timgangloff Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · More Soccer w/Sony A9+FE 400 2.8 Final input 10/29 | |
OSP2017 wrote:
I actually haven't bought any new cameras or lenses in a very long time so for me it's the a9 vs the original 1DX. However, if you look at the 400 2.8, Canon is selling the older model for $7,999. Granted, it is heavier, but it is the same optically. For the 135 f2, Canon is vastly cheaper; Sony is supposedly sharper but the Canon is plenty sharp for me. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II Lens is $3K vs $1899 for Canon v3. Sony's 24-70 is $600 more than the Canon. But I buy used and there Canon has a really considerable advantage just like you pointed out.
I just shot Volleyball Nationals in abysmal lighting with 3 primes: 200 f2 (missing on the Sony side), 135 f2 (exorbitantly expensive on the Sony side) and 24 1.4 (about the same). I was at 10000 ISO at f2 so 2.8 wouldn't work. The week before that, it was Water Polo Nationals - abysmal lighting again, 200 f2 all the way. Field lacrosse is coming up and I'll be shooting that with a 200-400 - Sony doesn't have one. This weekend I'll shoot international volleyball and lighting there should be good so Sony could finally work.
I definitely hear you. In a few years there will be decent availability of used Sony lenses plus they might add what's missing right now and then I will not have to spend that much money to switch....Show more →
You are probably an outlier and are probably not a good fit for Sony at this time due to some missing lenses that your specific needs require. I think, however, there are probably not many guys who have the lens lineup you do with the needs you do.
My long term view was that Sony was innovating with their bodies and the AF system that mirrorless allows. I was and am disappointed by Canon's work and products in this area so far. I was a long time Canon guy and if they can offer an a9 killer, I'll come back as the availability of lenses is so good. However, I don't see that happening and went Sony.
If you look back at any of my posts from a year or so ago, I was big Sony skeptic. But the AF system is that good. The eye AF is fantastic and the new tracking stuff is almost unbelievable. The Sony system is not perfect. The EVF is not as good as or as fast as a light and mirror system. But, it's getting better. There are a few other quirks to the system but my 1dx2 had some too. For example, wifi transfer of images was not possible without the addition of a bleeping $600 adapter.
I hope Sony develops something like a 120-300 2.8 with a built in adapter for a 1.4x. I've used the Canon 200-400 and it's a lovely lens, but too often f4 doesn't work in my poorly lit venues. At a minimum they need a 300 2.8 GM. Too many sports guys need that lens and can't afford the 400 2.8 GM. So, yes I agree that Sony needs to work on their lens lineup to entice working pros, especially those like you with niche needs.
For new guys looking to invest in one system, Sony can be very competitive on pricing. Here is a quick spreadsheet I put together from pricing found on that big internet store in NY.
|