Uhooru Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>Eric i love your pronouncements as if its the word of god. You seem to leave out fashion, portrait and other photographers who can make good use of these Sony cameras despite your dismissive opinions. Pro sports shooters don't shoot view cameras much either, does that make them incomplete. There's no such thing as a complete camera system, so I'm not sure what your point is about what it can or can't do. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>here's what i actually said. </p> <blockquote> <p>the A7 bodies arent great for sports. Who are they great for? video shooters, resolution junkies, legacy lens users. </p> </blockquote> <p>funny how yall got bent out of shape over nothing. i never said portrait shooters would run from sony like it was the seven plagues of egypt. if that's your preferred system, more power to you. lol. the list of sony 'pros' is humorous. when you have to name drop like 10 names, its kind of a sign that may be the extent of it. and how many of those sony pros got free gear? the thing is, im not even a sony hater, im just not a fanboy. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>Nobody is trying to convince you, Eric, rather provide an alternate viewpoint for others who might be reading this thread. Coming up with a list of ten "pros" who use an A7 is not a stretch. Most of the favorable reviews are by "pros" who have embraced the A7ii or A7Rii as their camera of choice. The may get "free" cameras for review, but must purchase them for their own use. The best testimony you can give is your own cash.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlado Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>Not good for sports? look at my Sports folder - all shot with various Sony mirrorless, very capable cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>vlad, excellent photos in your Sports folder. <em>Great Expectations</em> really stands out to me. A very powerful composition there. And I used to fence back in the day (epee though, not foil) so I really like all those. Especially <em>Danger Down Below</em>. Nicely done.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <blockquote> <p>funny how yall got bent out of shape over nothing</p> </blockquote> <p>I can assure you Eric, I'm not bent out of shape over anything. I actually exist in a zen like state of perpetual peace and calm as I contemplate the Koan of how Sony fit such a large sensor in such a small camera. Oommmmm..sooooooonny..oommmmmm....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_doumani Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>I neglected to thank you David for your lengthy and poignant response. It helped me put things back into perspective. I was actually out shooting a little today (with one of my Sony's) and loving it! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I neglected to thank you David for your lengthy and poignant response. It helped me put things back into perspective. I was actually out shooting a little today (with one of my Sony's) and loving it!</p> </blockquote> <p>Excellent! And you are very welcomed George. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <p>It might be worth mentioning, as a curiosity and a footnote to this worthy discussion, that there exists in the archives of every major news publication countless, excellent images of fast action sports, from Formula One to golf, captured with 100 or 400 speed slide film and manual focus lenses, that are the equal of most images taken today. I invite anyone to confirm this to their satisfaction.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 <blockquote> <p>It might be worth mentioning, as a curiosity and a footnote to this worthy discussion, that there exists in the archives of every major news publication countless, excellent images of fast action sports, from Formula One to golf, captured with 100 or 400 speed slide film and manual focus lenses, that are the equal of most images taken today. I invite anyone to confirm this to their satisfaction.</p> </blockquote> <p>This. You are absolutely correct Karim. I tell people all the time that almost all of the great photos of the 20th century were taken on film with manual lenses. And those images are some of the best ever taken in the history of photography. In our modern and automated world people are to quick to forget these days that excitement, drive and creative vision can overcome any perceived 'gear' limitations. The great photographers of the past often times did much more, with much less.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>Expectations have changed. Great action photos were rare with manual cameras, considering the number of attempts. Most were just good enough to get published. Sports photographers now are expected to produce great photos at every event.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>do you guys own stock in Sony? or does buying one of these cameras mean you lose all notions of critical perspective/objectivity and become instant fanboys? let me explain that ive been tempted by both sony FF and sony APS-C, but neither really works for what i shoot at the present moment. the A6000 appears to have the AF speed and focus capabilities for photojournalism and maybe sports but when you start checking into lenses you hit brick walls as lenses you might need just dont exist in that mount and both the kit lens and the zeiss 16-70 have serious limitations. ditto with the A7, although the clear iteration between A7, A7s and A7r is something nikon could learn from. im not saying i would never get a Sony body, just that i wish the system was a little more mature and these cameras were angled more toward pros and semi-pros rather than toys for rich guys. overall, Sonys are more hobby cameras than working tools for working pros, but that is changing, albeit slowly, and may be moot if your shooting criteria allows you to overlook the Sony flaws. i will concede Sony is one of the most innovative companies right now in terms of pushing out new technology, but there seem to be some real compromises there in terms of functionality and fully-iterated system availability. if you want to buy a new body every year while you wait for the right lenses to be announced, i won't stop you. but for the record, im also critical of nikon (basically abandoned pro DX, not as innovative as they once were), and fuji (excellent lens line up, but the XT1 also has AF limitations which hold it back). ive also not bought into m4/3 despite the excellent lens selection and increasingly-capable bodies as i tend to shoot above ISO 1600 a lot, and for the cost of a super-capable m4/3 system, i could get an equivalent in APS-C or even full frame. i may start doing more video, so the RX10 is on the short list, and ive heard good things about the RX100 IV, but if we're being honest, the Sony UI interfaces seem like they were made by engineers, not photographers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>As someone who works in electronics, what irks me about Sony is that they are not building on what has 'been before' in the camera industry in their new cameras. Sony supplies Nikon with sensors, yet Nikon is giving users uncompressed RAW and gets very good image quality from the sensors Sony supplies them with in Lightroom and similar.</p> <p>I absolutely think that what Sony are doing is great, but as has always been the way with Sony they don't get it right in the last 10% of the product. I'm not sure why, but many of their products are this way. I have bought Sony for over 20 years and they have always been this way - even the world band radios with silly issues built in.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>I don't own stock but I've seen the files on a good monitor. Enough for me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>The Sony menu could use some improvements, but the camera itself is easily configured to bring the most common items to your fingertips. There are nine programmable buttons.</p> <p>$3K is a lot of money to lay down without a lot of research, and that's just a start once you buy lenses to build a system. Don't mistake the results of that research and subsequent experience for being a "fanboy." I don't make a living from photography (actually I do, from sound and videography), but I expect professional results, as do my customers.</p> <p>If there are "fanboys", they are the adherents to older systems who feel threatened by technical advances, mainly in the form of electronic viewfinders. There are still echos of the controversy whether digital would ever be as good as film, and before that, if CDs could ever replace vinyl. Even CDs are passé, a victim of streaming audio.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_doumani Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>@Ian Rance. I think the most likely explanation to your observation is that Sony is NOT an imaging specific company. As we all know Sony dabble in most forms of multimedia (computers - video - sound). Given that reality the different divisions are answerable to management and those managers in the end want to see short term gains. Short terms gains are usually advantageous in exactly that - the short term. The missing 10% (as you put it) derives possibly from the fact that by creating and marketing a product line that is never quite finished the consumer will always be a little hungry. </p> <p>Another key element here is also that Sony has created a camera dynasty that is useable (at least they market it as such) with most other lens mount systems by way of an adaptor. In the past, marketing strategies were to make native lens mounts a key element in terms of brand loyalty. Yes one could buy a Sigma lens with a Nikon mount but in the end Sigma would never engineer a camera with a Nikon mount on board (most likely due to legal reasons). Sony has in effect turned this "rule" on it's head or at least is attempting to do that. This creates 2 affects in the market.</p> <p>1) Let's think of people who are heavily invested in Canon or Nikon optics and they then buy a Sony ILCE7 system body expecting to gain all of the advantages of this new technology. They find out rather quickly that some of the advantages that this system is design to deliver are only really achievable with native FE optics. Yes, the inbuilt body stabiliser, size advantage and low light performance etc all work but the focusing advantages in terms of both speed and Eye AF are gone. Once these 2 very attractive features are gone it is very easy for a new convert to "like" the camera but not "love" it. Put this dilemma on top of the fact that their are a very limited amount of lenses available for this system with no fast zooms and no primes from Sony longer than 90mm? </p> <p>2) Given that many people are using existing 3rd party optics Sony has quickly realised they are not selling the volume of lenses they planned on. That maybe explains why they are so focused on bringing the party to body developments as opposed to optics? It is a VERY dangerous path to walk if you ask me. </p> <p>It makes me wonder..... who is the clown making the R&D choices at Sony? Is he the same fool making them at Canon? For example why isn't the world class 135mm ZA 1.8 made with a native FE mount? I for one would stand in a long cue to buy that lens along with many many others I assume. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I don't own stock but I've seen the files on a good monitor. Enough for me.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ditto. The proof of the pudding.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p>If there are "fanboys", they are the adherents to older systems who feel threatened by technical advances</p> </blockquote> <p>lol. obviously, you have never read the comments at DPReview. <br> <br> personally, i welcome the technical advances and would like to see them saturate more throughout the industry. i get a lot of flack over at the nikon forum for pointing out sigma and fuji are making better lenses these days. but what i dont like about sony is that early adopters pay a price for being beta testers. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p>do you guys own stock in Sony? or does buying one of these cameras mean you lose all notions of critical perspective/objectivity and become instant fanboys?</p> </blockquote> <p>Really Eric, your posts have been full of this type of denigrating language. Why do you feel the need to lump this group of people who enjoy their Sony full frame cameras under a 'fanboy' label. Does belittling people make you feel better as a person?</p> <p>I've seen your Oakland pages (if that is indeed you, which I believe it is). You seem to have an appreciation of the musical arts and the culture movement in your area. Kudos for that. But would you use the type of language you have thru this thread to criticize the type of guitar an artist was using? I don't think you would.</p> <p>You seem to be a prolific enough writer to understand the importance that forums such as this one play in todays internet connected world. You are doing a disservice to every single photographer who comes onto this site looking for information. Especially <em>new photographers</em>. Sites like pnet and others across the web are some of the first windows into our craft that many people will see. What they read on these pages has the potential to educate and inspire a lifetime of passion for photography. And, as media has always had the potential for, it can misinform, twist reality and possibly send people down paths that it may take years to come back from.</p> <blockquote> <p>overall, Sonys are more hobby cameras than working tools for working pros, but that is changing, albeit slowly</p> </blockquote> <p>This statement is blatantly untrue. I have linked an article showing just the iceberg tip of pro photographers using Sony cameras. Your response to this...</p> <blockquote> <p>lol. the list of sony 'pros' is humorous. when you have to name drop like 10 names, its kind of a sign that may be the extent of it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Eric, don't be silly. The burden of proof is not on me to go out and find every single photographer using Sony a7's in a professional setting. Included in the article was the fact that almost all the photographer at ILOVEHATEPHOTOGRAPHY have also started using Sonys for their work. The A7 series is constantly mentioned on the TWIP podcast, a highly respected photography podcast put out by working professionals in the industry. Many times they are mentioned in passing as being used in studios to replace Canon gear or other brands. One of their episodes is actually entitled something like The Sony Onslaught. Fell free to give them a listen if you don't already, its a great podcast. But don't expect me to give you an episode by episode breakdown of every time these cameras are mentioned. Aint gonna happen. Same with the pro's who have switched. There are PLENTY of pros using Sony gear right now.</p> <p>By the way, this focus you have on Sonys not being for pros. Please explain that to me. What is a professional camera? My definition is any camera being used by a pro photographer to create work for clients. Does yours differ from this? Have you found some list of criteria on the web that lists out exactly what a pro camera is supposed to have? I would be interested in the link for this if you have. And using your argument that Sonys aren't for pros, but should be relegated to hobbyist, lets look at some other non pro cameras.</p> <p>IPhone. There are PRO photographers using this to create art. I guess the IPhone isn't a pro camera.</p> <p>Medium Format Film cameras. There are PRO photographers making art and selling it to clients using these cameras. I guess these aren't pro photographers.</p> <p>Collodion Wet Plate. There are PRO photographers selling work to clients with these cameras. Please direct me to a website that advertises the latest PROFESSIONAL models of Colodion wet plate cameras, I would be interested in seeing this as I plan on exploring this format over the next year or so.</p> <p>Pinhole cameras. Yep, PRO photographers have used, are using, and will use these to create art.</p> <p>I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Here's another question for you. If you feel the need so strongly to talk down Sonys use as a pro camera are you also trumpeting on any other forums or boards about other cameras that aren't pro quality? We have a Minox forum on pnet. Maybe you should go there and explain to those guys why Minox simply isn't a pro camera. I'm sure those guys would love to hear you expound upon why their camera of choice isn't up to snuff for you.</p> <p>While your on your crusade, would you mind posting over on the GoPro forums about their lack of a Medium Format GoPro action camera? I know I would be very interested in one of those. Oh wait, the GoPro is probably not a professional camera in your book. We might have to petition them to take the Pro out of there product name. Hmmm...GoHobbyist? GoAmateur? No. Maybe GoGo? No, weird dancing reference with that one. Ah well...</p> <p>What I will admit on the PRO subject (and hopefully will prove to you I am not a secret Sony employee) is Sonys lack of a PRO <em>service</em>. If Sony wants to capture <em>more</em> of the professional market then they already have then a Pro level service such as Canon and Nikon have will be necessary. Time will tell if Sony chooses to go this route and commit more to the working professional.</p> <p>As for your comments on being a 'complete system', I cant explain that any more then I have Eric. The system is two years old. Two. Its only two years old. If you expect Sony to compete against Canon and Nikon who have supported their AF lens mounts for <em>almost 30 years</em> then you have unrealistic expectations.</p> <blockquote> <p> i will concede Sony is one of the most innovative companies right now in terms of pushing out new technology</p> </blockquote> <p>This I can agree with, and adds a reasoned counter point to some of the more negative way you choose to phrase things. And while I agree with this I will be the first to point out that no, their cameras aren't perfect by any means but they have pushed many barriers back which would still most likely be in place had they not. There are many things which they could have done better but when taken as whole the system is simply a marvel. I am also fortunate that I am able, as you say, to look past some of the shortcomings because they do not effect my photography directly.</p> <p>Personally I am ticked that Canon has not entered the mirrorless marketplace in a serious way. I am a lover of Canon gear (and service) and I wholeheartedly believe that if Canon choose to make a mirrorless FF camera to directly challenge the Sony line they would do quite well. But Canon is tied to the DSLR dinosaur and lacks the desire or ambition or foresight or whatever to invest in a new mount which would be required to seriously enter the mirrorless FF arena. I am fortunate in that my use of legacy lenses exclusively in my art means I am not tied to any one system. If someone produces a better tool then my current a7 then I simply buy that camera and get some new adapters. These cameras are simply digital backs for me. I realize though that not everyone has that luxury and needs a full line up of glass to suit their needs. Sony will eventually get there.</p> <p>All I can say at this point Eric is that I am sorry the Sony system isn't for you. But I ask that you can somehow understand there are artists and photographers who are using the system now and are quite happy with it. I'm not a rich guy, but I own an a7. I don't feel the need to replace it every year as you said above. I bought the camera because it was the tool I needed to create my vision. I use it for my personal work and to make some money on the side. I am not a full time pro but I do paid work. There are plenty of working photogs out there who use this and many other cameras for their work.</p> <p>Please feel free to view my work with legacy glass on the a7. It may change your mind, it may not.<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>Sony ZA lenses can be used on an A7Rii and LAEA3 adapter ($200) with full auto exposure and auto focus compatibility. The AF sensors in the A7Rii no longer require the translucent mirror LAEA4 adapter, which costs twice as much. For that matter, Fotodiox makes and adapter for Canon lenses which work just as well on the Sony as on Canon bodies. Long, fast lenses of the sort used for professional nature and sports photography would have no size or weight advantage with an FE mount. The A3 adapter is relatively small an light. What's another $200 to use a lens in the many kilobucks range.</p> <p>Sony promises something like 20 new lenses in 2016, and Zeiss hints that their Loxia and Batis lines will be expanded in the near future. Zeiss just released a Loxia 21/2.8 lens to complement the 35/2 and 50/2 in the initial offering. The 90 mm field is getting a little crowded with the excellent Sony 90/2.8 Macro and Zeiss Batis 85/1.8, both auto focus and with optical stabilization. Both companies are close-lipped regarding future developments, but a manual Loxia 15 mm (complementary to the excellent ZF.2 and Milvus versions) is a strong possibility, as well as auto focus Batis lenses in the 135 to 200 range, or a 100/2 Macro.</p> <p>We keep hearing "no fast zoom lenses." What's magical about f/2.8 v f/4? Do you need one extra stop of speed when an A7Sii has a useable ISO of over 100,000? Do you less DOF for pro football shots? I have a Sony 70-200 f/4 zoom, and it is incredibly sharp, wide open, out to the corners. My Nikon 70-200/2.8 isn't even in the same county, let alone ball park, and the Sony is 1-1/2" shorter and half the weight.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>David, here's an interesting comparison between the Sony A7r MkII, a Canon 7D Mark II, a Nikon D4, and a Nikon D810, shooting football and soccer. </p> <p><http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html></p> <p>Sony is making progress, but they aren't there yet. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>Carl, I completely agree. I said in an earlier post that the a7's, and mirrorless in general, would probably not be the tool of choice for sports photographers. Or actually anyone who needs that critical AF speed on fast telephotos. Kai at DigitalRev confirms this in his Canon 5D/A7 shootout. It was also confirmed by the guys at The Camera Store TV.</p> <p>But for just about any other type of photography the a7s can be made to excel if the photographer, pro or otherwise, throws in some creative vision. It has to be said though...Sony has made incredible advancements in such a short time when it comes to autofocusing without a mirror present. DSLR's still rely on this antiquated tech to get such good autofocus and DSLR makers have had decades to perfect this. Considering mirrorless is so young Sony, and all of the mirrorless makers, are doing a great job in catching up. But you are correct, they are not quite there yet.</p> <p>My ex brother in law is the Moto GP photographer for Honda Motor Corp. He flys around the world shooting for Honda at the most prestigious motorcycle race in the world. Those bikes hit upwards of 200 miles an hour and I have seen him lugging those huge lenses around Laguna Seca. An a7 would definitely not work for what he does, at least not with the consistency he needs.</p> <p>Btw, here are a couple of shots from the Moto GP at Laguna in 2007. My brother in law is the guy just behind and to the right of Fabio. Next pic was a shot of Valentino Rossi I got while down in the pits. It was a great weekend, I got my helmet signed by Dani Pedrossa and I just missed a photo op with Nicky Hayden. Good times. :)</p> <p><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1005/1203817280_07d678519d_z.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1296/1202956323_ee200a8239_z.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p><em>some of the advantages that this system is design to deliver are only really achievable with native FE optics</em>. Yes, the inbuilt body stabiliser, size advantage and low light performance etc all work but the focusing advantages in terms of both speed and Eye AF are gone. Once these 2 very attractive features are gone it is very easy for a new convert to "like" the camera but not "love" it. Put this dilemma on top of the fact that <em>their are a very limited amount of lenses available for this system with no fast zooms and no primes from Sony longer than 90mm</em>?</p> </blockquote> <p>The OP's statement above perfectly illustrates the point i was making. anyone who wants to go on and on about how great Sony bodies are without acknowledging the limitations is in my opinion guilty of fanboyism. and please, your argument doesnt improve by adding a gazillion more words to it if it's inherently flawed in its premise. if you were going for "epic rant status," you achieved it, but as far as convincing me of your argument, not so much. </p> <blockquote> <p>for just about any other type of photography the a7s can be made to excel if the photographer, pro or otherwise, throws in some creative vision.</p> </blockquote> <p>actually, you could replace "A7s" with just about every other camera ever made and this statement would be true. i see nothing which suggests or implies that the concept creative vision is tied to the use of one particular camera. but while we're on the subject of the A7s, i shoot a lot of live shows in low-light venues. i'm naturally intrigued by a sensor with heightened sensitivity which appears to be a stop or two better than my aging Nikon D3s, a low-light champion. however, i'd have to give those stops back with the f/4 zooms and would actually lose functionality compared to my current pro-spec kit of 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes. So it's not like i dont want to like Sony, it's just that their system's limitations preclude some of the shooting which i do -- and by extension, other shooters who have these same kinds of criteria. At present. if that changes before i make my next major investment in gear, i will be sure to let you know. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_smith110 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>Eric, you're calling people names again and now you are criticizing the amount of time I put into my 'gazillion' word post and derogatorily referring to it as an epic rant. While also not answering any of the honest questions I put forth to you. It's pretty clear now that your purpose here is not an open and productive dialogue in seeking to understand each others position and for some reason feel that insults and brow beating will help get your point across.</p> <p>True colors my friend.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 <p>david, please. i dont have the time to sift through your highly opinionated and subjective rant for kernels of unbiased objectivity, should they exist, nor do i have time for your assumptions and accusations. my suggestion to you is to go out and shoot some photos with whatever gear you have. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now