About to Buy -- What do you think ?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,314Gear list
Like?
Re: Takes a licking and keeps on ticking
In reply to 123Mike, Apr 16, 2013

123Mike wrote:

I think it can be recommended for other reasons as well. High burst rate. HDR.... well, all the features of the list. Also, for the price, $399 the other week, it's unbeatable.

I rarely see people looking for in-camera HDR. I've never considered using it myself so it's not even on my radar. I think one or both of my compacts has it but I can fairly confidently say that I'll never use it.

You should try it! It's really cool! In the winter with snow, often features underneath trees turn very dark. Turn on HDR, and you get a much wider dynamic range!

Similarly, you can take a handheld night time photo of the city, by having it take a set of subsequent shots and have the camera overlay them. It boosts the effective ISO quite a bit. Not good for moving objects of course.

But it's amazing what a difference boosting sensitivity and increasing dynamic range can accomplish. Something raw shooting doesn't solve.

I'm certain that after looking critically at the results that I'd have preferred a real HDR. But maybe for fun I'll try it sometime.

No, you didn't say "better" but you did say it could compete with them (which is what I wrote originally).

Yes, it could compete with them.

Sorry, but no it can't.

You got VERY defensive at the first critique of your choice:

"But you know what? There is no amount of information that anyone could provide that is going to make you acknowledge that the Sony is a formidable camera choice. Just like religion, you will deny, avoid, and pretend it's not real. No amount of evidence will suffice. Beliefs trumps all. Am I right?"

How is this not accurate? Don't forget that I got insulted left and right here.

You flipped out at the first "lol" regarding your list. Go back and read the thread.

I did? That's it? One "lol" word justifies immediate gang style personal attacks? Really? People are THAT edgy?

Did you go back and read the beginning of the thread? Someone "lol'd" at your suggestion to use 35 year old Minolta lenses in place of modern lenses. That brought on your religion rant.

Sony is complete enough. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp click the search button. Lens wise, no problem.

Complete enough for you, perhaps. There's plenty missing in my eyes.

Such as. And here comes the cherry picking.... and would it be important for a new comer....? NO!

Cherry picking? I found several threads of people asking for an 85mm f/1.8 from Sony. I'm sure I could find the same for a decent range f/4 normal zoom too. Even Canon users are crying for a 14-24/2.8.

Tilt/Shift lenses aren't for everyone but your complete dismissal of them (without even understanding what they do) just made you look bad.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm pointing out that the Sony offers things the other don't, and that it should be considered by a new comer. TS lenses are interesting. But aren't there *any* at all for the A mount? Surely with adapters this should be possible? Are you lenses manual focus? Would that not kind of make the mount irrelevant? It's all about the lens then, not? What about lensbaby, or perhaps there is something in M42. I don't know, I have not explored TS lenses myself. But to make it seem like Nikon is a more complete system, is another one of those fuzzy belief based feely claims.

They are manual focus but with electronic aperture control. There are no adapters that don't require adding glass between the lens and camera (to maintain infinity focus). I would not buy a $2000 lens and trust that the cheap glass in an adapter would be up to the task.

I understand. You found a specialty case where the Alpha world lags behind. Clap clap clap.

Followed by several other areas where they are lacking in an attempt to head off your "specialty case" argument.

Lensbaby's allow for tilt but no shift and a true T/S lens will have a large enough image circle to not vignette with a nice range of tilts and swings. Lensbaby's can't add image circle to a lens and they don't correct for aberrations like a true T/S lens does.

In comparison to Nikon, Sony lacks (sticking with full frame):

14-24/2.8

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tokina-AT-X-116-PRO-DX-11-16-F2.8_lens561.html
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-DT-16-50-F2.8-SSM_lens643.html
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-17-35-F2.8-4-D_lens27.html

None of those even come close. The Tokina is a crop lens that's not nearly as wide. The 16-50 is another crop lens and is even further from being as wide. The Minolta is, you guessed it, not as wide and is variable aperture to boot. Not even close to the Nikon.

16-35/4

24/1.4

No comments here?

28/1.8 (Sony does have a 24/2 which is probably close enough)

Look, we can cherry pick specific sub sub sub versions of lenses till the cows come home. There are most definitely far and away enough lenses to pick from that equate whatever you can find!

50/1.2

That one, I agree! The only available option there is an M42 manual lens.

Nikon's is manual focus too but you can control the aperture electronically.

85/1.8

See previous message, I posted like 10 links.

None of which were to 85mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon sells there's for $500. A $1700 Sony 85mm f/1.4 (or even a $900 Sigma 85mm f/1.4) is not a reasonable substitute (certainly not for a beginner) and neither is a MF f/1.4 lens which I can't imagine trying to use for moving subjects. You might get one good shot in 50.

105/2

That's an interesting one.

Yes, it is. I'd love one.

24-120/4

This is my current primary lens and many, many Canon users use the 24-105/4 for the same purpose. That Sony offers nothing in this range is a massive oversight or simply a lack of interest in competing.

modern 70-200/4

Beercan should do.

Doubtful. That thing is how old? How fast can it AF? How does a 24MP sensor do with it?

200/4 Micro

200/2

That's an interesting one.

Want one of them too.

24, 45, and 85 PC-E T/S lenses

I can't comment on T/S lenses, I don't know much about them.

200-400/4

Seeing equivalents.

No, you're not. Nikon is the only manufacturer currently selling a lens like this. Canon is even way behind.

Complete enough?

No.

That's your opinion. Others will disagree.

Cherry picking and more cherry picking.

Nope, I pointed out some very common lenses that Sony is missing. Go to the Nikon forums and search for any of them to get an idea how popular they are.

So, end of day, you specifically dislike every feature the Sony has that you don't have, am I right?

Not that I dislike the features but I don't need "features" that spit out in-camera adjusted jpegs. Nor do I want to part with my optical viewfinders or my wide range f/4 normal zoom. I also want the option of buying or at least renting many of the other lenses mentioned.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow