Why does everyone overlook Sony?

[Throckmorton]

It's always Canon this, Nikon that. What about Sony SLRs and SLTs?

There are major advantages to Sony:

1) In-body autofocus motor. You can use old Minolta lenses which are much cheaper, and also that your new expensive lenses have fewer parts to go bad. How did it even become a convention to stuff an autofocus motor into a lens and duplicate that functionality with every single lens you own?

2) Sensor shift stabilization. It works with every lens, even primes and mirror lenses.

3) SLTs have an EVF. A lot of people consider this a disadvantage, but I disagree. You see what the camera sees, so you don't have to guess about exposure. It's also brighter than an OVF, 100% coverage, and on these cameras has almost zero lag. It also allows features like guide lines. Plus you can shoot into the sun or reflective objects without damaging your eyes.

4) SLTs have phase detect autofocus for video (the purpose of SLT in the first place).

 

[DarkRogue]

Whenever I ask my friends about these other brands, his usual comment is that their lens lineup is not quite as good as Canon's.

He has a 5d2 and quite a number of Canon lenses, although he's going to be trying out that new Olympus one.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

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.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Lens shift correction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Sensor shift correction[/FONT]​

[/FONT]

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

 

[RobDickinson]

Lens line up
The EVF (in base models you cant even turn of exposure simulation)
The pellicle mirror sucking 30% of your light
Commitment to SLR's in general
Too many new models
Poor implementation - IQ always comes a poor second to usability and headline grabbing tickbox marketing ( always on noise reduction, 12 bit adc/files etc).

They arnt poor cameras but I think picking one up and comparing it , in real use , in your hands, to a canon or nikon it falls flat.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Basically it comes down to a matter of focus, and inertia. The folks who know the most about cameras (and using them) are the professional photographers and extreme hobbyists.

Bodies come and go, but lenses are forever. The number of lenses available for Nikon and Canon is much larger than for any other system. I don't just mean how many different lens types are manufactured; I mean how many are out there in the world, and how easy it is to get your hands on them. I don't think I've ever seen somebody in a photography forum with a serious collection of high-end Sony or Pentax glass. Not even enough to match my meager Canon collection, which is just 3 relatively cheap L zooms and 3 non-L primes. Let alone the dudes with multiple f/2.8 telephotos, multiple f/1.2 and f/1.4 L primes, etc. (same with Nikon although I am not as familiar with the exact lenses) These are all lens collections built up over years of work in the case of pros, and years of saving in the case of hobbyists like myself.

The used market is an important consideration, as is the new market. How many stores carry Canon and Nikon? Best Buy carries a couple of "L" lenses, last time I checked, and a couple of pricey Nikon lenses too. Dedicated local photo shops often have almost the full lineup of Canon and Nikon in stock to rent or purchase. That's what the pros use, so that's what they stock. So if some dude with a Rebel walks into the store then they can look and try out all the Canon lenses they have.

But even that extremely important consideration also just a part of the equation. How easy is it to get a replacement lens if yours goes bad, or to send it in to get serviced with quick turnaround. How many of your peers are using each system, who among your mentors uses each system. You will find almost all serious pros in the most widespread/popular forms of photography (event photography, sports photography) using Canikon, and it just filters down from there.

That's what the pros use, they give their advice to the extreme hobbyists, the extreme hobbyists give their advice to the lesser hobbyists, the lesser hobbyists give their advice to the soccer moms.

IMO it's very much a trickle-down effect of a significant number of pros being tightly locked-in to Canon and Nikon. It affects many parts of the market. On a personal note, I have personally bought much of my gear from pros and former pros, ranging from newspaper beat photographers to studio portrait photographers to semi-retired dudes who somehow make a living taking photos for CD covers and other arts-related projects.

People who make their living with their cameras are pretty resistant to change. There's got to be a major benefit to switching, because all kinds of subtle things (like the position of knobs and switches) can screw with your head. A completely-different-from-the-ground-up AF system is not something that a sports or wedding photographer wants to mess with. There will be too many misfocussed shots during the learning curve. And "Almost zero lag" is not good enough for these people, it must be zero. There is not much room for error. Yes, EVFs are getting better. No, they are not good enough, and they may never be the equal of TTL viewfinders. The human eye is a sensitive instrument, and the immediacy of the image in the viewfinder of a DSLR is a wonderful thing. Absolutely zero lag is technically impossible to achieve, so it remains to be seen whether "fast enough" can be reached.

But, you argue, most everyday Joes aren't sports or event photographers. Go back and read what I wrote above. What the sports and event photographers use, determines pretty strongly what the everyday Joes are going to buy for themselves.

Now on to some specific points....

1) Lenses that have ring-type USM (HSM, SWM, etc.) have their motors built into the lens by necessity. They are not conventional "motors" at all, with rotating gears and such. The rotor and stator form a ring around the barrel of the lens. There is no way to implement ring-type USM with a motor in-body. Almost all of Canon's lenses over $300 or so use Ring USM. (It was more or less invented by Canon, and the adoption of the same technology by every other camera brand for its high-end lenses indicates the superiority of the technology. The speed and silence of a Ring USM lens is incredible.) Adding a motor in the camera body for the small proportion of lenses that could make use of them wouldn't make much sense to Canon, would it? Of course the bulk of lenses sold are cheap lenses that use standard motors, but it's a safe bet that the higher-end bodies will be used almost exclusively with USM lenses.

Furthermore (beyond the USM discussion, and assuming standard motors) moving the focus motors in-lens was seen as a positive innovation at the time. Building the motor inside a camera body is a one-size-fits-all solution. Whether it's moving the light elements in a kit lens or hefty elements in a 28-70mm f/2.8, it's the same motor. It's not adapted to the lens at hand. When it's built into a large lens, the motor can be large. When it's built into a small lens, the motor can be small.

2) I agree that sensor-shift is a great thing, and I wish that Canon would adopt it as a supplement to in-lens Image Stabilization. However, from what I've read, the best in-lens IS implementations can still beat out the best sensor-shift implementations. However, the "works with any lens, even primes" aspect of sensor-shift is hard to beat.

3) and 4) SLTs are new territory. I don't think you're going to see the pros moving to them anytime soon (except for videographers, for whom an expensive DSLR+lenses is still probably quite a bit cheaper than the $100k+ pro stuff they're used to using). In some cases, yes, they make sense. I agree that the technology is exciting and it is opening new possibilities. (I would still not recommend shooting into the sun though, it can damage your sensor just the same as it can damage your eyes!)

 

[vbuggy]

I retired the 60D for an A65. I fully admit to being a more casual user but I'm finding the SLT a blast to use. They do undoubtedly have their disadvantages but I find working around them works for me better than working around the disadvantages of a regular DSLR.

I think there are a few holes in the non-Zeiss lens selection (especially those which don't go 'WHIRR-SLAP-WHIRR-SLAP' at every opportunity - though actually I find myself turning off AF often and using focus peaking to get the composition I want without reframing). Come to think of it, even in the Zeiss department there are some major gaps in the lineup, But these may not put off anyone whos not a full pro. It's not put me off yet for example.

 

[Throckmorton]

So I guess it mainly comes down to inertia and lens selection

 

[SecurityTheatre]

So I guess it mainly comes down to inertia and lens selection

No, it doesn't.

I tried out the previous generation Sony and found it to be lacking in a few areas beyond lens selection. One was build, a second was shutter lag, a third was features (like remote flash commander), a fourth was selection of good quality speedlights, fifth was the in-camera VR, which works great in some cases, but doesn't cut it very well at 200mm or longer (which is where it's really needed). Autofocus speed was a little weak, lens focus speed wasn't even close when talking about some of the newest VR-II Nikon glass (again, the in-camera motor is cool, but not beefy enough for big glass).

It's a great consumer or even professional camera for some areas. At the time I tried it, I was shooting professionally with a D3X and later a D700, so that was my basis for comparison and was focusing on sports and photojournalism. As a studio kit with lower demands on ruggedness, speed and flexibility, it's probably perfect.

Plus, at the time, nothing could touch the D700 for low-light image quality... Pixel count doesn't matter to me. I was producing professional 8x10 images on my D2H (which was only 3MP) without much trouble, though it did limit the options for PP cropping somewhat.

And of course, there was intertia. I picked up some f/1.4 glass for cheap (lens selection) and also had some long f/2.8 glass that i got used (good luck finding a Minolta 400 f/2.8).

The point isn't that they're bad cameras, but on the very high end, I find them lacking in almost a dozen areas.

Edit: In fact, I just remembered. Sony uses a proprietary hotshoe, rather than the ISO standard TTL shoe. One a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or Minolta or Hassleblad or Leica or.... etc) you can use any old flash and at least trigger it. You can use pocketwizards or a TLL flash cable.

Sony... nope, sorry special hotshoe.

Compact Flash cards (or SD cards) are industry standard.

Have a Sony? Nope, sorry. Memory sticks? Really? Actually, I think they fixed this recently and now support SD as well, but most comparable cameras have *two* SD slots now (or two CF slots, or a mix). Or that new card type UHC? (Can you tell, I haven't been camera shopping in a year or more).

 

[Throckmorton]

No, it doesn't.

I tried out the previous generation Sony and found it to be lacking in a few areas beyond lens selection. One was build, a second was shutter lag, a third was features (like remote flash commander), a fourth was selection of good quality speedlights, fifth was the in-camera VR, which works great in some cases, but doesn't cut it very well at 200mm or longer (which is where it's really needed). Autofocus speed was a little weak, lens focus speed wasn't even close when talking about some of the newest VR-II Nikon glass (again, the in-camera motor is cool, but not beefy enough for big glass).

It's a great consumer or even professional camera for some areas. At the time I tried it, I was shooting professionally with a D3X and later a D700, so that was my basis for comparison and was focusing on sports and photojournalism. As a studio kit with lower demands on ruggedness, speed and flexibility, it's probably perfect.

Plus, at the time, nothing could touch the D700 for low-light image quality... Pixel count doesn't matter to me. I was producing professional 8x10 images on my D2H (which was only 3MP) without much trouble, though it did limit the options for PP cropping somewhat.

And of course, there was intertia. I picked up some f/1.4 glass for cheap (lens selection) and also had some long f/2.8 glass that i got used (good luck finding a Minolta 400 f/2.8).

The point isn't that they're bad cameras, but on the very high end, I find them lacking in almost a dozen areas.

Edit: In fact, I just remembered. Sony uses a proprietary hotshoe, rather than the ISO standard TTL shoe. One a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or Minolta or Hassleblad or Leica or.... etc) you can use any old flash and at least trigger it. You can use pocketwizards or a TLL flash cable.

Sony... nope, sorry special hotshoe.

Compact Flash cards (or SD cards) are industry standard.

Have a Sony? Nope, sorry. Memory sticks? Really? Actually, I think they fixed this recently and now support SD as well, but most comparable cameras have *two* SD slots now (or two CF slots, or a mix). Or that new card type UHC? (Can you tell, I haven't been camera shopping in a year or more).

Good point about the longer focal lengths. I guess the sensor would have to move much further for the same amount of shake. I hope it stabilizes well enough with the 70-300mm lens I ordered. I know there are some Alpha lenses with built in focusing and stabilization, but are they only high end ones?

I would prefer CF but the new UHS cards are supposed to be faster (if you get the right brand). Until UHS, Memory Stick was much better than SD especially with the Mickey Mouse brands and their inflated speed ratings.

How did you print at 8x10 with only 3 megapixels? Actually it says on DPReview the D2H was 4 megapixels, 2464 x 1632. That's just 240dpi!

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW how does the camera autofocus work? I looked for a shaft or a gear that can control the lens mechanism but couldn't find anything.

Edit: Oh I see, it's the round thing near the bottom

 

[GoSharks]

Have a Sony? Nope, sorry. Memory sticks? Really? Actually, I think they fixed this recently and now support SD as well, but most comparable cameras have *two* SD slots now (or two CF slots, or a mix). Or that new card type UHC? (Can you tell, I haven't been camera shopping in a year or more).

I don't think any Sony DSLRs were MS only, but in combination with CF or SD.

 

[vbuggy]

So I guess it mainly comes down to inertia and lens selection

I wouldn't dispute it doesn't work for certain people - as I said, especially 'full pros'. But there are also I'd say as many people who *think* they're 'full pros' who make uneducated inferences without actual experience.

I don't consider myself a pro - far from it - but I've still spent at the very least $50K on cameras, bodies and glass in the last 6 years. I like to know where I stand so I've had a tendency just to buy everything I'm interested in and use it - and if I have questions to hire a studio / pro snapper and get him/her to walk me though, and gain experience that way. Rangefinders aren't for me although like the closet hipster I am I wanted it to work for me, full-frame sensor'd DSLR's along with the associated glass I don't want to drag around, ILC's - at least what Sony has to offer - hasn't worked for me sizewise in that if I am going to carry a camera with a lens that's practically DSLR size I might as well carry a DSLR and not give up the handling advantages, and I've had pretty much every premium P&S that's been out in the last 4 years.

 

[CptObvious]

I seriously considered a NEX-5N a few months ago but went with a D5100. It came down to lens choices and AF. I wanted a reasonably priced: 1) normal (50mm equiv or wider) prime, 2) UWA and 3) longer telephoto (450mm equiv), all of which is available on Nikon but not on NEX. Also after testing the X100 and 5N, I decided mirrorless CD-AF is not quite there yet with AF on moving subjects

 

[swanysto]

Like SecurityTheatre kind of inferred, sony, pentax, and the like seem to be for a certain niche crowd. I know someone who bought a Pentax just cause he can gets tons of pretty good glass for cheap. He doesn't take anything professional, but does take very nice vacation and family shots. They are way better than and P&S shots I have seen, but he didn't spend nearly as much as some people do on their family DSLR.

 

[Throckmorton]

I seriously considered a NEX-5N a few months ago but went with a D5100. It came down to lens choices and AF. I wanted a reasonably priced: 1) normal (50mm equiv or wider) prime, 2) UWA and 3) longer telephoto (450mm equiv), all of which is available on Nikon but not on NEX. Also after testing the X100 and 5N, I decided mirrorless CD-AF is not quite there yet with AF on moving subjects

Did you look at the SLTs?

 

[bigi]

The glass that Canon and Nikon have will not be matched by Sony for long. It has some very good of Zeiss stuff, but compared to Canon/Nikon it still looks crappy. Especially for pros.

 

[vbuggy]

Not really. What I said in post 12, first half. A typical guy who says that probably has a stack of Sigmas and Tamrons anyway 😛

Not that the Zeiss line couldn't use more filling in / updating of course.

 

[dougp]

Lots of terrible misconceptions and opinions here. But, if you're not a CaNikon, you're a newb to most shooters. It's especially hilarious when everyone talks about the camera being a "tool" and that a good photographer can do well with anything. Just like there's pros and cons to different features - there's never something particularly keeping someone from using a specific camera other than something that could be seen as minuscule by another. And anyone who harps on the lenses from Sony has surely never taken a look at the older Minolta glass. Sure, my lighting line up is rather ... small - but I've never heard someone complain about wireless triggers or other remote commander issues with the Sony lines.

 

[CptObvious]

Did you look at the SLTs?

Yeah, but I chose Nikon because I felt the 35mm 1.8G was a better option for me than the Sony 30mm 2.8, and I'm not crazy with the SLT technology (loss of light).

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Good point about the longer focal lengths. I guess the sensor would have to move much further for the same amount of shake. I hope it stabilizes well enough with the 70-300mm lens I ordered. I know there are some Alpha lenses with built in focusing and stabilization, but are they only high end ones?

I would prefer CF but the new UHS cards are supposed to be faster (if you get the right brand). Until UHS, Memory Stick was much better than SD especially with the Mickey Mouse brands and their inflated speed ratings.

How did you print at 8x10 with only 3 megapixels? Actually it says on DPReview the D2H was 4 megapixels, 2464 x 1632. That's just 240dpi!

Sorry, the D2H was 4.3MP (I was thinking 3.4MP for some reason), but regardless... upsampling those images works fine with the right PP. Remember, the Pulitzer prize was won several (I think 5) years in a row on images from a Nikon D1 and D1H, which was only 2.7MP and they are in gallery exhibitions hanging on walls all the time. Sure if you put your nose to the canvas and look, you can find some pixels on high contrast edges, but pixel counting is grossly overrated (my opinion). It's most useful when you want to crop heavily for shots that aren't composed as well in-camera.

What the D2H especially lacked was ANY noise tolerance. This is so important... way more than pixel count.

But, the D2H was the first 8FPS DSLR and still is, today, the fastest (lowest shutter lag) camera ever made (as far as I'm aware). I'd happily use it for photojournalism and even other things, where we had good lights. Really, it forced me to learn how to light properly. :-D

 

[Throckmorton]

Well I guess how much resolution matters depends on how far the print is viewed from. I don't print photos so I don't really know.


Here is something interesting. Sony's 70-400m lens doesn't have stabilization, but according to one of the reviews the sensor shift stabilization works well enough for 1/10, but he doesn't state the focal length.
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SAL70400G.../dp/B001FORGMK

I use a monopod but have good results shooting from the hip so to speak by holding the lens body with only my hands. I was in Yellowstone National Park recently and a person walked up to me and asked me how I could use the lens without a tripod and the answer is because it is attached to a Sony body. The Sony Super Steady image stabilization system works great.
...
Sony image stabilization rocks. I can go to 1/10 sec handheld (when needed) and still get sharp pictures. I only use a tripod for night pictures.

Also here:
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/13...-stabilization-vs-sensor-shift-stabilization/

The system works perfectly well for autofocus and metering on all the lenses I've tried with the max focal length being 300mm. Shorter lenses are less subject to motion. At 300mm they system works fine. I've not used a Nikon body with a Nikon stabilised 300mm so couldn't compare but I'm happy with the results I get from the Sony. I've no use for longer lenses at this time.

Another thread on "IBIS"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=39112803&changemode=1

 

[dougp]

Sorry, the D2H was 4.3MP (I was thinking 3.4MP for some reason), but regardless... upsampling those images works fine with the right PP. Remember, the Pulitzer prize was won several (I think 5) years in a row on images from a Nikon D1 and D1H, which was only 2.7MP and they are in gallery exhibitions hanging on walls all the time. Sure if you put your nose to the canvas and look, you can find some pixels on high contrast edges, but pixel counting is grossly overrated (my opinion). It's most useful when you want to crop heavily for shots that aren't composed as well in-camera.

What the D2H especially lacked was ANY noise tolerance. This is so important... way more than pixel count.

But, the D2H was the first 8FPS DSLR and still is, today, the fastest (lowest shutter lag) camera ever made (as far as I'm aware). I'd happily use it for photojournalism and even other things, where we had good lights. Really, it forced me to learn how to light properly. :-D

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

 

[Throckmorton]

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

He's talking about the shutter lag

 

[dougp]

He's talking about the shutter lag

Hmm, I'd assume most FF cameras would be faster then. Wonder how narrow the time results are?

 

[Throckmorton]

Sony Alphas and UHS memory cards

http://sonyalphapro.wordpress.com/2...-the-new-sony-alphas-a55-a-very-fast-cameras/