fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              13       14       end
  

Archive 2010 · Canon to Sony?...

  
 
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Canon to Sony?...


The 12mp FF D3 and D700 are probably the only current Nikon DSLR with a sensor not made by Sony


Nov 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · Canon to Sony?...


edwardkaraa wrote:
The 12mp FF D3 and D700 are probably the only current Nikon DSLR with a sensor not made by Sony


...and it's still possible that the sensor in those cameras are are actually made by Sony/ designed by Nikon since Nikon has never revealed their manufacturing partner for the sensor to my knowledge.



Nov 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · Canon to Sony?...


Tariq Gibran wrote:
...and it's still possible that the sensor in those cameras are are actually made by Sony/ designed by Nikon since Nikon has never revealed their manufacturing partner for the sensor to my knowledge.





Nov 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · Canon to Sony?...


schristie11 wrote:
I can lump anything, since it is my experience I’m talking about. lol

I meet mostly Sony users who are new people, and Nikon users who are experienced, and a mix from canon owners.

I been in many camera stores where the sales person is busy convincing a first time SLR buyer to go Sony 900 or 850.
They promote Sony though since the built in body IS was an easy sell, and they make more profit on the lenses after the fact.
Even my mom did! lol
I have only met one guy who swiched to Sony, he said it was so he
...Show more

Of course more pros use Canon or Nikon. They've got a gigantic lead in that segment. That being said, the Sony line certainly competes in some areas with the big two, and has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the competition. If you asked me to pick any 35mm DSLR and set of lenses, regardless of cost, I'd pick the A900. YMMV.





Nov 23, 2010 at 02:22 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · Canon to Sony?...


douglasf13 wrote:
Of course more pros use Canon or Nikon. They've got a gigantic lead in that segment. That being said, the Sony line certainly competes in some areas with the big two, and has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the competition. If you asked me to pick any 35mm DSLR and set of lenses, regardless of cost, I'd pick the A900. YMMV.


also, canon and nikon have a much better support system in place for pros. there are a lot of very individual factors for choosing a camera. i for one will never buy a camera with a built in vertical grip after having used a d1x for quite some time and hating it, i know other people feel the exact opposite. with regard to lens line ups i would look at the lenses you think you'll use not the size of lens lineup in general (side note: who uses a fisheye zoom?). for my own personal purposes (not pro), the a900/850 make the most sense except for the lack of live view (so i'm waiting to see what comes next from all producers to get a FF camera). the 5dII and d700 each have their own weaknesses for me.

with regard to sensor manufacture, the d3x, d7000, d300/d300s, d90, and d5000 all have sensors made by sony. i'm pretty sure the d3s, d3, and d700 sensors were actually contracted to another fab than sony. nikon appears to be very sensitive about admitting that sony makes their sensors and usually issues statements like the linked one at first. after people do more digging and come with evidence to nikon and ask the same question the response ends up being something like: "yes it was manufactured by sony, but it was designed by us." this means some of the processing electronics is probably different than in versions of the same sensor in sony and pentax cameras.



Nov 23, 2010 at 03:28 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · Canon to Sony?...


Sorry for any ruffled feathers, not my intention!
schristie11, you can read plenty of informed comment about Sony's pre-eminence in the sensor field, starting out with Nikon's flagship DSLR, the D3x and heading up to Pentax's wonderful K5 latest release. The NEX and A55 rate well also. sebboh has the information right in the last para above this post, to my knowledge. If you are interested, really interested, you can look up 'Iliah Borg' over at dpreview, or read more on sensors and related info with 'resident experts' here - theSuede, and many of douglasf13's posts. A lot of it is not for the faint-hearted ;-)

We are also quickly moving away from the 'system concept' for many users, as Alt lenses gain exposure and recognition, so the ties that bind each of use to the 'system' weaken. Soon one will choose the body they like for their work, then adapt or re-mount their favourite lenses to suit it. Which is how it should be, and I think many here will agree.

I just bought a fine new publication that our European people may know something about - c't Digital Photography (name from memory). The first issue has a 20+ page series of using alt manual focus lenses, with lens tests comparing Canon lenses with those of CZ and Leica on Canon bodies. The DVD that came with it has over 100 images with 100% crops of all their work. There are links to Pebble Place and Leitax, among others. Other meaty sections on architectural photography and head portraiture, it is virtually free of advertisements, celeb photographers and manufacturer ads. They express strong opinions, and are generally well-informed. Highly recommended.



Nov 23, 2010 at 05:16 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · Canon to Sony?...


Yikes, don't include me with the likes of Iliah and Joakim (theSuede!) My understanding of this stuff is certainly on very simple terms compared to either of them.


Nov 23, 2010 at 05:21 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · Canon to Sony?...


Ha ha! What I mean is that you (like me) have an interest in the technical aspects of it, and have your say in various posts and places...yeah, they are pretty awesome knowledge wise.


Nov 23, 2010 at 06:28 PM
schristie11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · Canon to Sony?...


philip_pj,
I don’t really understand why you think this trend is changing.
Though there are many ALT lens choices out there, they can not always compete with at the level of expectations that many photogs have.

If it wasn’t a system-based decision, then why do we see so many posts in the Nikon and Canon forums on this topic?
Every other day someone is switching sides for their desired choice of glass or camera features.

Some people say they went Nikon solely for the 12-24 lenses.
Some people bought canon for more affordable telephoto primes like the 400 f/5.6.
Some people don’t go to Sony since their best lenses cost a higher premium, which they have in common with Nikon.

The Nikon 200-400 is $5000 but the Canon 100-400 is only $1600.
Which lsimilar ens does Sony offer inthis range, and what does it cost?
For those who can’t afford it but need it the switch is necessary.
Some people buy bodies from each system to accommodate.

There are not always options that work well or make good sense;
e.g.: some ALT lenses lack weather sealing or need faster AF or less plastic on the lens body.
These just to name a few compromises many are unwilling to work-around.





Nov 23, 2010 at 08:34 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · Canon to Sony?...


The Sony 70-400 G is optically excellent and costs $1600. The only Sony lens that falls a little out of line in price, compared to Nikon, is the Sony 300 f2.8, because it is using an expensive Minolta design.


Nov 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM
schristie11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · Canon to Sony?...


douglasf13 wrote:
The Sony 70-400 G is optically excellent and costs $1600. The only Sony lens that falls a little out of line in price, compared to Nikon, is the Sony 300 f2.8, because it is using an expensive Minolta design.


Yes, some of the Sony lenses are comparably priced.

But it isn't just that the prices are high,
it is that many photogs realize they Sony optics are not superior to canon or Nikon,
and the Sony lenses are lacking "in lens IS", and therefore should be cheaper.
Knowing this, many people have a hard time deciding to paying the "Sony" branded premium;
knowing they have no reason to charge this much for the lens.

It reminds us all of the last time we went to a consumer electronics store,
where we saw Sony brand stereos that are poorly manufactured yet cost a premium price for their Sony name badge.

Sony has a similar theory to modern day computer printer sales..
Sell the printer cheap (camera body) but charge a fortune for the ink refills (lenses).

Many face a moral conflict with this.

The average Sony G lens cost more than even the Nikon lenses, where the Canon are even less expensive, yet optically at the top.

The Sony 70-400 G is optically excellent and costs $1600 - like the Canon 100-400,
But has a reputation for a very slow AF and is prone to hunting and completely lacks IS features at all.
So why is the the same price as a Canon lens which has those extra features?



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM
schristie11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · Canon to Sony?...


Another example:
Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras

The Sony cost $1400 where the Canon 24-70L cost $1200.

Neither lens has IS, but optically and AF performance on both are similar.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:34 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · Canon to Sony?...


schristie11 wrote:
Yes, some of the Sony lenses are comparably priced.
But it isn't just that the prices are high,
it is that many photogs realize they Sony optics are not superior to canon or Nikon,
and the Sony lenses are lacking "in lens IS", and therefore should be cheaper.


i had never noticed that sony lenses were generally more expensive. maybe it's just the type of lenses i look at but i always got the impression both canon and sony were cheaper on average than nikon. i'll have to do a price check again. when i last priced the FF kit i would want from all three the sony came out nearly a grand cheaper (i didn't try to match lenses across kits, i looked at the actual lenses i would want from each brand). i'll definitely agree with you that lenses lacking IS should be cheaper than those with it. as far as optical superiority goes, every brand as certain lenses that are superior to the competition (and inferior). i would choose the one that has the superior lenses you are looking for.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:37 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · Canon to Sony?...


douglasf13 wrote:
The Sony 70-400 G is optically excellent and costs $1600. The only Sony lens that falls a little out of line in price, compared to Nikon, is the Sony 300 f2.8, because it is using an expensive Minolta design.


The 70-200G as well, for much the same reason (Expensive Minolta design which is hand-assembled)



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:39 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · Canon to Sony?...


Ask yourself how many photographers / gearheads were using alt lenses a decade ago at the cross over point from film to digital? Very few. How many makers produced full ranges for existing platforms, such as the ZF/ZE range? Just a few 'fringe dwellers'.

Now alt lenses are in the press, on photozone, diglloyd, etc. and it is obviously a growing trend, a rapidly growing trend. Interest in older lenses is being rekindled anew. Seemingly each week, we see many new people here who are keenly interested in acquiring such lenses. All the main sales outlets stock them. New ranges are being released: Zeiss, Voigtlander is now reborn, Samyang, and the usual suspects of Tamron, Sigma et al are building ranges as well. Zeiss have a deal with Sony for their first ever AF lenses, I believe.

Now, why is this happening? Several factors occur, but there are undoubtedly many more.
Firstly, many Alt lenses have qualities that cannot be found in the makers' OEM lineup. Extraordinary resolution, microcontrast, colour rendition, dimensionality, corner performance, superior bokeh, low weight for performance, the list is long in what discriminating users can expect to 'value add' to their work as compared with the OEM lenses.
Secondly, price range, in that one can buy terrific lenses for a little or a lot. Third, the small sensor movement is tailor made for alt lens usage, especially given the effort required to build a full lineup for new formats.
Fourth, you are reading this on a medium that did not reach the mainstream until a decade ago - the web and its access to high quality information shared by enthusiasts, thus breaking the control of information flow - which of course heavily favoured the established players you refer to.
Fifth, the emergence of high quality, fine tolerance adapters and replacement mounts, exemplified by Novoflex and Leitax, together with chips to enable EXIF, focus confirm, A mode usage, in-body steady shot.

I am hoping you know enough to realise that high end Alt lenses have a build quality that generally shames most recent Nikon and Canon offerings, especially the AF lenses. You do cite some of the better Canikon lenses, and no one disputes their quality. But...I doubt any impartial viewer would prefer the Canon/Nikon offerings to say, the ZE 21/2.8, Leica's 28mm/2.8 E55, the ZE 35/2, the Contax 35/1.4, the ZE 50MP, Leica's 60mm f2.8 macro, Leica 100mm f2.8 APO, almost any of the Leica Telyt range, which would be my choice for long lens work. Though no expert, I could go on for quite some time...

"If it wasn’t a system-based decision, then why do we see so many posts in the Nikon and Canon forums on this topic?"

Partially ignorance, partially inertia. Some people are naturally inclined to be early adopters, and are driven more by the desire to use the best than to be straight-jacketed into using only what the body maker provides. Others may not know of their options - yet. Some will want a stand out lens for a particular type of work, like the 14-24 for interiors, as you suggest. Some people simply lack imagination, or have not been exposed to what Alt lenses can deliver. A lot feel they *need* AF and easy EXIF. Some pros need the pro support offered by Canon/Nikon. Some want to buy new for warranty.

Regarding weather sealing. I use my (expensive) Contax lenses in ultra humid and ultra dusty environs, and I wish the sensor was as easy to care for as the lenses. BTW, re Sony, very few users report any environment-related failures with them, and there is quite an installed base over several years now.

Finally, the Sony lenses (which I do not use but trust many who do, plus certain reviewers): best tele portrait lens in class (ZA 135/1.8), best AF mid-zoom in class (ZA 24-70/2.8), probably best wide range tele zoom, the 70-400G douglasf13 mentions above; best prosumer tele zoom (70-300G), arguably best short pro tele 'event' zoom (70-200G). The new ZA 24/2 is shaping up to be a great lens also, the ZA 16-35 is well liked by many users, though not in the 14-24 Nikon's class. More are apparently coming in 2011. So Sony have the main lens classes covered quite well, and one can find 'Alt' alternatives very easily if those are not suitable.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:40 PM
schristie11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · Canon to Sony?...


Comparing price and specs:

Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G
Price: $1600
Dimensions 196 x 94.5mm
Weight 1490g
MFD: 1.5m (max. magnification ratio ~1:4)

Canon 100-400L
Price: $1600
size of 189 x9 2mm
Weight 1360g inc. the detachable tripod mount
MFD: 1.80m (max. magnification ratio ~1:5)

The Sony is heavier, larger, lacks IS, and has lower magnification ratio, so why the price so high?
The answer is the SONY badge.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:40 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · Canon to Sony?...


schristie11 wrote:
Another example:
Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras

The Sony cost $1400 where the Canon 24-70L cost $1200.

Neither lens has IS, but optically and AF performance on both are similar.


from tests i've seen the zeiss is the better lens in most aspects. the nikkor tests better than either of them in most aspects, how much does it cost?

schristie11 wrote:
The Sony 70-400 G is optically excellent and costs $1600 - like the Canon 100-400,
But has a reputation for a very slow AF and is prone to hunting and completely lacks IS features at all.
So why is the the same price as a Canon lens which has those extra features?


all the tests i've seen show the sony kicking the canons butt optically, but optical IS and focus speed could certainly be of equal importance to many.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:40 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · Canon to Sony?...


sebboh wrote:
i had never noticed that sony lenses were generally more expensive. maybe it's just the type of lenses i look at but i always got the impression both canon and sony were cheaper on average than nikon. i'll have to do a price check again. when i last priced the FF kit i would want from all three the sony came out nearly a grand cheaper (i didn't try to match lenses across kits, i looked at the actual lenses i would want from each brand). i'll definitely agree with you that lenses lacking IS should be cheaper than those
...Show more

The Sony 16-35 and 24-70 compare well in price to their closest equivalents (Canon 16-35LII, Nikon 24-70G). The Sony ZA primes are also quite reasonable in price.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · Canon to Sony?...


schristie11 wrote:
Comparing price and specs:

Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G
Price: $1600
Dimensions 196 x 94.5mm
Weight 1490g
MFD: 1.5m (max. magnification ratio ~1:4)

Canon 100-400L
Price: $1600
size of 189 x9 2mm
Weight 1360g inc. the detachable tripod mount
MFD: 1.80m (max. magnification ratio ~1:5)

The Sony is heavier, larger, lacks IS, and has lower magnification ratio, so why the price so high?
The answer is the SONY badge.


The Sony is also significantly better optically, has a closer MFD and has a better physical design (no push-pull) and is essentially brand new while the Canon is an older lens which has seen its price go down. IS is mostly irrelevant here (all Sony bodies have IS already, the 100-400 has an older, less effective IS unit).



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:43 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · Canon to Sony?...


schristie11 wrote:
Another example:
Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras

The Sony cost $1400 where the Canon 24-70L cost $1200.

Neither lens has IS, but optically and AF performance on both are similar.


Optically? The 24-70L lags both the ZA 24-70 and the Nikkor 24-70G significantly in optical performance (the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM is optically on par with the 24-70L and is under $1000. Then again it's a great little design from Tamron with better QC than the Tamron version). AF performance is similar though.

oFrom an optical standpoint the Nikkor and Sony are fairly comparable in performance, albeit with a different set of tradeoffs (the Nikkors probably a bit better overall but the ZA's more comparable to the G than the L). The (much) older 24-70L is not in the same class in terms of performance. And once again it's an older design which has had price drops through the life of the lens unlike the much newer Nikon or Sony versions.



Nov 23, 2010 at 11:46 PM
1       2       3              5              13       14       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              13       14       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account