Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,954
Re: Smalls

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Magnar W wrote:

This video is his opinion.

If I should decide for myself, I would have used a camera body with newest firmware, and tested it with native mount lenses.

Even for a professional, money is a factor, but so is risking jobs with more or less well functioning adapted lenses ...

Sony fan delusions aside where exactly do you think that the legions of pro shooters using Canon are risking jobs .

Video, low light, and to some degree now even AF

I am not sure that a 1DX II shooter is over concerned with video ,

Seriously? The video is actually excellent. Minus a few things like no IBIS

if video is critical to what you do there are better options than DSLR's/ mirrorless FF cameras .

There are BUT more and more people are now hybrid shooting. The days of just video and stills aren't long for this world.

the claims of some Sony fans the differences at high ISO are insignificant .

Meh. Pull those Canon files or shoot with the same shutter speed. Everything adds up.

In fairness there are a LOT more models out there .is this discussion ONlY high end sports cameras

RAW low light 6400 ISO

The "features" in most advanced mirrorless cameras such as eye AF are just conveniences to make something easier not do something impossible

YES. That is exactly all ANYTHING ever is. AF, FPS, digital vs film, and on and on and on. At some point the ease to accomplish something translates into dollars. It means you can drop consistent results and charge for them.

If you cannot take in focus shots of your subjects whatever they may be you will have a very short career as a pro photographer . The fact that doing something is easier does not really matter in the hands of the skilled .

It absolutely does. Use your logic. The sidelines of the Olympics would be full of old film cameras and decades old lenses.

Instead they are lined with mostly the newest and highest end equipment. It helps that Canon is passing it out......

Canon have had for example an 85mm F/1.2 lens since 1976

And it shows ......lens designs have come a long way in 40 years. Generally speaking

people have been using fast shallow DOF lenses for decades.

They have BUT it is now easier than ever. Look through any decent portfolio of wedding photography from today VS the products of twenty years ago.

Easier and more common do not make them unique quite the opposite in fact

Too many here confuse something being easier with competence

Some confuse possibility with ability.

Please,

Quick example. One of the iconic shots from the last summer Olympics was a pan of Usain Bolt during a 10 sec race. No less than three shooters got some.variation of that shot at night and with several other usable stuff. Try to find anything like that from the days of film,manual focus, rough light meters, non TTL flash,

You might want to read up on how that shot was taken

https://observer.com/2016/08/9-hilarious-olympic-memes-of-smiling-usain-bolt-the-worlds-fastest-man/

Sorry. There were two

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/rio-2016-one-usain-bolt-moment-two-iconic-photos-1471382179

What exactly do you think I missed?

The photographer in my link does not do anything that was particularly dependent on current state of the art tech in fact he himself humbly says it is more about right time right place .

Isn't that what a lot of people say? I don't know if he is being "humble " or the reality that what he did wasn't that complicated. Part of that is technology. The camera did the metering , achieved focus, white balance, and the OSS MAY have been helping the pan. They also had other cameras set up to be fired remotely.

The technology helped. Not really my would a single shooter not even risk a shot like that BUT the tools may have held them back from even attempting it.

Your link is behind a firewall for me so I don't know what they said.

I said three. It was two photographers had ALMOST identical images.

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much .

They are also better in composition, timing, and the not because some of it is pure technology and some is that The technology . Some things that a photrapher did manually and still could is given over to the camera. The operator is then freed up to make other decisions.

Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

Nope. That is an excellent shot. Photography isn't all X's and Os. Not only that photography is moments frozen in time.

What I am saying is that the level of iconic shots both in technical and artistic terms is FAR higher from the last 20-30 years than it was from the time that preceeded it.

It didn't happen overnight and I wouldn't pin it on a single technology (but AF and digital would be up there). Now the expectation is to have stunning photography that is least technically ok beamed around the world and for sale in seconds. It is somewhat taken for granted AND some of the "instant gratification" has had bad side effects. Example PJ

All th ose little "conveniences" add up

oly brand obsessed fans like these kind of threads inevitably attract

Is it not fair to discuss the differences in technology?

{ which I appreciate as it allows me to expand my ignore list } . Think that some "feature " their brand has make it indispensable with other makes of cameras falling by the way side.

BUT isn't this a chicken and egg scenario? 4/3 has some of the smallest kits, best IBIS, some of the smallest long lenses. So someone who actually values those things can choose 4/3 and talk about how "indespensible " those features are. AND they have a point. They just miss that not everyone values the same features

My It is frankly idiotic , every forum has its over obsessed fans, but man there is a plague of them in this forum.

Welcome. You must be new here. I have seen you participate in the 4)3 forums so you know there isn't a shortage of zealots

Yes they run a close second mainly older Olympus users for some reason I don't know

There are some wonderful helpful talented photographers in this forum and as I say I am glad that every thread like this helps identify those who contribute nothing other than Yay!! Sony.

There will literally be hundreds of pro Canon and Nikon shooters to every one pro Sony shooter, take a look at the high end photographic awards and tell me how hard it is for these Canon/Nikon guys to make superb images . A Sony pro shooter spotted at a sporting event still makes headline news in the forums as like man bites dog they are a whole lot rarer than a dog bites man scenario. Take a look at any serious sporting event you will see a horde of Canon shooters, do you really think they can't get the job done

Do you think photojournalist and professional sports photographers are the only "professionals" out there.

No but I would be happy to wager that whatever field of pro photography you care to select , that there will be vastly more Canon users to any other brand .

I wouldn't argue that. In the 90s Canon absolutely dominated the market when they went to the EOS system. Nikon had been the larger force before that and they dragged their feet because they didn't want to isolate their base. You aren't going to overcome almost three decades of dominance in five or six years.

For your "Olympic scenario" that isn't even on the horizon because despite putting out a decent body Sony don't have the lenses. They probably couldn't fill a few racks of the Canon room with EVERY single 400 2.8 lens they have made to date

To be clear. I do not eat drink and breathe Sony. I think they do some things better than others and will gladly discuss areas where they need improvement

The great thing about professional photography is it is super simple. "How do I make money?" That's the only question. And when you ask that question there are areas where Sony FE excels and other areas where other manufacturers Excel. Simple. For all the ways Sony is gonna fall short on the sidelines of a Superbowl there are other ways that a Canon or Nikon DSLR is going to fall short in wedding/video/ portraiture.

I have done literally hundreds of wedding shoots with everything from MF film through to high end DSLR's . Thankfully it was only a nice side earner to my real work and I do not do them any more . Though one exception later this year I have agreed to do my nieces wedding and will probably be my first with Sony gear so we will see.

"Professional wedding photography"........that's a discussion on it's own.

Well good luck on your shoot.

If you shot for decades and are still around the industry you have witnessed a serious transformation. It has gone from a bank of presets with a handful of rough "who, what, where's" to a dynamic industry where there are some fairly high demands out there. The good shooters are also delivering on this over and over again .this isn't a "just Sony" thing or something like that but just about technology. TTL, AF, better metering tools, better FPS, niche stuff like soft or silent shutters. Pretty impressive stuff.

I am in Scotland and a lot of weddings were held in old castles and the like with very poor lighting , when I got my hands on D3s when it came out its high ISO performance was a revolution . I am not arguing against technology per se just the suggestion that cameras like the 1Dx II are some how not up to the job

Agreed. If somebody prefers a 1dxii and it ticks all their boxes then go for it. Then again if a different model ticks your boxes then go for it.

because they lack some feature/gimmick .

My biggest point. Everything is a "gimmick" unless you use it. The AF of the 1dxii could be considered a "gimmick". Then again if somebody actually needs it then so be it.

I admit that for personal use I have no great need for eye AF or C-AF or in fact any AF. My interests lie mainly in landscape and macro

Ah...........so do we have a case of "it doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter"?

You probably think focus stacking is a good feature. Plenty of others could use you definitions.

I am not trying to define ANYONE's needs.

Also BTW I am pro stacking. I really like options despite it not being one of my highest priorities

sti I think I will give up because somehow I seem to have offended you . Wasn't my intention. Although I have a good foundation on my road to hell

You have absoloutly not offended me at all , we are just expressing our opinions they just differ

Cool. Then we are on the same page. I am more than happy to discuss differences of opinion politely

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow