Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
  

First Sony Impression
  
 
brian_f2.8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · First Sony Impression


Yesterday I had some time to kill so I went into Best Buy. Sure enough, I made my way back to the camera section for fun. Im a Leica, Nikon, Fuji fan(in that order). I never really used Sony but I will say I was impressed with the camera. I played around with an A7s? It was a nice camera, light weight and the FX must be really nice to have the extra information when editing.

What I didnt like and maybe some Sony users can help me understand is, why so expensive? I saw the price of a 24-70 and a 70-200 and I almost dropped. The camera had a 50 f1.8 on it, the files looked good on the lcd. I didn't like the lens as I felt it was too modern. I like the classic look with the aperture ring on the lens. Im sure the RAW files are great and its a great shooting experience, but Id have to use L or Nikkor glass IF I ever switched.

How do the adapters work? Can you still autofocus, meter correctly?







  ILCE-9    500mm F4 G SSM lens    500mm    f/4.0    1/3200s    200 ISO    0.0 EV  



Edited on Oct 15, 2017 at 11:38 PM · View previous versions



Aug 23, 2017 at 12:45 PM
Chris_88
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · First Sony Impression


Brian, not sure about US pricing, but here in Japan, Sony's prices are pretty much in line with the competition, for instance, the Nikon 24-70 E and the Sony GM 24-70 2.8 cost roughly the same upon introduction.

As for adapters, it depends. With a Techart adapter you can AF your Leica m lenses. Metabones and Sigma arguably offer the most robust AF adapters (for EF mount lenses) to be used on the a7 series. Plenty of regulars use those with great results, in some cases even with long glass. Unfortunately, there is no reliable AF adapter for F mount at this point.



Aug 23, 2017 at 12:59 PM
Wanny
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · First Sony Impression


Nikons top of the line 70-200 is more expensive that Sonys top of the line 70-200. 24-70 is also more expensive, but not by much (shrugs)


Aug 23, 2017 at 01:17 PM
Herbc
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · First Sony Impression


There are cheaper Sony lenses, but most of us put up with it for the quality- personally, I don't use zooms, Loxia and Leica lenses on my Sony.


Aug 23, 2017 at 01:22 PM
Faulta
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · First Sony Impression


What you're feeling is not the price of the Sony lenses but the absence of the Tamron and sigma equivalent for half the price and the lack of used sigma and Tamron 2.8 offerings for a few hundred bucks.
Overall I would say Sony and Nikon are pretty similar priced, Canon is a little cheaper with some focal lengths.
If you want to use Sony in a budget, it's different than Canon and Nikon on a budget.
With canikon you're getting ok quality auto focusing glass for a good price, manual focusing without focus peaking and without Ibis is not reliable for most people so that's what you get. With Sony in 2017, you won't be able to buy good cheap auto focus lenses (with a few exceptions) but you can get really high image quality manual focus glass. You have to manual focus, but you can manual focus a lot easier and in the end you're getting better image quality.

Of course you can use manual focus glass on canikon as well, but not as easily adaptable and not as good, so you can use cheaper auto focus lenses on Sony with adapter, but they won't work as good as they do on a canon.

What's better? That's up to your personal preference, it's just different.


Edit:
Good value for money Sony auto focus lenses would be:
Sony 85mm F1.8 ~600
Samyang 50mm F1.4 ~500
Sony 28mm F2 ~400
Samyang 35mm F2.8 ~350

Edited on Aug 23, 2017 at 01:32 PM · View previous versions



Aug 23, 2017 at 01:29 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · First Sony Impression


brian_f2.8 wrote:
What I didnt like and maybe some Sony users can help me understand is, why so expensive? ?


Three reasons: (a) Sony currently has a monopoly in the FF mirrorless market including their well performing sensors; (b) Demand - Sony made a good run with the A7 series since it was introduced; (c) General reason for higher camera prices of higher end camera models: manufacturers make up for lower general demand in new digital cameras with higher price margins of each new camera produced.

Regarding Sony camera prices, things get ridiculous IMO. Sony is only $2K away with the A7R II from the latest and probably best Leica M10 model - only that Sony doesn't has the same name as Leica and won't sell for as much used (meaning Leica is the much better investment option for resale). $2K is still a difference obviously, but the gap between narrows down more and more...let's see how much it might be when the A7R III is released.....it might be less than $1K.



Aug 23, 2017 at 01:30 PM
notherenow
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · First Sony Impression


Sony lenses for the most part are expensive but not really any more so than their counterparts but for some other brands, there are more lower order choices to pick from in native lenses. There are a few cheaper lenses appearing though.

The 85 1.8 FE in particular is an absolute bargain. As good (or nearly so) as the best AF 85s but a lot cheaper. The FE kit lens isn't too bad (about the best kit lens I have used for me).

Adapters - there are many different third party smart adapters that give AF for Canon lenses, there is one for Nikon lenses (some of them), there are AF adapters for Contax lenses and there is an adapter that will allow AF with manual focus lenses even (with limits) for Leica lenses but can take another adapter for other mounts.

There are also Sony made smart adapters for Sony A mount.

How well smart adapters work varies from camera/adapter/lens combination. The second generation cameras work a lot faster for AF with Canon lenses and smart adapters.

I have only had the first version A7 and A7s and MF works fine but AF is slow with Canon lenses and both these cameras. There are some advantages though- AF while slow, still works with my Canon AF lenses in far lower light with my A7s than it did on my last Canon camera and I can use all the focus points and things like eye AF work too (only for AFS with my A7s).

The second generation cameras are all stabilized. Some Sony lenses have lens stabilization too.

Why is the A7s so expensive? It is a low MP specialist camera for low light and for video. There is NOTHING like it elsewhere. You can still buy the first version A7 new in many places (a major chain store here has never had FF Sony and just a few A6000 and A5000 cameras ETC but I saw they have an original A7 new there now). I like that camera a lot but I didn't need it and an A7s and a M43 camera and I mainly shoot in low light (the A7s is THE camera I always wanted).

A7s can not track focus to save its life and AFC is only about 2 fps BUT it can focus in almost no light and ISO 102400 is sometimes useable (I have had photos at ISO 102400 published in newspapers as ordinary shots).

The original A7 can track focus with native lenses but not as fast moving things as a similar DSLR though I found it was a lot better than most people thought for that.

A7s gets a run in a lot of video companies and if it was the A7s ii it also adds IBIS and 4k internally (the first version has about the best 1080 P going but only does 4k via an external recorder). If you have seen Planet Earth ii, some of the very low light scenes used an A7sii.

.



Aug 23, 2017 at 05:37 PM
brian_f2.8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · First Sony Impression


I would have to play with one and really test the files.

On BnH here are the prices. I wouldnt pay the extra for the newer Nikon version, these are both fine.

Nikon 70-200 vrII - 2100
Nikon 24-70 - 1800

Sony 70-200 - 2600
Sony 24-70 - 2200

3900 vs 4800 I dont like the plastic lens look or build quality. For that kind of money, I want something at a higher standard.

I get the technology is newer and there are some pro's. I guess it all depends on what you shoot. I shoot motorsports. No way could I afford the Sony 500mm f4.

Again, not knocking Sony at all. I am looking for more information about their gear. I do appreciate each of your replies and help.



Aug 24, 2017 at 02:12 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · First Sony Impression


You assume a "great shooting experience." That assumption would be wrong.

Yes, the resolution is great, but that's about it compare to other brands.



Aug 24, 2017 at 02:29 AM
scrappydog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · First Sony Impression


johnvanr wrote:
You assume a "great shooting experience." That assumption would be wrong.


I enjoy the Sony shooting experience, so YMMV on that point.

johnvanr wrote:
Yes, the resolution is great, but that's about it compare to other brands.


I would have to bracket my Canon shots to get the same DR as I can get from my A7RII, so there's a little more to Sony than just resolution. Also, when you lift the shadows, it's a muddy mess in the Canon world. Not so with the A7RII.



Aug 24, 2017 at 09:24 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



scrappydog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · First Sony Impression


brian_f2.8 wrote:
I shoot motorsports. No way could I afford the Sony 500mm f4.


I shoot the Canon 500/4 II on my A7RII with wildlife, include bird in flight shots. Going the adapted route is a challenge and not for everyone, but it is doable. My 500 is expensive, but it's a lot cheaper than the Sony alternative.

On the plus side, Sony recently launched its 100-400, which should give you much of the FL that you need plus the native AF acquisition speed and tracking. The drawback is the max aperture of f/5.6. There are rumors that Sony will launch new super-telephotos at faster speeds. With the introduction of the A9, they have to take this step to stay competitive.



Aug 24, 2017 at 09:35 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · First Sony Impression


scrappydog wrote:
I enjoy the Sony shooting experience, so YMMV on that point.

I would have to bracket my Canon shots to get the same DR as I can get from my A7RII, so there's a little more to Sony than just resolution. Also, when you lift the shadows, it's a muddy mess in the Canon world. Not so with the A7RII.


Of course the former is a personal thing, but the OP assuming that using a Sony will be great is not a given.

Shadows are much better on the latest Canon cameras, if lifting shadows is your thing.



Aug 24, 2017 at 11:06 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · First Sony Impression


brian_f2.8 wrote:
I would have to play with one and really test the files.

On BnH here are the prices. I wouldnt pay the extra for the newer Nikon version, these are both fine.

Nikon 70-200 vrII - 2100
Nikon 24-70 - 1800

Sony 70-200 - 2600
Sony 24-70 - 2200

3900 vs 4800 I dont like the plastic lens look or build quality. For that kind of money, I want something at a higher standard.

I get the technology is newer and there are some pro's. I guess it all depends on what you shoot. I shoot motorsports. No way could I afford the Sony
...Show more

Good points - I still don't own any Sony FE lens since AF is not relevant for me, and I rather use my existing Canon EF gear with adapter attached to my A7R or preferably smaller rangefinder M-mount lenses. I am missing in general with newer lenses from all big brands a good reliable metering and infrared scale - with the exemption of Canon L lenses, they still provide an IR scale (another reason why I keep my L lenses). Built style is another point - I love the metal housing of my rangefinder lenses and still believe that metal is the better and longer lasting material for lens housing - but weight can be an issue with metal especially for longer lenses. Problem with Sony FE lenses is that you might have to pay a hybrid Sony/Zeiss brand price for a lens even it is not a 100% Zeiss lens.



Aug 24, 2017 at 11:08 AM
artur5
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · First Sony Impression


retrofocus wrote:
Regarding Sony camera prices, things get ridiculous IMO. Sony is only $2K away with the A7R II from the latest and probably best Leica M10 model - only that Sony doesn't has the same name as Leica and won't sell for as much used (meaning Leica is the much better investment option for resale). $2K is still a difference obviously, but the gap between narrows down more and more...let's see how much it might be when the A7R III is released.....it might be less than $1K.


I don't know where you checked the prices, but right now at BH the M10 is priced at $6900 while the A7rII is $2700. A differential of $4200. We all know Leica pricing so no surprises but, IMHO, what I find ridiculous is that a M10 costs 2.5x times more than a Sony A7rII. Of course, if you want a camera for investment purposes, then get the most expensive Leica model that you can find
That said, Sony cameras aren't cheap by any means, considering that the cost of manufacturing a mirrorless must be much lower than a reflex of similar specs. If other main brands entered into the FF mirrorless arena, I'm sure prices would go down significantly.




Aug 24, 2017 at 11:19 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · First Sony Impression


artur5 wrote:
I don't know where you checked the prices, but right now at BH the M10 is priced at $6900 while the A7rII is $2700. A differential of $4200. We all know Leica pricing so no surprises but, IMHO, what I find ridiculous is that a M10 costs 2.5x times more than a Sony A7rII. Of course, if you want a camera for investment purposes, then get the most expensive Leica model that you can find
That said, Sony cameras aren't cheap by any means, considering that the cost of manufacturing a mirrorless must be much lower than a reflex of
...Show more

The A7R II is already > 2 years on the market whereas the M10 was just released. The price for an A7R II has come down a bit in the 2 years (still high though!) - when it was first released, it started at $3500. Rumor-wise the future A7R III is estimated to be another $1K up at introduction - estimated above $4K - the A9 currently is at $4500. This is another step closer to the M10 (the M10 might be a bit cheaper by then, too). Other than the A7R II, Sony cameras are not known for maintaining the camera value for long - the opposite is true for Leica. I agree with you fully that Sony's prices refer mostly to their monopoly in the FF mirrorless market - I really hope to see some competition soon.

Since I don't do commercial photography, I can't justify easily putting down more than $2.5K for a new FF mirrorless camera. Last time I did such investment was for the A7R which I am still using. But putting more money down? No way, depreciation of electronics is much too quick these days. Even professional photographers might thing twice about vesting more than $3K into a new camera body.



Aug 24, 2017 at 11:35 AM
scrappydog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · First Sony Impression


johnvanr wrote:
Shadows are much better on the latest Canon cameras, if lifting shadows is your thing.


I have Canon's latest and greatest crop camera (7DII) and its shadows don't lift. Sorry for the reality check. And yes, I lift shadows, as do many other photographers.




Aug 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM
brian_f2.8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · First Sony Impression


Thanks again for all the input. Id like to play with an A7/A9, Nikon adapter and my 200-500 during a race. As a track photographer, any photo "could" be a billboard at the track.


A gripped D850 would be nice, dear santa



Aug 24, 2017 at 01:04 PM
brian_f2.8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · First Sony Impression


Great shooting experience - my meaning of that is having a lightweight camera with new technology, full frame, producing high quality files. If I were traveling, Id take a Sony over a heavy clunky D5 any day.


Aug 24, 2017 at 01:10 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · First Sony Impression


scrappydog wrote:
I have Canon's latest and greatest crop camera (7DII) and its shadows don't lift. Sorry for the reality check. And yes, I lift shadows, as do many other photographers.



I was talking about the 1DX II and 5D IV, not the 7D II. I don't consider that a new camera anymore.



Aug 24, 2017 at 03:07 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · First Sony Impression


brian_f2.8 wrote:
Great shooting experience - my meaning of that is having a lightweight camera with new technology, full frame, producing high quality files. If I were traveling, Id take a Sony over a heavy clunky D5 any day.


What you call shooting experience, I'd call results (other than the light weight). I get your drift. I have had almost all Sony A7 series cameras and kept using them for the gorgeous files. But I always missed the fun in shooting, fun that I do have with my Olympus and Canon gear.

So early this summer I sold my Sony gear and I haven't missed it a moment.

Now that Nikon D850...wow!



Aug 24, 2017 at 03:17 PM
1
       2       3              5       6       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password