Interesting blog by photographer in Sony's Taylor Swift commercial

I found this blog interesting.It is written by Emily Tebbetts.She was the photographer recently featured in the Nex-5r commercial featuring Taylor Swift after she won a national photography contest.

In the blog she talks about why she switched from the 5d mark III to the A99.Here's the link if your interested.

http://emilytebbetts.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-switched-from-canon-5d-mk-3-to.html

Robert

Thanks for the link.

Sony is slowly but surely winning some converts.  My prediction is that it is only a matter of time before it will snowball and Sony / Minolta will again become a force to reckon with.

Lots of mis-information in that article.  You can absolutely autofocus during a video with the Mark III.  Even at F/1.4, which you can't do with any Sony. It's continuous autofocus @ F/3.5 or nothing. There are Zeiss lenses for Canon.  If she thinks the AF is better on the a99 than the class leading MK3 she's nuts.  61 points spread out across the full frame with lightning speed AI servo, or 19 crammed in the middle.

She's a live view shooter too.  Which I will admit the Canon is slow at, but blisteringly quick to AF through the OVF.

Always expect the Shield to rain down on Sony's parade.

I honestly don't think you belong here in the Sony forum Shield.

that Minolta decided to get back into the photo business.

Can you post a link to where you saw that bit of news?

Sony is the new Minolta.  In case you don't know, Sony bought Minolta way back in 2006 (if I'm not mistaken).

In case you didn't know, I've worked as a sales rep for Sony, and then later Minolta.

And, apparently you don't know that Sony didn't buy Minolta. Sony bought the Photo Imaging division from KonicaMinolta.

Get your facts straight.

What is your point then?  I just wrote <Sony "slash"  Minolta> with the intention of implying that Minolta, as a camera maker, now under Sony, will probably rise again given its relative prominence in the 90s.

It is easy to gather facts nowadays.  Just google / wikipedia it.  Geesh.

BTW, I have no quarrel with you Cyan. Peace man.

Sony bought the rights to the A-mount from KonicaMinolta, and Minolta (or KonicaMinolta) has nothing to do with Sony in coming out with news cameras/bodies. The washed their hands of the photo business. KonicaMinolta (which is a merger of Konica and Minolta) is still in business.

Please get your facts straight, since you pointed out, "It is easy to gather facts nowadays."

You seem to have problems understanding the facts.

Whatever.

You sure love that Canon.   Why dont you go and talk in that forum, instead of hanging out here.

The 5D3 has a focus on demand system, like the 5D2. The A99 has continuous autofocus in video.  So your moving subject will still be in focus when moving.

Unless something has changed, there are no autofocus Zeiss lenses for Canon EF mounts.

Months before A99 was announced I seriously considered 5D mark III, when I was bidding on Canon 600/4 IS lens (long story short I didn't win). I tested 5D3 briefly. My impression is that it's build quality is outstanding, shutter is ultra quiet, AF-C is excellent (at least as good as my current Canon 7D), it's high ISO jpeg (what's displayed on camera LCD screen) is excellent (something like worry-free ISO3200, very useable at 6400). Overall 5D3 is a well made, well balanced camera. But the $3300 street price killed the deal for me. Now I have my $2800 Sony A99 for over a month now, while in some aspect A99 is weak (AF point coverage, frame rate, etc.), it makes up with other strong points such as greater sensor DR (less shadow noise when you pull details in PP), 3-way fold LCD screen with FAST live view (I am a big time sucker for this feature). When you use AF-D it's tracking performance is just as good as other brands. The fact that I already have 9 FF lenses proved that i made a good choice.

Really? But is the AF in video as good as a99? No right and it is not a deal breaker for you just like how the F/3.5 limitation isn't deal breaker for those who have purchased.

Do they autofocus? or do you own them atleast?

She did acknowledge about markiIII's wide spread autofocus, and she knows her stuff and says with conviction that the AF wasn't upto the mark even when the models were not moving that much, maybe she had a defective body, just like you may have had a defective a99.

Okay, now she doesn't need blistering quick AF just through OVF, but also in liveview, now what is your point?

You may be right about the video. but still even the 5D mark III's video is underwhelming according to many videographers too who have upgraded from Mark II. it is entirely subjective. And a99 blows 5D mark III out of the window for stills, in terms of color, DR, and high ISO performance! Now that is just my opinion, now i don't have to go troll on Canon forums to seek reassurances because i spend that time to get those assurances by taking pictures.

Some technology is addictive.

A few years of shooting on the a55 got me used to having a full-featured live view on a pivoting LCD, so I could hold the camera down below me to look up from near ground level at a child playing, or hold it up over my head for a high-angle perspective or a shot taken over a crowd.

In 2009, I might have seen a camera without a pivoting LCD or fully-functional live view to be OK, if I liked other features. In 2012, I wasn't willing to go backwards on that as I upgraded to full frame. There might be kinder words than "addiction" to use here, but once you've gotten into something that changes what shots you can get, it's hard to give it up.

I think the blogger/photographer here got a taste of what working this way was like, and just didn't want to work without it again. I can relate to that experience.

--
Jeremy Birn

Seller's remorse You'll be back...LMAO bec of this

"1. Electronic viewfinder. OH MY GOD. WHAT A DIFFERENCE!! This, this, THIS for so many reasons. Sony's viewfinder is electronic. What does this mean? 
-it's like Live View (which the a99 also has of course) in the viewfinder, so you immediately see exposure changes, how your white balance affects the colors, and an accurate Depth of Field Preview. This means you don't need to keep taking pictures and checking the back of your camera to make sure it's what you want. It's a huge time saver and headache saver for me. **also, it has 100% coverage, unlike the mk 2 (97%), though the mk 3 also has 100% coverage**
-ACCURATE DEPTH OF FIELD PREVIEW BELOW f/2.5. This is SO IMPORTANT you guys! I don't know about you, but as someone who mostly takes pictures of people, I almost always shoot below f/2.5. In Canon's viewfinder, the depth of field preview only goes down to f/2.5, so if you're using anything below that, you will not be able to tell if your subject is in focus. This is a huge deal, especially since Canon's AF STILL is not all that great in my experience (to my disappointment, though it definitely improved over the 5D mk ii). In order to make sure your focus below f/2.5 is correct on a Canon, you need to use Live View or keep guessing and checking/hoping for correct focus, which is crazy. 
With the a99, because it uses an electronic viewfinder, the depth of field preview is accurate no matter what aperture you're using. YAY! Now onto AF and live view..."

Zeiss lens for Canon and Nikon are manual focus only!

Shield3 have never used a Carl Zeiss lens with the 5D Mark ...

and probably never own this camera at all.

Cheers,

--
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »