would you ever buy a Sony?

[Plekto]

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.

[Lightsmith]

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.

[ronkruger]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[pegelli]

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
 

[Plekto]

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.

[pegelli]

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 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 

[24x36]

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!

[JohnKoerner]

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. 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




.

[Ironbollox]

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...

[Plekto]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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




.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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!

[pegelli]

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  

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  . 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.

[JohnKoerner]

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!

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,

Jack




.

[Plekto]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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

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.  

[JohnKoerner]

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.  

Case in point.




.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...so I will sign-off for good on this matter...

Damn... for a moment I thought you mean it!

[pegelli]

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

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  . 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.