Buying into a System: Nikon, Canon or Sony

JasperD said:

That´s where I wouldn´t use a tripod.

Using tripod on people usually goes together with flash(es) in my case, so then again...

Click to expand...

I do not consider IS a substitute for higher ISO, but I do consider it a substitute for a tripod at moderate shutter speeds, and in particular when a tripod is impractical.
--
Anthony Beach

Nikon's certainly on a roll now - but it hasn't always been that way. A lot of what I read on this forum reminds me of the Nikon forum before the introduction of the D3/D300. I suspect the Canon forum was the same when they were dealing with AF issues and couldn't seem to get that straightened out.

Nikon made a comeback, and I think that Canon is now back on tract too. That shouldn't surprise us as they both have long SLR histories. IMO, that's the main difficulty with Sony. There's not enough of a track record to know for sure if they'll dig in and "fix and improve", or just make a business decision and fold their tent. I'm betting they'll stick around.

Cheers,
William

digitalshooter said:

One must take that in consideration, IMO. Canon and Nikon have been pleasing their camera base for years with regular releases and or updates.

With Sony, its sit and wait. So if updates are not an issue.........and by updates I mean new releases to a model not newer lesser models or even higher models of different capabilities.

So I believe that this go around, its more than buying into a system for me, buying into a company.

--
Thanks,

Digitalshooter!

Wondering when will they re appear, what will they say?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.williampitcher.ca

I don't disagree with any of you on this, high ISO qualities and stabilized lenses partially resolve the same problem, but only partially.
In the same way as tripods only resolve some of the issues.

I'm merely pointing out the necessity of high ISO when the system lacks stabilized primes. So the the absolute demand for this may sometimes come from the fact that there is no option.

--
Cheers
Erland

i'm actually being serious. i currently shoot (and earn my income) with both nikon and canon and i'm waiting to add a sony cam. all the systems have strengths and weaknesses and since cameras are tools, giving yourself a choice of the best tool for the job is a good idea. you are thinking about spending some serious money by the look of your list, so spread it around.

canon 5dII with the 24/1.4 and 100/2.8 IS macro. two world-beating lenses and the 24/1.4 is currently the only one among the brands. video.

nikon d700 with 14-24/2.8 and 70-200VR II. both the best of the breed. the VR on the new 70-200 is outstanding.

sony a900 with zeiss 24-70 and 135/1.8. two outstanding lenses.

there ya go. no compromises. you could also ditch the canon and add the 105/2.8VR to the nikon and seek out a minolta 28/2 for your a900. you'd lose nothing other than video. nikon and sony may also have some nice lens surprises for us over the next few months...lots of rumours about high-speed wide primes.

awesome time to be a photographer...lots of choices for professional grade equipment that will do the job under any circumstance.

--
dave

Eleson said:

I'm merely pointing out the necessity of high ISO when the system lacks stabilized primes. So the the absolute demand for this may sometimes come from the fact that there is no option.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I often read the inverse argument made at the "D700 Forum." Many of that forum's members hate flash and tripods (and quickly dismiss lack of VR on the 24-70), and they think they are getting great quality out of their ISO 3200 shots. The thing is, while ISO 3200 is less sub-optimal on a D700 than it is on an A850, such high ISOs are by no means a panacea.
--
Anthony Beach

I appreciate the balanced POV you offer here. My only problems with your approach are that:

• It is more expensive and the way you outlined it there is no back-up unless you buy two of every camera [which raises the point that any pro needs two cameras and shouldn't rely on just one], or a wider set of lenses for at least two of the systems. Also, you will triple the costs of lighting as you will want Speedlights for all three systems.

• The learning curve of familiarizing oneself with operating so many cameras and optimally processing their files is pretty steep. It's a lot to bite off all at once.

--
Anthony Beach

Since I entered the Sony system with their first DSRL I have not been seriously tempted to leave the system. The A100 was really tricky for action, due to slow and unreliable contioious autofocus performance, no PC sync, and some other issues. I admit that it sometimes was a bit hard to see what N/C offered their users. But I managed to find workarounds for some of the issues while waiting for the A700, which adressed most of these issues. When I got my first A900 and some new high grade glass I felt that the Alpha system fullfilled my needs. From now on, we -- the group of experienced users -- can excpect higher spec bodies, more high grade glass, more accessories etc. As a loyal user I feel that Sony has expanded the Alpha system quite fast and in a direction that suits most users, and in a direction that Minolta or Konica Minolta never would have been capable to follow. I don't miss the "Minolta heritage" (no nostalgic feelings) and I expect Sony to bring the Alpha system to the level of the best form Nikon and Canon within a few years. We can agree or disagree a lot about the Sony strategy, but I think it is quite a bit early to really know where they are going -- I would not be surprised if the Sony DSLR team also are a bit confused about the future of camera systems -- DSLR or EVIL or ... In my opinion buying into Sony is not wasted money. They are already making highly capable photographic tools that suits a lot of demanding profressionals -- and even more demanding amateur photographers.

I think you should have specialized photographic needs if you have to invest in several camera systems -- or a strong interst in photographic gear, which also is ok.

photonut2008 said:

• It is more expensive and the way you outlined it there is no back-up unless you buy two of every camera [which raises the point that any pro needs two cameras and shouldn't rely on just one], or a wider set of lenses for at least two of the systems. Also, you will triple the costs of lighting as you will want Speedlights for all three systems.

Click to expand...

true. however, the op is not a pro so i think that having the two cameras is more than sufficient for back-up. speedlights, yes, more expensive, though he doesn't sound like he'll be using any sort of multiple light system.

photonut2008 said:

• The learning curve of familiarizing oneself with operating so many cameras and optimally processing their files is pretty steep. It's a lot to bite off all at once.

Click to expand...

fair enough. i've never found it to be a problem but others might. knock it down to a nikon and sony kit and it would be cheaper and more manageable.

i figure that it's a hobby for the op, he's got the money and he wants to shoot landscape stock and indoor sports...get an a850/900 and a d700 and he won't be disappointed or frustrated when attemption to do either task.

--
dave

Thank you all very much for your comments.... I think will likely go with the Nikon and/or Sony option, as I prefer their ahndling better to canon... At least, I have traditionally and I doubt that has changed much over the last couple of years....

Like pointed out, I do have a little bit of time to wait, so depending on what happens in the interlude, I might be swayed one way or another....

Again Thank you!

i was a minolta and nikon film user and went canon with the 10d when minolta didn't have a digital option. i got used to the canon ergonomics but never preferred them...loved the lenses, though. when the d3 came out and everybody was dumping d2x's i picked one up and bought some lenses and, i must say, have been much happier with the handling. love it. my friend/studio partner bought an a900 when it came out and i've used it a fair bit...i like it a lot...blocky perfection! felt like coming home...i think that nikon and sony are actually quite similar on their top end cams. i

'm excited to see what comes next from sony and (hopefully) will add their system next year, though i don't necessarily need the megapixels for my work, i just want them may finally get rid of my canon, but it's really hard to give up the 70-200/4L IS.

as i said before, we're very lucky to be photographers right now...great cameras from all the manufacturers and i think sony picking up their game and adding a bunch of competitive pro lenses has been great...i think that they currently have the best portrait arsenal what with the 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and 135STF...not to mention the old minolta 85/1.4 and 100/2 which were/are also outstanding.

enjoy your kit, whatever it may be!

--
dave

rinsephotographic said:

i'm actually being serious. i currently shoot (and earn my income) with both nikon and canon and i'm waiting to add a sony cam. all the systems have strengths and weaknesses and since cameras are tools, giving yourself a choice of the best tool for the job is a good idea. you are thinking about spending some serious money by the look of your list, so spread it around.

canon 5dII with the 24/1.4 and 100/2.8 IS macro. two world-beating lenses and the 24/1.4 is currently the only one among the brands. video.

nikon d700 with 14-24/2.8 and 70-200VR II. both the best of the breed. the VR on the new 70-200 is outstanding.

sony a900 with zeiss 24-70 and 135/1.8. two outstanding lenses.

there ya go. no compromises. you could also ditch the canon and add the 105/2.8VR to the nikon and seek out a minolta 28/2 for your a900. you'd lose nothing other than video. nikon and sony may also have some nice lens surprises for us over the next few months...lots of rumours about high-speed wide primes.

awesome time to be a photographer...lots of choices for professional grade equipment that will do the job under any circumstance.

--
dave

Click to expand...

I know you were being serious. Yet, I cannot stop laughing!!!!!

Gionni Dorelli said:

I know you were being serious. Yet, I cannot stop laughing!!!!!

Click to expand...

hopefully an evil laugh at the thought of all that gorgeous camera equipment

--
dave

I have a Sony A900 system and good lens lineup, and I am extremely happy with it.

If I had a ton of money or if I were shooting sports, I would maybe buy the Nikon D3s or D3x and the according lenses. But to me, Sony gives you the best for the money. It has the leading resolition (a clear step up from 12 MP). And as the biggest advantage, it offers in-body image stabilisation. Keep in mind that Nikon and Canon don't have any pro-level stabilized lenses in the standard and wide-angle range !!!

--
Sony Alpha 900 user...

Zeiss 2.8/24-70 SSM, Minolta 2.8/100 macro, Sony 1.4/50, Sony 2.8/70-200 SSM, Sony 1.4x TC, Minolta 4.5/400 HS, Sigma 12-24, Metz 54 MZ-4, Vivitar 285HV, Canon S90

see some of my images at
http://christianriedel.com
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=953875

You cannot go wrong!!! I am blessed having a great photographer for a wife. I have made enough money in photography for over 40 years to justify buy anything I want. I have traveled the long road form MF to 4X5 to 35mm to digital. I own a small insurance agency. My wife runs the photo business. I moved to Nikon in the 60's because none took my Minolta XK as a serious camera, to Blads when I stopped caring about what others thought. The Canon's came with the move to digital. I am old school. I still use a tripod, a flash meter, and Profoto Lighting (battery) to shoot formals at weddings!! If you do not intend to go PRO. Go for the camera you are most comfortable with. The key is as always the glass. You cannot go wrong. Who cares if a camera is rated for 300,000 shots when you shoot 10> 15K a year. In 4 years U will upgrade again. Musings for a man who thought I had gone to heaven when Fuji produced NPS 160!!! Best Jak

I have done a lot of research because I want to buy the right stuff the first time.

For sharpness, Sony has the best 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.4, 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-300G, 70-400G among the three.

Canon's 85L is better than the 85Zeiss, and 135L is sharper than 135Zeiss at F8 but the Zeiss is better wide open.

However eventually I have conclude the difference is minimal, and I just have to become a better photographer.

First, let me link an article that I just read -- Great read from a wedding photo's POV
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v

That said, I think I'm pretty close to making the Sony jump. Here are some pros and cons for me about the systems (Canon, Nikon, Sony).

Note that I've shot Canon 40D, Pentax K200D and K20D, Nikon D700, D300 and D90. Currently I'm a Nikon guy, but I just sold my D300 in anticipation to moving to FF.

Canon

The only viable method for me to move to Canon would be the 5D2, and I'm not too keen on the reports of "unpro" craftsmanship you get with that body. Also, I'm really not a fan of Canon controls - while I love the big wheel in the back, I seriously loathe the button+wheel method of changing drive modes, etc.

Also, the AF module is a constant "con" listed by almost everyone, though that probably would not affect me, as I shoot more still things than fast moving things.

I will certainly miss out on Canon's excellent 70-200 f/4 IS, which almost universally praised as one of the sharpest zooms ever , and the used market for Canon (and Nikon) gear is very abundant. Canon's lens lineup is also impressive, but (for me) it's a moot point -- I'll only be using a few lenses in the system I get into.

Plus, Canon's annoying MLU method would be a constant bug to me, as I love MLU.

Nikon

I love Nikon control scheme (except for the stupid lens removal direction). Having flash commander on the D700 is awesome, as I make use of it occasionally and it's nice knowing you have an onboard in a fill-flash pinch.

What's killing me, though, is Nikon's glacial pace at updating some lenses, and the fact they don't have a high MP body that I can afford.

MP are not overrated if you use them , which I do... because I print 13x19", and I'm going to start ordering larger prints for home use.

To see the difference in this, I downloaded imaging-resource's ISO 200 shots for both the D700 and Sony A900, then printed them with my medium-format printer at borderless 13x19.

The results are clear - the Sony just beats the D700 in this scenario, hands-down. Both prints turned out great, but the Sony shows noticeable more detail.

Since I'm more of a landscape and medium ISO shooter (ISO1600 being max), this example of base ISO is important to me.

I'm certainly going to miss then ISO performance of the D700 when I need it , though truthfully, the only time I need super-high ISO is when I'm doing crappy in-home shots of things like my kids, and that's when I'm lazy and don't grab a flash. One can't deny the D700's (and 5D2's) available-light performance -- it seems to me this would pretty much negate the point of Sony having IBIS.

Nikon gives an awesome 5-year warranty in the USA, which is a point most-overlooked when considering their lens prices.

Sony

While really having the smallest lens lineup, they have what I want. Mainly: The CZ 24-70 and the Sony 70-400G lenses.

Barring the atrocious silver paint on the 70-400, it seems to be a fine lens from reviews and tests, outperforming the 100-400 from Canon. I'm not even going to consider the Nikon 80-400, as I'm avoiding screw-drive lenses.

Sony's IBIS will partially offset the fact that the A850/900 high-ISO (> 1600) isn't that great... at least for stationary targets. I think I'll use IBIS more than HIGH ISO simply because I shoot more stationary things (kids notwithstanding!).

Sony's flash (58 flash) is also, quite frankly, awesome. The way the head rotates when going from landscape to portrait mode is frankly genius - I can't believe nobody else has done this yet that I know of.

I'll be very excited to get my hands on some CZ glass - Eventually I think I'll add 85mm to my roster after I save up some more cash.

Sony color is often-quoted as being outstanding, and so far many reviews of this bear this out - this is a plus to me. Also, Sony's dynamic range performance is very good.

Sony isn't without its problems, of course. High ISO is of course always mentioned, but to me, up to ISO 1600, it's fine. The fact that I'll have to get their cheapo $130 flash to use as a wireless commander is also sorta lame.

Finally, they're really not much of a money-saver over Nikon, and definitely not over Canon. Sony's CZ line of lenses cost just as much as Nikon and more than Canon's, though they're arguably a bit better than Canon's.

So, for me , the choice is pretty clear: Sony, but not by much.

I need the affordable high MP count, the IBIS is nice, access to AF CZ glass is nice, color accuracy. I can live without remote commander or having the largest lens lineup. I'll miss high ISO performance, but that will mostly not affect me.

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
Gear listed in profile!

I bought my first SLRs in the late 60's/early 70's (an old Edixa Reflex - still works, I hope - and a Mamiya), and had a lot of lenses and equipment (complete with darkroom), but weight became an issue. So then I used Minox 35mm, a few, but eventually, and then eventually switched to digital, the first being a Konica KD-500W.

But eventually came the time I wanted a DSLR, with better performance than the 7 CCD-euipped cameras we have, or have had (one sank into a lake)!

Having just gone through a similar selection process, I ended up buying the new Pentax K-x, and intend to go the full hog, so to speak. I liked the neatness of the camera - as weight, if not size, matters to me. And the price was a positive surprise as well! Leaves room for a lot of add-ons!

The alternatives to me was the new D300S, or the Olympus Pen E-P1, or the E-P2, and the lack of a built-in viewfinder is to me disqualified the latter two, and the Nikon is a big beast, if high quality. A few years back the D700 would certainly been considered as well. The latest Lumixes almost made the grade, but not quite, and the new Leica X1 a bit too costly, just now, anyway!

I am not interested in taking video with the camera (got a good Canon for that), so the complains about its lack of features when in movie mode worried me none at all, but good behavior at high ISO certainly is important, which the K-x excels in. I do have a few top of the range (when bought) compacts, like the fantastic Olympus C-8080 (not a very good point and shoot, but for the guy/gal who loves to fine tune his settings, while taking portraits and landscapes), or the Finepix S9500, which at times takes really nice photos (white balance is a real pain, though, and you need to keep the ISO down on both these cameras)!

As far as I have used it, I have no complains at all, especially after the firmware upgrade!

Good luck with you selection!
--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com

The Pentax K-x has both IS and high ISO settings !
--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com

Oops!

The K-x isn't much over 12MP, so
not in contension, sorry!

Good Night!
--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com