera I use now I don't own - in my recent and fairly accelerated round of camera replacements I ditched full-frame and rent medium format for studio shots when I need it. However for a general-purpose SLR, I have to say the A65 works for me better than the 60D, which as I said before the A65 supplanted.

Now I have no real financial constraints in terms of buying glass for separate families once I fully know it's for me, so that will undoubtedly influence people's choices - but what I will say is that a choice made just on the basis of 'well I already have x family glass' is not necessarily an indication that what you didn't choose is inferior for a particular use.

I have to say that while I bought the A65 as a hedge, and with cheap lenses at first - i.e. I didn't want to commit too heavily to SLT to start with, I don't plan to move up to the 77 as I'm pretty comfortable with the 65, though I'm in the process of replacing most of my initial lens purchases with G's or Zeiss. I think I'll probably upgrade the body when they make significant changes to the EVF the next time around - as the EVF is definitely not anywhere near perfect yet. Slightly less noisy sensor also wouldn't be amiss.