Why photographers prefer Canon and Nikon system mostly instead of Sony?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by benjamin_kim|2, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. I saw a lot of Canon and Nikon cameras from Rio Olympic and I start wondering about photographers who use either Canon and Nikon system. Beside Nikon, Canon has a reputation of worst sensor compare to Nikon and Sony so far but I still see a lot of photographers and people using Canon DSLR. Well, I thought Sony sensors are way more superior than Canon sensor tho. I do have 5d mark 3 which has poor DR range but still useable for all purposes. I would like to know the percentage of Canon, Nikon, and Sony in camera industry and why photographers and people prefer Canon and Nikon system over Sony system.
     
  2. They've been around longer. I bought a Nikon F in 1965. They also have a much larger lens selection. But Sony is coming along and is forcing the other two to re-think their DSLR and move towards mirrorless. It will take awhile.
     
  3. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Speaking as someone who shoots professionally and works alongside lots of other pros, nobody talks about sensor quality except marketing people and web forum warriors. Nobody's photos get turned down for publication because of the sensor they used. That's part one.

    Part two is the infrastructure. I can rent almost any piece of Canon (or Nikon) gear on a few minutes notice and have it in my hands in thirty minutes. I've had to rent a teleconverter twice in the last week and had no problem doing it. The rental shop, the biggest in the area, has some Sony video equipment but that's it for the brand.
    Part three is the photographer support. It isn't difficult to find all sorts of horror stories about Sony (and Leica also) service turnaround. I can send a piece of equipment in to Canon and have it back, repaired, in four days. A few years ago, I was working on a Hollywood studio lot and Canon serviced the equipment on the lot.
    Virtually all of the discussion of technical minutia you see on the web is just that. It's not discussion from working pros, including the ones working the Olympics.
    "Being around longer" is irrelevant. That's not a factor for pros working the Olympics and similar events.
     
  4. Jeff Spirer/ That explained a lot about my questions.
     
  5. I am completely down on Sony for reasons I can sum up in one word - service. Specifically, lack of.
    I bought a Sony DSLR (I prefer to not identify the model, to keep all this more impartial) for my partner in late 2012. This camera developed shutter and processing problems almost immediately. Service in Melbourne was slow and annoying. At one point, the distributor suggested the camera should go back to Japan to be "done over completely" but noted it would have to be at my cost - this for a six months old camera. The service would take up to six months to have done. No thanks, we decided. As at the time all the problems were relatively minor, and involved basically either resetting the function (shutter) or redoing the process (processing), we opted not to, and just live with the problems.
    In 2013, while we were traveling in Indonesia, the camera broke down completely. We were in Surabaya at the time, and on the advice of the city's leading repair center, we took the camera to the Sony distributor in Jakarta gave us various reasons, most of them seeming to be thought up on the spot in the very typical Indonesian way, mostly to do (this was finally admitted by staff) with the fact that parts had to be ordered from Japan or Singapore, which the distributor did not consider their role to have to do. As usual the buck was passed back to the manufacturer. I had this in Australia also.
    I went back to the repair center in Surabaya, where the very helpful (Chinese Indonesian) owner, after making several very long phone discussions with Sony staff in two countries, suggested I should take the camera wither to Malaysia (which coincidentally was to be our next destination) or Singapore. Which we decided to do.
    In Malaysia, Sony in Kuala Lumpur took the camera and (after charging us their usual service fee, which was reasonable but annoying as Sony in Australia had clearly documented the problems with the camera had first occurred during the warranty period) sent it to their service center. FOUR WEEKS later after several phone calls and two visits to the center, we were finally provided with a quote for repair costs which to our great annoyance, was A$220 more than we had paid for the camera.
    At that point we cried "whoa!" and walked out.
    In 2015 my partner's brother had problems with his Sony laptop. Same scenario. In his case, Sony in Australia quoted A$400 MORE than the original cost of the laptop, to essentially replace everything but the diapers on the thing. He also gave up.
    Sum total and results, three ex-customers for Sony. I for one will never buy anything produced by Sony.
    In fairness I must say other friends have electronic equipment manufactured by Sony (mostly older gear) and have never had any problems with it. Another family member owns a Sony digital camera and it has worked without problems for two years, altho she shoots infrequently and only in "safe" social situations with it.
    By comparison, my Nikon D700 (purchased secondhand in 2012) has needed only a very basic CLA, which I had done in Singapore during a stopover. The excellent repair person there took two days to do the work and told me there were no serious problems at all with the camera. I have used this D700 constantly since I bought it and have shot more than 120,000 images with it.
    To be fair, this is the sad saga of one person's experiences with Sony camera gear and I suggest you regard it as such. However, for us, enough is enough. Our money doesn't grow on trees, and any future spending for my photo gear will go to manufacturers who think enough of their customers to provide a reasonable standard of service for said equipment at affordable costs. Nikon, Canon or Fuji will get my business. Not Sony.
    JDW on the road.
     
  6. it

    it

    I just had dinner with a friend who shoots and manages a large Reuters desk. He has done many Olympics and Aussie Opens etc. He says "zero" of their people are using Sony or the new generation of bodies. Every one of his shooters wants to use Canon 5DMK3.
    These companies have extremely streamlined workflows, RAW files are not permitted whatsoever, as is any editing at all on the images. Everything is JPG straight out of the camera. Cropping is the only thing allowed.
     
  7. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I think part of it is what you are accustomed to and how you began -- started with Nikon. Could easily have been Canon, but it wasn't. Have a lot of Nikon gear going back decades. Nikon has never once let me down and it is what I trust. I did buy a Ricoh GXR outfit six months or so ago, which I use as an "opportunity" camera when I don't plan to need a camera. Quite small and sophisticated, though now obsolete. It produces good images, but on a real photo outing, I would only use it in the unlikely event my Nikon failed. Last photo trip I carried it as a spare to save weight over a D 750 -- only used it because it is set up for IR, the vast bulk of shots with my Nikon DF.
     
  8. There was that time period where Sony were selling cameras without a lossless raw. And Canon/Nikon lens ranges are huge, maybe not as huge as they were in the manual focus days but still, lot's of selection. Common systems also lead to economies of scale and more selection on third party accessories. Word of mouth is pretty powerful, and it's easier to get informal help when more people have cameras designed like yours. At the Olympics in particular it's worth noting Canon has been dumping boatloads of money and equipment into it since at least the 80s. Speaking of which, Sony have a diluted brand in cameras, they lack the long association with professional cameras that the big 5 had. Up until they bought the corpse of Minolta they had no real market presence in professional cameras and they still have more of a reputation as a consumer electronics and video company than a camera company. Name recognition matters.
     
  9. Sony gets poor marks as it is not Nikon or Canon.
    Sony, however, makes all of the sensors fro Nikon and Canon, so the actual question is not really about Nikon or Canon.
    It's about who will survive. In current terms, Nikon is a very small and undiversified company, dependent on Sony and other suppliers.
    Canon is much larger, and more diversified, but still dependent on Sony for sensors and survival on the new digital age. Only time will tell... It's not so much about Sony today, but who can buy and implement a Sony sensor, and have the best firmware to harness it..
    It is unlikely that anyone's current opinion about a current vendor, and the related popularity, will amount to much downstream...
    Writing off Sony, or even Panasonic, in the current phase would be problematic and unwise...
     
  10. @ Michael: please redo your research. Canon makes its own sensors for DSLRs at least. Nikon is no small company and is part of Mitsubishi. Some other companies make more than decent sensors as well so the dependance on Sony is not huge although at the moment Sony admittedly makes the best sensors.
    As for the discussion about brands: in my photoclub there is hardly any discussion about brands. We care about composition, perhaps a bit about editing and print quality. Certainly not about the make or quality of sensors and which battery produces the best picture.
    Professionals will look at the available service and in this respect Nikon and Sony are established companies.
     
  11. why photographers and people prefer Canon and Nikon system over Sony system.
    Some gave technical reasons, some gave customer service reasons, and others mentioned historical reasons and I agreed with them all. I just want to add my 2 cents in sentimental and/or philoshophical aspects: 1. Firstly, if by photographers and people we mean "and other non-photographer people", then maybe the statement is not so true. For non-photographers, I see many of them prefer Sony, and Fuji MILC, many even like most the LG G4 (a phone), and I don't blame them (in fact they think I am stupid not to have an LG G4). For photographers, the way I see, we prefer Canon or Nikon just because Canon and Nikon care about photographers. I have tried many cameras from many manufacturers but with the Sony "cameras", I never feel they are cameras. They are more like digital image capturing systems built for the engineers, officers, secretaries, or kids. That's why. About "who makes the sensors", I have no information that you haven't known. But the sensor makers would not and cannot kill the camera makers because that means they kill themselves. People will also keep providing boxes, bags, filters, tripods, ... and other services like shipping, for camera manufacturers. Thinking that a camera manufacturer is dependent on a sensor maker is not much different from it is dependent on the big brown trucks (UPS) to deliver.​
     
  12. Also please bear in mind that there are several Sony companies/divisions. Sony cameras and sensors are not produced by the same companies, although both belong to the Sony group.
    Who remembers the discussion about CD DA conversion, the debate about the number of bits and oversampling? This discussion is mostly over. I expect the same to happen to the debate about camera sensors.
     
  13. Canon is much larger, and more diversified, but still dependent on Sony for sensors and survival on the new digital age.​
    Absolute nonsense!
     
  14. Although I would like to try out one of the newer Sony cameras and reduce the size/weight of my kit, it is a non-starter with my financial advisor (wife). Our business suffered from a series of failures of Sony computer products within warranty periods. Sony service, difficult to contact at all times, would never honor the warranty and provide an RMA or replacement. Conclusion: Sony products, once past a 30-day return to seller period, were throw-aways once problems arose. Our Sony experiences were more than a decade ago and it appears that the company continues an unsatisfactory approach to post sales support.
     
  15. Nikon and Canon have been getting the job done since the beginning, why change especially given the large investment in lenses. I sometimes get the impression that my ancient Nikon D50 still can out focus my latest mirrorless Fuji.
     
  16. Just my .02 as a professional photographer: professionals in the field shooting sports, weddings, PJ, and such alike, use Nikon and Canon because they are the best tools (and lenses) for those situations. Period.
    Sony would've done themselves better if they had carried on the Minolta legacy instead of putting their name on cameras. It's a perception thing. Sony was always known for TV's, stereos, Walkmans, CD players, not professional camera equipment. For casual/hobbyist shooting, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, etc, are great. Professionals sports and wedding photography require higher end Nikon and Canon equipment.
     
  17. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    For people with an established outfit of Canon or Nikon, its a lot cheaper to add or upgrade a lens or body or accessory of that brand than to start afresh with a different brand. I imagine that accounts for a high proportion of camera equipment sales. Then there's the likelihood of needing to change filters and other accessories.
    Of the people making totally new system decisions today, I don't know what the Sony/Canon/Nikon shares are. Maybe Sony are doing ok on that.
    I thought long and hard about a swap to Sony last time I bought a body. But the Sony lenses are as big, as heavy, and as expensive as the Canon L zooms I have now. Didn't seem worthwhile to spend a quite a few thousand £ replacing everything I own for a size/weight benefit on a body.
     
  18. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    And a decade or two ago , Sony seemed to me at least to be considered towards the top of the pile in consumer electronics. Not sure how clear cut that is today.
     
  19. Nikon is no small company and is part of Mitsubishi.​
    Basically, no: http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html
    Sony got the remnants of Minolta and didn't really know what to do with that and certainly didn't show as a major competitor against Nikon or Canon. Their A-mount system is in limbo nowadays more than ever. Their E-mount system is catching on by now and has given Sony a lot of market share. There are no long E-mount lenses and hence the system is unsuitable for shooting at events like the Olympics (one can adapt A-mount or Canon lenses while retaining AF to some extent).
     
  20. For once, I agree completely with Jeff Spirer. The Internet warriors who rattle on about sensors and raw converters and such seem never to have images worth looking at.
     
  21. "Part two is the infrastructure. I can rent almost any piece of Canon (or Nikon) gear on a few minutes notice"

    Jeff pretty much nailed it with his discussion of infrastructure and other reasons.

    I've been a newspaper photographer, then a reporter/editor and then done PR, so I've either been a photographer or worked side by side with photographers for 40 years. In that time, at least in the news business, I have never, ever seen a news photographer shooting with anything other than Nikon, Canon or Leica. Up through maybe the 80s I rarely saw Canon. And I haven't seen anyone shoot with Leica since the world went digital.

    Jeff mentioned equipment rental and quick service from Nikon and Canon. Back in the day, newspapers also provided pool equipment for more exotic gear, and it has always been Nikon or Canon. Since most photographers shoot Nikon or Canon, it's easy to borrow gear from colleagues if you stick to those two brands. Also, anybody who's shot for any length of time has a considerable investment in lenses and accessories and that commits you to what you've got pretty much no matter what else comes along.

    I agree that Sony made a mistake in dropping the Minolta name. But Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, etc., have always been also-rans at best. They simply aren't players in the professional world, and therefore can't provide the range of products, service, etc., that you need when shooting for a living. Do they have some products that might be better? Maybe, but it doesn't matter.

    I used to have a Nikon-Canon website. The way I explained it was that baseball has the American League and the National League, politics has Democrats and Republicans, computers have PC and Mac. And photography (at least for SLR/DSLR) has Nikon and Canon. It's a fact of life.
     
  22. An interesting note [a bit of a tangent too!], the American Army uses Pentax cameras, or at least the Marines do
     
  23. I have to say, I love my Fuji X-E1, but I wouldn't take it to the Olympics.
     
  24. Another difference between the Sony A7 series and the Canon and Nikon bodies they are competing with is that the Sony battery life is quite a bit shorter presumably because of the electronic v/f.
    I also found that with bigger lenses attached I preferred the balance of my Canon to my brother's Sony A7II. But the Sony A7 series are fine cameras that may suit some people.
     
  25. "The main difference between Canon / Nikon and "lesser" professional brands is marketing. It's mostly in the head" Phil,
    Really, Phil.
    Try auto focus one of the main considerations of a Pro...
    Have you done Pro work? Or, is it about web warrior stuff.
     
  26. "I have to say, I love my Fuji X-E1, but I wouldn't take it to the Olympics"
    Indeed, my Fuji takes really great skin tones. Love it.
    When it really matters...try working when its about feeding your family not feeding a fantasy.
    .
     
  27. "Have you done Pro work? Or, is it about web warrior stuff".
    That was uncalled for, you do some great photos, and some very interesting posts.
    Humble pie. Apologise.
     
  28. It makes sense that many pros use Canon and Nikon for many of the reasons given. But most people are not pros. Sony, who's always been in the business of making products smaller, yet effective, continues that philosophy with products like the A7. I recently bought their RX100M4 a 1" P&S with 4K and slow-motion movies as well as pretty nice 19mb stills, a camera perfect for throwing in your pocket or wearing on your belt for vacations and things like that. And then showing slides and movies on my HD TV. I need light, and I've long given up on carrying a heavy camera bag except when I'm shooting locally and then I shoot Mamiya medium format film camera.
    Also, companies like Sony, have pushed the industry by thinking out of the box. This has cause the development of alternative methods that are now being accepted by Nikon and Canon. Heck, even digital upset Nikon and Canon's traditional film lines as they had to adapt to new concepts. Look what it's done to Kodak.
    For us photographers, what works for some doesn;t work for others, or just isn't needed. Isn't it nice we have such a tremendous choice?
     
  29. Allen, I very much doubt that every pro has the same consideration for what they want out of a camera. Like I said earlier, if the US military decides they want toughness over autofocus speed, who are you to tell them otherwise? The consideration of one is not the consideration of all.
    There are some who prefer sharpness and color rendition over speed, and a large format camera will blow ANY digital camera out of the water in those department- Just talk to the folks in the large format thread. If Ansel Adams could feed his family with his large format landscapes I have no doubt others could, too
    Not to be rude just a consideration :)
     
  30. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Here is what I know about brands from nearly 50 years of owning "35mm" cameras and their digital progeny. This is simply based on my own experience--and direct observations of the experience of others. As is said, YMMV...
    For most of that time, I hewed closely to Canon. Mixed in with that for fun and variety was Yashica, Minolta, Miranda, and Pentax. In every case, my Canon gear outlasted by decades ANY of the aforementioned brands. The opportunities to build kit off the used market were always tremendous for Canon OEM lenses, and their third party compatible clones. Repair was always available--but with the exception of seals and batteries--I never needed it. Wish I could say the same about the others. The experiences of my friends who swore by their Konica, Olympus, and other hobby cameras mirrored my observations.
    Just jumped ship a couple years ago to Nikon for several reasons--none germane to this discussion. I find the same thing happening there as I did with my Canon fixation. Meanwhile, several Sony and Olympus PS cameras (more P.O.S. as was my experience) bought in the last few years as convenient walkabouts have failed somehow and made their way to the trash. Minolta digital was a complete joke before they ultimately failed and folded.
    I refuse to get caught up in arcane discussions about the minutae of sensors--just like a lot of things on the innernutz about lens characteristics are rose bush fertilizer. The proof is in the pudding---errr---image. What most have said about 'pro' use is right. It extends to the 'prosumer' and advanced amateur markets as well. Lots of great priced accessories, reliability and repair availability, and solid return on investment. Oh, and not the least. The ability to sell it all quickly for a fair price when the "upgrade" bug strikes
     
  31. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The main difference between Canon / Nikon and "lesser" professional brands is marketing. It's mostly in the head.​

    I'm struggling with understanding how supporting a large infrastructure and having fast turnaround for pros is "marketing."
     
  32. Great stuff!
    I knew that my original post would stir up a hornet's nest of responses, but what is most telling is that whether Canon, or Nikon, or something else, all of the cameras and lenses are better cameras and lenses than the posters replying are photographers.
    Great photographers dwell little on cameras. Great chefs don't dwell on which pans they use.
    Those relying on "brands" miss the whole point of photography.
     
  33. Everyone has different tastes. And that's a good thing. People also rationalise, which is not always good.
    But the real question is, "Do you have anything by Robert Ludlum?"
     
  34. "Being around longer" is irrelevant.​
    I don't see it that way. I don't shoot the Olympics or any sports for that matter but when you have been around as long as Canon and Nikon you've had time to develop deep, robust systems which make the selection of their gear smart business decisions. They've had time to establish deep lens and accessory catalogs. To establish pervasive, well-trained and responsive service organizations. They have had product develop time that spans decades so the product is not just highly functional, rugged and reliable but ergonomically excellent. They've had time to optimize gear specific to discrete sections of photography such as close-up, sports, portrait or photomicrography. To a person relying on photography for your living, these are simply better tools.
    Personally, I enjoy the Sony mirrorless cameras. I love the Sony image quality for my personal work. But for professional work, we use Canon gear. And as long as we (seven staff photographers, five support staff) have tight deadlines to meet, distant and often difficult locations to capture, need specialized close-up, portrait, super-wide or shift optics, and have the continuous performance pressure to deliver quality imaging products on-demand and on-time, using a long establish brand like Canon makes sense. So, yes, I think being around longer plays a big part of my choice.
     
  35. infrastructure and large, fast CSR team with deep knowledge and numerous rental locales do take a long time to develop.
    Louis +1
     
  36. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Everyone has different tastes.​

    That has nothing to do with why many pros choose their cameras. If you haven't done it, you don't know how important fast service turnaround and availability of compatible equipment is.

    Sounds like you haven't done it.
     
  37. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Great photographers dwell little on cameras. Great chefs don't dwell on which pans they use.
    Those relying on "brands" miss the whole point of photography.​
    Yes, that must be why a significant number of them used Leica, Graflex, Calumet, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Linhof, Sinar, Rollei, plus many others and the famous optics that have gone with them... Granted, I can get some fantastic shots with my old Argus C3. But if I am being paid for a day out in the field in which some of my work is going to end up somewhere important--the Argus will be on a shelf at home.
    Look at the tools of any professional in a trade, such as a mechanic. Mac, Snap-On, S-K. There is a reason for that--much the same in many ways as with cameras. The 'chef' analogy does not hold much water either. Every executive chef I have worked with or known has been a real d*ck about not only what particular variety of pan it was--but its manufacture as well. Like the Argus, I can make a crepe in a $4 K-Mart pan--but you sure as heck will never find such in a production kitchen... :)
     
  38. Canon and Nikon also offer equipment (e.g. specialist lenses etc.) to use to the accredited shooters at major sports events, so the photographers don't necessarily have to bring all of it along (or own it), which would get very expensive and heavy as well (e.g. think about carrying a 400/2.8, 800/5.6 along with everything else). Also they help with difficult technical setups that may be needed, remote cameras etc.
    While there is room for one David Burnett (it's good that there are some people working to get different results), there are reasons why the majority of shooters at the Olympics use what they use; tilted pseudo-miniature shots would not do as the sole coverage of the games. Canon makes excellent long lenses and they have been leaders in autofocus technology since the beginning of the AF era. Nikon also have the needed equipment and technology. However, this doesn't mean you have to use Canon (or Nikon) for your photography. It depends on what you want to do and what you're comfortable with. Personally I do not like electronic viewfinders and I would not choose a brand which only offers those. However, I know others who happily use them.
    There is no reason to be concerned about what other people use.
     
  39. fast service turnaround and availability of compatible equipment​
    It’s not a concern for me, personally. If I’m shooting, say, a dress rehearsal for a stage play, fast turnaround of service is irrelevant if one of my cameras breaks down. Even five minutes is too long. If I do another wedding I’ll rent two or maybe three bodies. Service in that case will not be my responsibility.
    I shoot with a mirrorless system and I have adapters for six lens mounts. So compatibility is not a problem for me (although I would like a few more). I use manual lenses which tend to be cheap and bulletproof. If I decide to use an AF lens I’ll have a backup for important jobs. As always, YMMV.
    Every executive chef I have worked with or known has been a real d*ck about not only what particular variety of pan it was--but its manufacture as well.​
    That’s a very good point. We think that we are the only professionals who care about what equipment we use. Some people should speak to people on a film crew - 1st ACs have their favourite follow-focus systems, and that’s not a trivial thing. Follow-focuses are very important to getting the shot. So if the focus puller likes a particular FF, you do your best to make sure that they get it.
    BTW I usually carry spare CF and SD cards so in the rare case that someone is short on memory cards, they can always borrow from me, regardless of the brand of their camera.
     
  40. As stated or implied, you see Canon and Nikon cameras at the Olympics or any professional sports venue because they are the best tools for the job. You don't need high resolution for a 4 column spread on the sports page (at 80 dpi), but you do need rugged hardware, high speed and long lenses.
    I suspect that Cartier-Bresson chose a Leica because that was the best tool for his work, or Ansel Adams an 8"x 10" view camera (or often an Hasselblad). I wouldn't use either of the latter for anything that moves. I've actually used a Leica for sports, because 50 years ago there weren't many choices. There is nothing inherently wrong with mirrorless camera focusing and speed that a shift in emphasis and design can't overcome. The Leica SL601 is just the first step in that direction.
    Canon and Nikon have exceptional service in the U.S. However that is driven largely by the importer, not the factory. If you are using an U.S. import in Thailand or Singapore, do you really expect the same level of service? Would it matter WHERE you bought it? As another has said, if I have a breakdown at an event, I need it NOW, not five days hence. That's why I carry a backup which uses the same lenses and accessories. I also carry twice as many memory cards and batteries than I think I'll ever need. I've smoked flash units to, so two of them go along too. It is nice, however, to get a camera or lens back in a week from a local Nikon service agency.
     
  41. I think the OP is missing the point. Why should Sony be preferred by professional sports photographers?
    Only in the past 2 or 3 years have they got serious about photography and professional sports is not their focus.
    For everyday photographers and/or portrait/landscapers they are great. There is no doubt that they make wonderful cameras for these applications which people can make money using. For sports they are not even on the RADAR.
    There is no point pretending otherwise.
     
  42. Major sports events and political photo ops are probably where most people see a lot of photographers at once, generally shooting with Nikon or Canon cameras. Despite the visibility, these venues are not where most cameras are used.
    Compared to a few hundred major sports events, there are 2.3 million weddings per year, and many have at least one professional photographer in attendance, plus innumerable party snappers. Weddings are a $72 billion industry in the U.S. alone. While most wedding photographers will continue to use their current equipment until it is no longer competetive, mirrorless ILC cameras are arguably ideal for this application - 30% smaller/lighter, high resolution and image quality, and quiet or silent operation. You can get medium format quality in a 35 mm package. If the turnover hasn't made a major impact on the DSLR industry, just wait.
    http://www.soundvision.com/article/wedding-statistics-in-the-united-states
    Statistics on landscape and travel photography are elusive, but among those professionals who write about it, including Luminous Landscape, the shift is overwhelmingly toward high-end mirrorless cameras. Why settle for 16-20 MP when you can get up to 42 MP and leave your tripod in the car? A lot more people travel than get married each year, and some take it very seriously.
    Personally, I find that a mirrorless ILC meets my needs for social events and an occasional wedding, but just as important it is ideal for travel, family and friends. I haven't sold my DSLRs, but they're in the capable hands of my adult son, who shoots performance and sporting events professionally, and puppies for fun.
     
  43. These long discussions really amaze me. They are mostly similar to the last one within an endless series.
    Pro photographers are but a very very small part of the Nikon, Canon users. Most other photographers use these two because they are better known to them than Sony. It is hard not to not see them at sporting events on TV or in the flesh, where they are in their realm, and that alone (unfortunately) influences a lot of photographers, as well as the fact that they are mature, well rounded systems.
    Serious photographers will buy a camera for its system capabilities, various picture making qualities and durabiity and couldn't care less about the nameplate.
    A high end Sony system and quality optics are what I presently need and apply as a part time professional photographer (part time only because I have another revenue source as well), but I could likely get similar quality elsewhere for what I shoot. I have changed systems at least three times in as many decades, which is not a problem in my case, given my relatively modest needs of lenses and accessories.
     
  44. In my own opinion I think the main reason is vogue! It's all about propaganda and marketing. They have been trending in the market for many years. These cameras are heavy, plastic, noisy, overrated, big ... and still trending. Like Charleston pants in the 70's. They were worn by almost everyone. Why? Because they worn by everyone. :)
     
  45. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The fastest turnaround in case of an equipment failure is still having enough backup equipment or options​

    That depends on what breaks. In my case, while shooting on the studio lot, my 70-200/2.8 died. I took it into the on-site Canon facility, rented one for a couple days, and had my own back. We had plenty of bodies, Canon DSLRs were used for a lot of the video work, but there were only cine lenses. And this doesn't address the rental issue. Why would I buy a $400 teleconverter to use three times a year when I can rent it for $12 for the night? Twice, I only knew hours before an event that it was necessary and it was no big deal to run out and pick it up.
     
  46. Rental agencies are not limited to Canon and Nikon equipment. LensRentals seems to have a good inventory of Leica and Sony equipment, among other items. If you are fortunate enough (?) to live in Chicago or San Francisco, you have a choice of rental agencies, and others are just a key-click away.
    In other countries and regions, you take your chances. While I was not able to travel freely, I managed to find one camera shop in Beijing which sold Nikon equipment - for three prices. China, it would seem, is not much into importing things like that.
    I don't think I paid that much for a teleconverter. I have two (1.4 and 2.0), and generally no warning when they might be needed. My son uses them at almost every event.
     
  47. I've been a Canon guy, but always respected Nikon. I worked for Canon in the early '90's, and one thing they took pride in was that (at the time) everything they made, was reprographic. Whether it was cameras, photocopiers, fax machines, digital filing, etc., and all required a high level of reprographic R&D. Nikon is, was, an always has been a photographic and related equipment company. I would feel safe in guesstimating that 99.999% of both company's R&D money is put in to photographic endeavors.
    Along with what has already been said by others, one thing about Sony that makes me feel like they aren't geared in any manner towards professionals, is that they're cameras seem to boast gimmicky features. In camera HDR (like a pro is really going to use that), is one that totally turns me off the Sony name.

    Sony had/has a strong foothold in the consumer market as a well known name for electronics, on both the consumer and professional levels, but Canon and Nikon have always had that reputation in the photographic world. So when Joe Public is going out to Best Buy to get his first 'high-end' camera, he sees the Sony name, the high MP count, and all these incredibly useful (useless) features right there in easy access, he equates it to 'the best out there'. Whereas a pro typically is savvy enough to know that while a high MP count and in-camera editing isn't enough to bring home the bacon, but that other quality features on C/N, such as faster AF, will.
    Some other possible reasons is that Sony still is a bit of a proprietary company (hot shoes), amount of lenses available is significantly lower for Sony then either Canon or Nikon, this also applies to available accessories (including from 3rd party manufacturers), and as much as Sony wants to think it does, an electronic VF can not reproduce the entire scene as well, or as instantaneously, as a quality mirror setup.
     
  48. Phil, I understand what you're saying, but what pro would use the in-camera HDR over one done in true HDR software for paid work? You even say that you would still need to process afterwards, so the feature is (IMO), for the MWAC/GWAC who think its cool, and makes them a better fauxtographer.
     
  49. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    No doubt Sony makes good, capable cameras. The issue is that if a photographer pursues a large variety of photographic specialties, a comprehensive system is essential. So far, Sony hasn't got that. Nikon and Canon have, long since. To me, an admitted Nikonista, the fact that every F mount lens from earliest days is seamlessly usable on my modern digitals is valuable. Canon took a different path (I could have easily gone Canon back in the '60's), and made a break from a portion of their old lenses -- probably not important to most. Simply, I don't care to have my photography limited by an emerging system.
     
  50. it

    it

    Quality, reliability and service.
     
  51. Did anyone ever write a song like "I've got my sony camera, don't take my Kodachrome away?" No. Paul Simon did sing about Nikon. I shoot Nikon. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
     
  52. Zzzzzzzzz.......
    Drop the computer mouse, take any camera that is handy, go out and think "f8 and be there!"
     
  53. People just take pictures with what they want to use or own. Back in the day Nikon was King and Canon was always nipping at their heels. However photographers today are not using DSLR's that much. I would say the iphone is the most popular camera out there. Mirrorless camera's are also popular and Sony has some good offerings and Nikon and Canon are looking at slowly going out of business. They just want to hang onto the old school DSLR thing I suppose.
    I use the Nikon FM2n myself and my cell phone of course. I may pick up a Leica M model one of these days if I ever see one in my price range. If I was a landscape guy I would get a Hassy like Michael Kenna uses. I think after decades of 35mm photography I have decided that Illford HP5 is the ultimate for family, travel and hobby photography. The cell phone for sharing to the web and cute video's of the Grandkids. I still make prints.
    However at the Olympics I imagine they were shooting jumbo Nikon and Canon camera's. In the scheme of things that is a handfull of camera's taking photos of stuff that I did not even look at.
     
  54. I didn't realize people used their DSLRs "not that much". I used to shoot about 3000 images per year on 35mm film, with the first DSLR I shot about 10000 per year and now around 60000 images per year. This increase is due to the increased possibilities of shooting in conditions where photography used to be impossible, and of course due to the lower per shot cost, and greater ease of making custom prints. While fewer DSLRs are sold today than in the peak years, even that reduced number is several times greater than film SLR sales ever were.
    My iPhone camera doesn't focus correctly, it stopped working after only a few months of use of the phone. So I don't use that.
     
  55. This is a topic, for me easily solved. Nikon was the first "proper"camera available to me in Canada. Canon was not even on the horizon and when they did appear, it was as electrostatic copiers.
    Then too before moving to Nikon (Nikon F c/w 50mm lense), purchased used from one of numerous camera shops on Yonge Street in Toronto, the price was about C$85.00, a week's salary, then.
    And I should add my photo gear up until then had been Pentax, Spotmatic. Problem was many of us had friends/contacts at the various camera retail outlets which sold Nikon, and most weekends, lenses could be borrowed/rented for next to nothing. Also many of us swapped lenses when on streetcar photography expeditions in Toronto, other than yours truly, it was all Nikon.
    So for me it was convenience. I kept my Pentax for a period for black and white, however Pentax was next to worthless on the used market; traded my Pentax gear for my first zoom lense.
    An acquainiance, who was with Uncle Sam's Canoe Club during the Vietnam conflict showed me the first Canon i'd seen, purchased overseas. Similar in construction to the Pentax, seemed OK, but once a Nikon person, always a Nikon person.
     
  56. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    It has nothing to do with marketing. Sony and Fuji aren't at the Olympics because they can't even track focus on a running dog at the dog park. With the upcoming XT-2 though, I suspect Fuji will be there before Sony
     
  57. One thing is clear: Sony is a big player and they seem committed to photography. Give it....hhmmm I don't know, ten years and they should be second to none.
    On a nicer note, Canon seem to be doing good things with their sensors now. I'm happy to see that.
     

Share This Page