What is argumentative is; anyone saying Sony is better - purely based on superficial things, and then saying Sony’s price is not inflated compared to other MFG's like Canon.
schristie11 wrote:
When I looked at each system a few years back, and even again recently..
I rented equipment and testing it to see how I liked it.
I have rented a Sony a900 twice times for a month.
I also rented a Nikon D700 similarly.
Each time I got the 70-200 24-70 lenses with them.
I could not see a diff from the Canon, and so I saved bundle buying Canon gear from then on out.
Maybe you should do a review of the differences of the systems then, with pictures please. Im really interested of this actually since Im thinking of jumping to Sony from Canon.
schristie11 wrote:
I could not see a diff from the Canon, and so I saved bundle buying Canon gear from then on out.
Who are you trying to convince here then? You might not see the differences but others obviously appreciate them differently.
schristie11 wrote:
What is argumentative is; anyone saying Sony is better - purely based on superficial things
You're disqualifying yourself from the discussion by that last remark. You obviously either lack the discerning ability to see the "superficial things" that makes Sony better in some areas, or you don't want to admit that they are actually there, because Sony is "too expensive".
schristie11 wrote:
What is argumentative is; anyone saying Sony is better - purely based on superficial things, and then saying Sony’s price is not inflated compared to other MFG's like Canon.
Specificity would help. "Better" is pretty subjective and would of course depend upon ones needs/ requirements. So again, in the case of the a900, Canon nor Nikon offered what I needed so I moved to Sony. Had Canon offered the mythical "3D" body with similar features to the a900 or Nikon offered a D900, I might be shooting with one of those cameras. Alas, Sony is "better" for me and offers a whole lot more then Canon or Nikon at any price (for what I need). The fact that Sony can do this at 1/3rd the price of the D3X is remarkable.
I guess I know when my opinion is not wanted, so I'm out of this thread, no hard feelings.
It seems some people have their minds made up no matter what options are available at any price.
I'm not meaning to convert anyone to a new religion.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Specificity would help. "Better" is pretty subjective and would of course depend upon ones needs/ requirements. So again, in the case of the a900, Canon nor Nikon offered what I needed so I moved to Sony. Had Canon offered the mythical "3D" body with similar features to the a900 or Nikon offered a D900, I might be shooting with one of those cameras. Alas, Sony is "better" for me and offers a whole lot more then Canon or Nikon at any price (for what I need). The fact that Sony can do this at 1/3rd the price of the D3X is remarkable. ...Show more →
I totally respect the choice of a sony body, it's the lenses I have issue with, and I'm not the only one.
schristie11 wrote:
I could not see a diff from the Canon, and so I saved bundle buying Canon gear from then on out.
AhamB wrote:
Who are you trying to convince here then? You might not see the differences but others obviously appreciate them differently.
I guess I know when my opinion is not wanted, so I'm out of this thread, no hard feelings.
It seems some people have their minds made up no matter what options are available at any price.
I'm not meaning to convert anyone to a new religion.
schristie11 wrote:
I totally respect the choice of a sony body, it's the lenses I have issue with, and I'm not the only one.
I see. I don't own a single Sony lens! I have a few older Minolta lenses and then a stable of alternatives such as Zeiss Contax, Pentax Takumars and soon will add a few Leica's. When I shot Canon, it was the same pretty much.
schristie11 wrote:
I totally respect the choice of a sony body, it's the lenses I have issue with, and I'm not the only one.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I see. I don't own a single Sony lens! I have a few older Minolta lenses and then a stable of alternatives such as Zeiss Contax, Pentax Takumars and soon will add a few Leica's. When I shot Canon, it was the same pretty much.
Yes, sounds like one of the first things I posted:
schristie11 wrote:
I have only met one guy who was a professional and worked at a camera store, who swiched to Sony.
He said it was so he could buy good old manual focus minolta lenses that he wanted.
schristie11 wrote:
I guess I know when my opinion is not wanted, so I'm out of this thread, no hard feelings.
It seems some people have their minds made up no matter what options are available at any price.
I'm not meaning to convert anyone to a new religion.
your opinion would certainly be wanted if you gave useful info on your personal comparison of the canon, sony, and nikon cameras and lenses you say you tested. particularly if you had image samples to go with it. most of the people in the alt forum are actually canon shooters, but very few people here confine themselves to shooting only one brand of lens. i personally will probably be getting a FF frame in the next year and have no current investment in any lens system (i shoot almost 95% manual focus legacy glass of various manufacturers), so i would be interested to hear any useful comparison.
I rented these:
Nikon D700 with 24-70 and 70-200
Sony 900 with 24-70 and 70-200
Canon 5D II and 24-70L 70-200 2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400L.
I also rented a number of other canon lenses over the next year, and bought several.
At that time, I owned a Canon 5D (MK1) and 28-300L and 24L etc.
I saw minor differenced in the files from each camera.
None of the differences were very significant from the lenses though some minor elements existed in the bodies calibration to base and high iso and WB presets.
Honestly, it was not easy to identify which camera body or lens I used; by "looking" at the screen or a 11x17 print.
The DPreview ISO samples and other Professional sources have already summed up this equipment mostly accurately.
I could go into minute detailed differences and provide samples, but I really don't think it was anything newsworthy.
Therefore, I am just commenting on technical things in a general way.
So,
I made my final purchasing decisions then based on the handling of the equipment and the options available for lenses and accessories and the total Pricing tof these systems from each MFG :
- body lenses flashes remote triggers etc.
I think the handling of the bodies is the most significant difference.
Honestly, each body was its own animal. Lol
I think everyone should rent the body that you are interested in first;
to ensure it is complimentary of their thinking and method of use.
The current versions of your Canon lenses total $4300 on B&H
The Sony versions total $4950, and two of the three lenses are much newer designs than the Canons.
This hardly seems like enough money for such animosity.
BTW, a major reasons why so many Canon lenses are cheap is because they're relatively old. The new Canon 70-200 f2.8 II is $2269 on B&H. The Sony 70-200 f2.8 is only $1799, which is acceptable.
Personally I find the difference between Sony and Canon files significant. Having said that I haven't worked much at all with 5D II files. The Nikon files I have seen have been more Sony-like than Canon-like, but all comparisons are based on files that haven't been shot side by side.
I think it depends on experience in working with files, I have worked with imaging since 1989 and gone all the way from analog to digital - enduring the horrible transition period - and to me it is quite easy to spot differences that I find noteworthy.
Since I left the imaging industry a few years ago I still keep in touch with some guys that are - and have always been - better than me and I draw on their conclusions as well. One of the guys we used to prepare files for eventually gave up on Canon recently and went the Nikon route. He did that after seeing what Sony and Nikon could do. He was also very disappointed with Canon wide angles, something Canon has remedied as of lately.
Today I am a bit rusty I admit but still I find the Sony files a bliss to work with coming from Canon.
Lens selection IS limited - but as longs as I find the lenses I need why would I bitch about it? I am no longer a lens collector. I am a lens user. The 135/1.8 ZA is as good as it gets but for the other focal lengths I have resorted to adapting Zeiss, Leica and Mamiya, much like a lot of other people around here. It's them lenses it is all about and since I have a decent variety from Sony (not great, but decent) and a superb selection of vintage and contemporary alt glass - why should I be quietly sulking?
The camera will always be "just a box" to me. But the Sony box appeals to me a whole lot more than the Canon box.
I don't knock people who use Canon, I just don't want to use Canon myself. I have done that. It is usually the other way around: people don't take Sony seriously. I don't love Sony as a company but I like the camera and I thank Sony for putting the financial muscle into making it. I thank Minolta for most of what the A900 is though.
I will add that of course I wish that Sony will keep improving the full frame lens line up. I do understand that the NEX series has consumed a lot of time and resources to launch and that all those umpteen short term feelers Sony put out on the APS-C sensor size cameras have taken it's toll on the R&D for full frame but I hope they will divert some R&D resources back to full frame and keep holding a stake in the professional segment. They have the resources and the finances, I hope they put them to good use.
Actually the Canon 70-200 MK II is now on B&H for
Price: $2,269.00
Instant Savings -$ 200.00 Offer ends 01/08/2011 You
Pay: $2,069.00
The current Sony G 70-200 is only slightly less, and it is a "old" design by your standards.
The new Canon lens is definitely sharper cleaner faster and better in all technical regards.
It also includes a 4 stop IS system that is incredibly good and works on even the cheapest Canon bodies, including the excellent 7D priced very nicely.
These features are definitely worth the small increase in price.
Oh yea, but you cannot buy the Sony since it is OUT OF STOCK! Small details.
Once again, just because Sony is promising a lens, does not mean you can have it in your hand, and if you cannot have it, how can you say it's better than any other lens?
In addition, the Sony 70-200 lens has the same features and IQ as the $1100 Canon 70-200 and the Sony is priced at set $1800 – $200 rebate = $1600 for some reason it is $600 more than the equivalent old technology Canon lens.
Can you tell me why?
Many of the Sony lenses in the lineup are not all that new - not new technology.
Besides, that does not make one of them either better or worse.
I wish sony priced their lenses similarly with the common technology standard they are competing against with of Canon.
Therefore, your suggestion that Canon lenses being old, was a reason for price point, is not a strong argument.
It does not cost significantly less today than it did 5 years ago.
douglasf13,
I have no idea how you came up with "my lenses total price".
How do you even know what my lenses are?
Please detail your results, so I / We don’t think your just off your rocker.. If your claim is legit, I / we want to know.
douglasf13 wrote:
The current versions of your Canon lenses total $4300 on B&H
The Sony versions total $4950, and two of the three lenses are much newer designs than the Canons.
This hardly seems like enough money for such animosity.
BTW, a major reason why so many Canon lenses are cheap is because they're relatively old. The new Canon 70-200 f2.8 II is $2269 on B&H. The Sony 70-200 f2.8 is only $1799, which is acceptable.
Can we quit the raving discussion about the relative pricing of Canon and Sony please? It's obvious enough for anyone to see that Sony is more expensive for some lenses. I think the discussion here should be about the difference in using the different systems, not in purchasing them.
On-topic:
Something I'd like to know about the Sony A850/900 viewfinder: are the AF-points always visible, also if you use the M focusing screen? And those APS-C and 16:9 indicator lines? From the pictures on the net it looks rather cluttered to me.
My 5D's finder fortunately doesn't have crop lines but when I'm focusing (manually of course) the AF points still get in the way at times, and I wish I could remove them.
I have the A850. The AF points and the indicator lines are always visible, even if you switch to the M screen. In this respect, they are the same. I found the AF points slightly distracting sometimes. But the indicator lines are "barely" visible, to me anyway.
If you really voiced an opinion instead of sounding like a one person crusade against Sony, it probably would have been more interesting. I shoot with two systems, and use the one at the time which serves to do what i need, when i need it. I do not need to argue with anyone, to justify my purchase. YMMV
schristie11 wrote: Yes, sounds like one of the first things I posted:
The "older" Minolta lenses I refer to are Minolta AF lenses such as the 28 F2 and the 100 F2, both extremely good, not MF lenses just for clarification. I may add a few Sony Zeiss ZA lenses since most are the best at their respective focal lengths and don't have that soft Canon smeary look to them.
Chris48 wrote:
I have the A850. The AF points and the indicator lines are always visible, even if you switch to the M screen. In this respect, they are the same. I found the AF points slightly distracting sometimes. But the indicator lines are "barely" visible, to me anyway.
I see. I once peered through a Pentax k10D and the viewfinder looked kind of crude to me, with thick indicator lines for the AF area. I'd just hope Sony hasn't done something similar, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. I don't get why they put 16:9 markers in a camera that can't even shoot video though...
