No pro's shoot Sony? Frank Doorhof long time Canon & Hasselblad shooter just got himself the a99

http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2012/11/sony-alpha-99-introduction-and-more/

I'm a huge huge fan of Frank's work starting from his Kelby training series, and following his blog and online videos.

He might be just one pro we know of but how anyone can make stupid remarks like "No pro's shoot Sony" or the "a99 isn't a pro camera" is beyond me. Those were baseless comments to make in the first place that wouldn't hold a candle in a structured argument.

How about I make a sweeping generalization like "Pros are switching to the a99!"? It's about as baseless at the counter argument but paints a certain perspective doesn't it?

As for the a99 owners and Sony shooters I hope Frank's numerous reviews over the past few weeks have given some form of confidence in the sensors abilities.

First, nobody claims that there are no pros shooting Sony. It is just that there are not as many as those shooting with other systems. Secondly, what does Frank's liking or disliking of the a99 to deal with you? I know you like it because he has boughty Sony gear, so does that mean that if tomorrow if he says something negative about the camera, you will feel less? I think we put too much weight on what others think or do. If I Buy Sony today, would you really know what my motives are even if I tell you why? What is most important is whether you as an individual like it or not because you will be the one using it. If it sucks for you , it does not matter whether Frank likes it or not and vice versa.

Wow you totally missed the point of my post.

There are plenty of people saying no pros shoot Sony it doesn't take long combing any threads to find such comments.

Where in my post have I indicated that Frank's post has anything to do with me? I didn't so don't assert notions that aren't related to the topic. I already have the a99 so Frank's comments didn't affect my choices before, during or after the purchase.

I have seen plenty of statements similar if not word for word like the ones I posted, and this is my rebuttle to those baseless comments.

The point of my post is the call out those who I've SEEN make the comments like no pros shoot sony, or the a99 isn't a pro camera and I'd like to see them defend their sweeping generalizations now. At least this side of the arguement has some fact's to base the claims on.

Many think photography is about gear, and that pros just use high end models, primarily C/N or medium format, and also the brightest and most expensive lenses.

Reality is that professionals (people who earn their money on photography) are using a wide variety of cameras, and many don't even own or use high end cameras since they are too expensive/bulky or simply not needed. Many are using semi-pro cameras or even mid level to lower end cameras.

Also, some pros use more than one system, and many are tempted to try new gear. I think both the A77 and A99 are attractive to many professionals since they are new technology and also offer Zeiss glass with autofocus. And all the time there are new photographers who turn into professional photography, many of these NOT using C/N systems.

No, I did not miss your point. There are some pros already here in this forum that are shooting Sony. Singling out Frank is just asserting the very same thing that you are trying to rebutt. Why not just point out to forum members here that are making money using Sony gear? Unknowingly, you are vindicating the very same things that you have set yourself to rebutt. As Nord says, pro photography is not about gear, it is about what you do with the gear. There are people shooting their cats with Leica S2 while someone is shooting weddings with Sony a900 and a99. Of these two, who is a pro?

I couldn't have summed it up better. What bother's me is I'm sure most people are aware of this fact, whether they like it or not, but stir the pot anyway with ignorant remarks.

I shoot Nikon at my job and I own a Sony system and I'm perfectly happy using both. The problem I think is that some Canon/Nikon shooters just don't like change, and to bring down the Sony system they turn the conversation into a proxy battle of tech talk. End of the day the tools just a tool and tech talks are fun, but can we clear the air about intentions and stop with baseless remarks? Maybe I'm hoping for too much.

I'm sorry you're reading it that way but that's not my intent, and I'm actually confused how you're reading it like that. Perhaps you'll do anything to steer the conversation away from the fact you did miss my point and are now trying to downplay that.

I have two jobs, and one of them is being a photographer, and I use a Sony a77.

--
José Ramos
Official website - http://www.joseramos.com
(nature/landscape photography)
Facebook photography page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jos%C3%A9-Ramos-Nature-Landscape-Photography/374632662867?v=wall
Redbubble page - http://www.redbubble.com/people/joseramos
Deviantart - http://inebriantia.deviantart.com

Believe me I understand you perfectly and your argument on generalised statements. However, my argument is that by making your arguments centered on Frank, it has become itself  an antithesis of the popular generalised statements out there. All I am saying is that I dont see how Frank addresses your man argument.

I'm using Frank's name as a recognized commodity. I am a pro I work for a national telecom company that has an in house creative department, we use Nikons. However, I own a Sony system which I use for my side business, but using myself as an example I predict is not convincing for most.

Thus, I admittedly am boldly using Frank as an example that people would recognize.

Sometimes I see people reading tables and graphs and conclude that a certain camera can't do this or can't do that in real life. But then it turns out that they in fact misread the figures, and turn neglible real world differences to huge academic problems. I bit funny ... and tragic.

I am pragmatic about what my cameras can do or not -- trying them out in real life situation, and then trying to find ok workarounds if needed.

An few examples:

One stop more or less noise? Ok, use the camera and choose lenses according to this, and the noise level is a non-problem!

Auto focus layout is not what I think would be best? Ok, then learn the AF system and different settings to know both for static and moving objects, and you will increase the numbers of keepers.

Lack of lenses? Which lenses do I use, and which do I miss? I think most people are worrying about which lenses other's might miss (professionals), not what they miss themselves. Sure there are some glitches in the Sony lens lineup, but with third party lenses much are covered. And many of those specialized lenses don't sell much. How many members of this foum have bought third party Tilt & Shift lenses for their Sony cameras (i.e. Schneider)?

Too small pixels for low light photography? Do you actually do low light photography, and if so, have you compared the performance when comparing the total area of the sensor? Also, have you tested how these high ISO files will do for a magazine full page or spread? People would be surprised to find how well high ISO pictures work when the content is worth looking at!

I can't tell you how many times I've had those same thoughts go through my head.

Of course you are right in that regard. By the way, i  think there is no doubt now that sony sensors command a great deal of respect in the camera business. We are happy as Nikonians to note that Nikon made a great choice to get most of their sensors from Sony.

I know plenty of professionals that shoot with Sony. I'm one of them. Fashion and commercial shooter. My good friend, Matthew Jordan Smith is a Sony shooter. He preferred it over his Canon 5D back when the A900 came out. He never looked back at Sony.

While I do agree with your initial point regarding those that need reassurance from others that their camera is just as good as the other cameras, this is not the case here. It's obvious to me that his point is a clear one. Sony's ability in this market is just as good, by showing an example of a photographer that shoots Sony. I'm a professional shooter, I shoot with Sony. I have friends and associates that do and don't. Matthew Jordan Smith, professional fashion and commercial photographer like myself, shoots with Sony. Does him shooting with Sony define me or my Sony cameras? No. But I know that it's nice and nothing wrong knowing that there are other professionals that see what I see in the Sony photography system. nothing more, nothing less. Imo, that's is overall point.

This.^ I'm an example of shooting with different systems. But my camera of choice to shoot is Sony. I've shot medium format, 35 mm, dslr, slt, large format and even some point and shoot. They all have some benefits. To me, Sony has appealed to me due to the Minolta years when I start shooting with them. Their innovation. I like the dynamic range coming from the Sony A99. This has always been priority for me shooting digital. Period. Sony does it very well and their "gear" has given me some advantages (don't actually need them. But it's cool that they're available.). Example, the lcd flexibility and slt viewfinder, wysiwyg aka "what you see is what you get." I've pretty much used all of the formats. Whatever works for me is what I use when I'm on location shooting. Sony has given me this.

I don't take them serious at all. I let my work do the talk and walk. I've been shooting with the Minolta 7D for years. People love my work and have asked what do I shoot with. But in the end, it's not the camera that they're looking at. It's the skilled photographer that can take pretty much any camera and produce a top notch image. Do you think that the viewers that like what you see are going to have a Canon, Sony and Nikon debate while looking at your images? No. These type of debates are no more different than the Apple, Android and Window debates that I see pretty much everyday. And you know who the insecure are because they spend more time arguing over their so called superior product and spend less time being productive with it.

Anybody that knows anything wouldn't say that but there have a couple trolls that have made that statement in this very forum recently. Of course absolute statements like nobody are almost never correct

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Always nice to hear others are enjoying the Sony system. I wonder, did Minolta get this much hate 20 years ago or did this all start around 06 when Sony took over?

A professional photographer here in St. John's has some of the best gear, but prefers to use $20 plastic toy cameras from Hong Kong in a lot of her work. Not because she can't afford better, but because it gives the effect she wants to get. The gear a photographer uses does not make a pro - period!

http://www.donnaramsay.com/holga.htm

--
*Jerry*
Sony V1, H5, A350 and A77... Still learning...
'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/image/88943577/medium.jpg