About to Buy -- What do you think ?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Limburger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,839
Re: Sony provides so much more!

123Mike wrote:

  • 10 fps burst rate, no compromises
  • 12 fps burst rate, cropped
  • Faster AF

Why isn't it recommended to shoot sports if this is such a great plus?

Says who? It's *great* for sports! Perhaps people like Fro are lying to you. He's avoiding Sony because he's afraid to upset off his sponsors. Possibly many other "reviewers" are in the same boat. I say the Sony is the BEST for sport shooting. Yes, I'm aware that the EVF could lag, but reality is that it is perfectly manageable. 10, 12 fps can mean getting that shot. Plus you get more shots, allowing for a greater chance that more turn out sharp.

Says DPR...

  • 1080/60p/30p/24p video
  • Fast continuous AF during video
  • Stereo Mic

Video wasn't mentioned by the OP, but the 60D does this pretty well, the only point may be AF during video. The built in stereo is pretty bad so you need to go external anyways.

No, the 60D does not do video pretty well. Sony is smooth, others are not, Sony is family proof with AF, the others are not. I find the "just focus manually" a really dumb excuse. Some even say it's "better" to focus manually. Yeah ok, then pass the camera to the wife and have her shoot some video of the kids. Manual focus? Not going to happen. It's got object tracking as well, so a power user can take advantage of that as well, and enjoy effective AF that you'd otherwise think you can only solve by manually focusing.

Read reviews, the 60D does video well.

  • HDR
  • In camera panoramas stitching

If needed you got a thing called software to do this and the files you play with are called RAWs.

10fps allows for quick shots, allowing for better HDR results. In camera panorama stitching allows you to verify the result. Saves time too. To be honest, I much prefer a fish-eye over the panorama stitching. It *is* a frill. Although... I *have* taken some nice wide angle shots in places when my lens wasn't wide enough. You can hold the camera side ways and make a panorama that has more of a normal photo's aspect ratio, providing a really big photo. Downside is that you have to pan the camera, and the camera insists on doing it all in auto, causing horizontal blur a bit. So, yes, it is a frill. Fish-eye much better. But the HDR thing is interesting. It takes 3 shots very fast, and then in the camera overlays the pictures and lines it up, and picks and chooses and blends what provides the best result. It's quite impressive. It also works in very dark scenes, allowing hand held night time photography.

High bursts for hdr and the camera does 3 frames, so Sony is missing a point here.

  • Access to AF lenses from 80s (Minolta mostly)

The lens discussion is pretty obvious, not only the line up is different but the resolution of lenses has become a different game. Some gems of the past are now often mediocre at best.

That is not true. Minolta has had a number of APO lenses that are quite comparable with today's high end lenses. Not a mountain of them, but a number of them. Plus there are some cheap lenses to pick from that aren't that bad! Minolta 50mm/1.7 prime is nice. The 35-200 Xi power zoom lens is weird, but good. The beer can 70-210 f4 is *cheap* and quite good. It's very nice having access to a whole lot more than the admittedly restricted collection Sony makes. For the pros, the Sony G lenses are very good, right up there with the competition.

Did I say none? No I did say some.

  • Live view always available with no compromises

Nice for macro but I never use it.

I never use the VF, ever.

And you point out EVF is so great, what's the point of not using it while having it?

  • Excellent low light abilities

Up to ISO 6400, not that special.

The point was that the Sony is no worse at low light, despite Nikon owners thinking they have the upper hand based on a false reputation. Yes, it is possible to cherry pick a dxo rating but then when you actually compare you see that the differences aren't worth bragging over.

A lot of bla bla about noise and DR between the two, but what about the midtones?

  • In camera stabilization

This may be in some cases nice to have.

  • Focus peaking

The only truly nice feature this camera has over the 60D!

The *only*? I'd expect the 10/12 fps burst rate to get some respect at least?

Read the reviews on burst and AF. So yes, the only.

  • Kelvin WB Adjustment

Custom WB isn't that special.

I admit that once you start wanting to tweak WB on the spot and judging from a small screen, it'd be way better to just shoot raw and be done with it.

  • Lens Correction for CAs, Distortion, Vignetting

60D does that too if you wish.

  • 15 Point AF

9 point all cross type

I think I get only 3 cross type points though. However, that does not mean that the others won't focus.

  • Wireles Flash Commander

Canon has this from T3i and up.

  • High Speed Flash Snyc

Also available on 60D.

  • Camera body based stabilization


  • 100%/1.04x EVF

An EVF I can't recommend to anybody but that's a personal thing.

People that use it never looked back. It's a huge advantage. You see what the sensor sees. You can see the results through it. You can see in darker conditions with it. It allows you to gauge what the image is going to look before taking the shots. It's great for M mode especially. EVF is a huge advantage. But besides, and that's just me I think, I never actually use the VF, I use the flippy screen. I point the screen so I look down on it. Even works in bright light (does get difficult in *really* bright sunlight). But with my glasses, I find VFs too clumsy. Squinting through the little hole. Why? The screen shows the same content. Plus I find using the screen allows you to better stay connected to your surroundings. Also, the screen is good to takes shots from a different perspective. The kids for instance. Lowering the camera to their level you don't see many people do much. I do that all the time. And then I track them around looking down on the screen, 10 fps while they run around, and I get great shots that way.

I had an EVF once and I never looked through it again.

Joink !

What about sooc's of the Sony? Do you believe they are good?

Very good! But not on full auto. Full auto sucks on Sony. Not liking P either. A mode I use. Mostly M I use. In A (and others) it tends to either overexpose or underexpose depending on the metering mode. But that can be adjusted using a compensation setting (of course, common feature). Auto ISO sucks. Camera opts for much too high ISO much too quickly. So, set manually. But when you do, the jpegs produces are fabulous!

Again read the reviews, DPR is pretty bold in this case.

So as for your list, the only true plus for the Sony I find is focus peaking.

Perhaps new comer that isn't tied to a brand might appreciate all the other extras. You have to admit, it's *quite* an attractive package.

No I don't admit it's an attractive package because I don't think as a system it is.

But I won't trade that for my Canon 70-200 L.

You think you can't equate that on an Alpha?

Not yet.

I got a semi pro camera and if you buy a really expensive Canon they will not even give you a pop up flash,what are they thinking ?

The A99 full frame top of the line Sony, does non have a popup flash either, which indeed is just dumb. I do find that more and more I use less flash. At f2.8 17-50 I use 10fps burst for a couple of seconds. Out of the 20 shots, there is bound to come out a few sharp ones. That's another advantage of having a high burst rate. I'm sure most Nikoners will dismiss and invalidate all of this. But when need to light things up, and a quick and dirty popup might have saved the night, you have to slap on a big honking flash which sucks at times. I don't have the A99, I have the A57, and I have an external flash. I use it rarely because it's a PITA. I prefer the fast-lens high-burst solution where possible.

There is a reason for that lack of pop up flashes on pro camera's. It's not good enough.

It would eat the battery ,has a low GN and it's close to the lens and therefor for pro use fairly useless.

Just try to understand that the camera you like may not be of any interest to somebody else.

The point is that it should work for you. Nobody said Sony is bad or anything, there is much more to photography than just a body, that is the point the other imo are trying to make.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a7 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow