About to Buy -- What do you think ?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
joejack951 Senior Member • Posts: 2,682
Re: Takes a licking and keeps on ticking

123Mike wrote:

If you search my post history, you'll find that I have recommended Sony SLTs to people for tracking AF during movie recording. No other camera can do that.

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.

However, you can expect me to call you out when you start claiming the A57 can compete with the Nikon D4 or Canon 1DX for sports shooting. Fast frame rate =/ good sports camera.

I did not say the A57 is better for sports than the D4 or 1DX. I have defended the A57 that it can be fine for sports photography. I disagree with the claim that others make that the A57 is no good for sports, because it is an incorrect false claim.

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

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.

You also demonstrated a lack of understanding about what more complete camera systems (like Nikon's and Canon's) have to offer.

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.

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. 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):




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





modern 70-200/4

200/4 Micro


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


That's off the top of my head and a little perusal of your link.

Probably the most glaring omission from Sony's lineup is an affordable, fast portrait prime like an 85/1.8 and high quality constant aperture f/4 zooms (like Nikon's 24-120/4 and Canon's 24-105/4).


At lens name, fill in 85
Click search.


Complete enough?

No. A MF 85/1.4 is of zero interest to me and many others who don't shoot very static subjects. Neither is an 85/2.8. If I'm using a prime, I want it to have some serious advantages over a zoom, more than just size.

A 24-50/4 zoom is again of zero interest to me. I can get more range at f/2.8 and likely far better performance given the age of that lens.

 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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow