Any Reason to get D5300 over Sony A6000?

Started Mar 30, 2014 | Discussions
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
4

K E Hoffman wrote:

I think part of the problem is that in general sensors have come to a place that most people can't tell the difference APC to APC and FF to FF.. and one needs more than a Brand name to sell a camera.. Sell me a 5DMKIII vs a Sony A99 just based on features..

5DMKIII no 60P video, no ability to tilt the screen.. lower res.. lower DXO sensor scores. higher price

You are left with

  • Its a Canon
  • Canon has more lenses
  • It has the same OVF technology cameras have had for decades (that is disabled when shooting live from the sensor both still and video
  • and it has a half stop better high ISO noise performance

Its a defensive list.. if an established brand vs an technology aggressive company taking some good risks.. I mean really $3000 for a camera model line that doesn't do 60P video and has no ability to articulate the back LCD to help in shooting creative angles.

Its a Canon sells a ton of cameras.. it doesn't move the technology forward.

You cannot be more wrong. People who buy 5D3/A99 care very little about 60P, they care a lot more about things like lens and accessory support. 90% of them are either working pros or serious still photography hobbyists. I know no less than ten 5D3 owners, they all fit in either of the above categories. A99 cannot compete against 5D3 for both of these groups.

For working pros, they want great lens selection and accessory selection. Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line. Secondly, working pros generally operate on thin budget, they buy and sell second hand lenses a lot. Canon has a very large second hand market for them to trade in, Sony A mount's pro lens market is much smaller. If you wanted a 70-200/2.8 for example, you are more likely have to buy it brand new and take a heavy loss when you sell, with canon you can quickly buy a secondhand at almost any city. Thirdly, working pros often work with other pros, and they tend to share and provide back up gear to each other. Chance of your colleague also use Canon gear is about 50%, chance of your colleague use Sony gear is about 1%.

For hobbyists, again, frequent gear trading is part of the game, Canon has a much wider selection of lenses that hobbyists can play with. And secondly, hobbyists value reviews, comparisons, and cost performance ratio. Canon lenses simply offer more for less money. IF you were a BIF hobbyist, what sony equivalent would you use in place of Canon 300/4L, 400/5.6L?

EthanP99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,436
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?

ultimitsu wrote:

K E Hoffman wrote:

I think part of the problem is that in general sensors have come to a place that most people can't tell the difference APC to APC and FF to FF.. and one needs more than a Brand name to sell a camera.. Sell me a 5DMKIII vs a Sony A99 just based on features..

5DMKIII no 60P video, no ability to tilt the screen.. lower res.. lower DXO sensor scores. higher price

You are left with

  • Its a Canon
  • Canon has more lenses
  • It has the same OVF technology cameras have had for decades (that is disabled when shooting live from the sensor both still and video
  • and it has a half stop better high ISO noise performance

Its a defensive list.. if an established brand vs an technology aggressive company taking some good risks.. I mean really $3000 for a camera model line that doesn't do 60P video and has no ability to articulate the back LCD to help in shooting creative angles.

Its a Canon sells a ton of cameras.. it doesn't move the technology forward.

You cannot be more wrong. People who buy 5D3/A99 care very little about 60P, they care a lot more about things like lens and accessory support. 90% of them are either working pros or serious still photography hobbyists. I know no less than ten 5D3 owners, they all fit in either of the above categories. A99 cannot compete against 5D3 for both of these groups.

For working pros, they want great lens selection and accessory selection. Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line. Secondly, working pros generally operate on thin budget, they buy and sell second hand lenses a lot. Canon has a very large second hand market for them to trade in, Sony A mount's pro lens market is much smaller. If you wanted a 70-200/2.8 for example, you are more likely have to buy it brand new and take a heavy loss when you sell, with canon you can quickly buy a secondhand at almost any city. Thirdly, working pros often work with other pros, and they tend to share and provide back up gear to each other. Chance of your colleague also use Canon gear is about 50%, chance of your colleague use Sony gear is about 1%.

For hobbyists, again, frequent gear trading is part of the game, Canon has a much wider selection of lenses that hobbyists can play with. And secondly, hobbyists value reviews, comparisons, and cost performance ratio. Canon lenses simply offer more for less money. IF you were a BIF hobbyist, what sony equivalent would you use in place of Canon 300/4L, 400/5.6L?

Sony has all these lenses covered

24-70 2.8 zeiss

70-200 2.8 G

16-35 2.8

50 zeiss

24 zeiss

85 zeiss

100 macro

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 +21 more
EthanP99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,436
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?

ultimitsu wrote:

K E Hoffman wrote:

I think part of the problem is that in general sensors have come to a place that most people can't tell the difference APC to APC and FF to FF.. and one needs more than a Brand name to sell a camera.. Sell me a 5DMKIII vs a Sony A99 just based on features..

5DMKIII no 60P video, no ability to tilt the screen.. lower res.. lower DXO sensor scores. higher price

You are left with

  • Its a Canon
  • Canon has more lenses
  • It has the same OVF technology cameras have had for decades (that is disabled when shooting live from the sensor both still and video
  • and it has a half stop better high ISO noise performance

Its a defensive list.. if an established brand vs an technology aggressive company taking some good risks.. I mean really $3000 for a camera model line that doesn't do 60P video and has no ability to articulate the back LCD to help in shooting creative angles.

Its a Canon sells a ton of cameras.. it doesn't move the technology forward.

You cannot be more wrong. People who buy 5D3/A99 care very little about 60P, they care a lot more about things like lens and accessory support. 90% of them are either working pros or serious still photography hobbyists. I know no less than ten 5D3 owners, they all fit in either of the above categories. A99 cannot compete against 5D3 for both of these groups.

For working pros, they want great lens selection and accessory selection. Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line. Secondly, working pros generally operate on thin budget, they buy and sell second hand lenses a lot. Canon has a very large second hand market for them to trade in, Sony A mount's pro lens market is much smaller. If you wanted a 70-200/2.8 for example, you are more likely have to buy it brand new and take a heavy loss when you sell, with canon you can quickly buy a secondhand at almost any city. Thirdly, working pros often work with other pros, and they tend to share and provide back up gear to each other. Chance of your colleague also use Canon gear is about 50%, chance of your colleague use Sony gear is about 1%.

For hobbyists, again, frequent gear trading is part of the game, Canon has a much wider selection of lenses that hobbyists can play with. And secondly, hobbyists value reviews, comparisons, and cost performance ratio. Canon lenses simply offer more for less money. IF you were a BIF hobbyist, what sony equivalent would you use in place of Canon 300/4L, 400/5.6L?

Minolta 300 f 2.8

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-AF-APO-Tele-High-Speed-300mm-f-2-8-300-F2-8-for-Sony-from-Japan-N-MINT-/191115503012?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c7f5f25a4

Minolta 300 f4

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Konica-Minolta-Dynax-300-mm-F-4-0-AF-APO-G-AS-Lens-For-Minolta-Sony-98-/281298744295?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item417eb633e7

Minolta 400 4.5

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-Sony-AF-400mm-F-4-5-High-Speed-HS-APO-G-Lens-/161254237928?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item258b8066e8

Minolta 100-400

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-AF-APO-TELE-100-400-mm-F-4-5-6-7-Lens-For-Minolta-Sony-Alpha-/231178848853?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35d3554a55

or you can buy the Sony versions

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 +21 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
1

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line.

Sony has all these lenses covered

Actually Sony doesnt.

24-70 2.8 zeiss

This lens new and only competes with 24-70 II, many working pros do not spend that much on a lens, they still use 24-70I.

70-200 2.8 G

Again, this lens is fairly new and only competes against Canon 70-200II. Sony has no low cost offerings like 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200 F4IS, 70-200 I (tens thousands in secondhand market).

50 zeiss

24 zeiss

85 zeiss

All of these have smaller aperture compared to Canon Ls. And I am fairly sure 24mm and 85mm do not compete well against Canon counterpart.

100 macro

sure. Canon has 3 100mm lens. a very good and affordable 100/2 USM sports and portrait lens, a very good and affordable 100/2.8 macro, and a high end hybrid IS 100L. the Sony is about the same class as the Canon 100/2.8 macro, with extra 200 bucks on the price tag.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
1

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

IF you were a BIF hobbyist, what sony equivalent would you use in place of Canon 300/4L, 400/5.6L?

Minolta 300 f 2.8

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-AF-APO-Tele-High-Speed-300mm-f-2-8-300-F2-8-for-Sony-from-Japan-N-MINT-/191115503012?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c7f5f25a4

Minolta 300 f4

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Konica-Minolta-Dynax-300-mm-F-4-0-AF-APO-G-AS-Lens-For-Minolta-Sony-98-/281298744295?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item417eb633e7

Minolta 400 4.5

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-Sony-AF-400mm-F-4-5-High-Speed-HS-APO-G-Lens-/161254237928?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item258b8066e8

Minolta 100-400

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-AF-APO-TELE-100-400-mm-F-4-5-6-7-Lens-For-Minolta-Sony-Alpha-/231178848853?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35d3554a55

or you can buy the Sony versions

Your post reenforces my point. If you are a BIF shooter and went with Sony, you have no choice but to buy old and expensive Minolta lenses with no IS or USM. You can buy Canon 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 brand new, with warranty, and they both have super fast USM.

EthanP99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,436
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?

ultimitsu wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line.

Sony has all these lenses covered

Actually Sony doesnt.

24-70 2.8 zeiss

This lens new and only competes with 24-70 II, many working pros do not spend that much on a lens, they still use 24-70I.

70-200 2.8 G

Again, this lens is fairly new and only competes against Canon 70-200II. Sony has no low cost offerings like 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200 F4IS, 70-200 I (tens thousands in secondhand market).

50 zeiss

24 zeiss

85 zeiss

All of these have smaller aperture compared to Canon Ls. And I am fairly sure 24mm and 85mm do not compete well against Canon counterpart.

100 macro

sure. Canon has 3 100mm lens. a very good and affordable 100/2 USM sports and portrait lens, a very good and affordable 100/2.8 macro, and a high end hybrid IS 100L. the Sony is about the same class as the Canon 100/2.8 macro, with extra 200 bucks on the price tag.

Sony A mount does not need multiple versions of the same lens, Image stabilization is IN BODY

You stated you wanted work horse lenses, I presented you work horse lenses, MOST pros want f2.8 zooms. You're spouting off all these expensive lenses, but then when I list the Sony offerings in equivalence, you say there are no low cost ones. Youre quite funny.

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 +21 more
EthanP99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,436
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
1

Image Stabilization is in body. I guess you have never even seen a Pentax or Sony body before

You can also buy the new lenses too: heres an example

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-sal70400g2-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-zid27-SAL70400G2/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses

Its alright though, I get it, you shoot Canon religiously and are threatened. I've shot more than just Canon (phase one, pentax, hasselblad) I just happen to like Sony over my Canon equipment.

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 +21 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
1

EthanP99 wrote:

Image Stabilization is in body. I guess you have never even seen a Pentax or Sony body before

You can also buy the new lenses too: heres an example

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-sal70400g2-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-zid27-SAL70400G2/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses

Of course I know they are IBIS, you missed Olympus. But it is common knowledge that IBIS is much inferior compared to ILIS for telephotos.

Its alright though, I get it, you shoot Canon religiously and are threatened. I've shot more than just Canon (phase one, pentax, hasselblad) I just happen to like Sony over my Canon equipment.

Actually you dont get it at all. Firstly I do not shoot Canon, Canon 5D3 is a camera I would never buy because it doesnt suit my need, but this does not stop me from understanding how well it is made and how well it suits its target audience.  Secondly no one feels threatened, Canon is going strong with its 5D3 and 6D and millions of lens sales. On the other hand, Sony A mount, Sony SLT, and Hasselblad are the ones facing extinction. Your post is so saturated with fear it is leaking all over the floor.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
1

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Firstly Canon has stable work horse lenses, 24-70I, II, 70-200 I, II, non-ISO, F4IS, 16-35, 50L, 24L, 85L, 100L; Sony simply cannot compete against this complete line.

Sony has all these lenses covered

Actually Sony doesnt.

24-70 2.8 zeiss

This lens new and only competes with 24-70 II, many working pros do not spend that much on a lens, they still use 24-70I.

70-200 2.8 G

Again, this lens is fairly new and only competes against Canon 70-200II. Sony has no low cost offerings like 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200 F4IS, 70-200 I (tens thousands in secondhand market).

50 zeiss

24 zeiss

85 zeiss

All of these have smaller aperture compared to Canon Ls. And I am fairly sure 24mm and 85mm do not compete well against Canon counterpart.

100 macro

sure. Canon has 3 100mm lens. a very good and affordable 100/2 USM sports and portrait lens, a very good and affordable 100/2.8 macro, and a high end hybrid IS 100L. the Sony is about the same class as the Canon 100/2.8 macro, with extra 200 bucks on the price tag.

Sony A mount does not need multiple versions of the same lens, Image stabilization is IN BODY.

You are missing the point. Sony does not have multiple price point of a particular FL, buying Sony means you have to spend big money on new lenses, or buy lenses from last decade.

You stated you wanted work horse lenses, I presented you work horse lenses, MOST pros want f2.8 zooms.

Not necessarily. I know several pros do very well with 17-40L, 70-200F4IS, and 24-105L.

You're spouting off all these expensive lenses, but then when I list the Sony offerings in equivalence, you say there are no low cost ones. Youre quite funny.

I mentioned 24-70I, 70-200 non-IS, 70-200/4 IS, did I not? they are work horse lenses and not at all expensive. On top of them there are 17-40L, 24-105L, 100 macro.

And yes, Sony has no lower cost workhorse lenses. That is one of the reasons very few working pro use Sony.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 11,904
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?
2

ultimitsu wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

Image Stabilization is in body. I guess you have never even seen a Pentax or Sony body before

You can also buy the new lenses too: heres an example

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-sal70400g2-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-zid27-SAL70400G2/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses

Of course I know they are IBIS, you missed Olympus. But it is common knowledge that IBIS is much inferior compared to ILIS for telephotos.

Common knowledge hmmm. Then you should have little problems presenting some studies comparing Oly's ibis with ILIS systems.

Its alright though, I get it, you shoot Canon religiously and are threatened. I've shot more than just Canon (phase one, pentax, hasselblad) I just happen to like Sony over my Canon equipment.

Actually you dont get it at all. Firstly I do not shoot Canon, Canon 5D3 is a camera I would never buy because it doesnt suit my need, but this does not stop me from understanding how well it is made and how well it suits its target audience. Secondly no one feels threatened, Canon is going strong with its 5D3 and 6D and millions of lens sales. On the other hand, Sony A mount, Sony SLT, and Hasselblad are the ones facing extinction. Your post is so saturated with fear it is leaking all over the floor.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +8 more
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,678
It is about the system
1

Jkim7 wrote:

Hey guys,

I'm pretty set on getting an A6000, and from what I understand mirror less has pretty much caught up with DSLRs. Especially with the AF of the A6000, wouldn't an A6000 be just as good as a D5300? Is there any reason why I should prefer a D5300 over it? It's just that I still see so many people buy t5i's and D5300s and entry level APS-C DSLRs.

Look at the system and consider if you want to be a part of the Nikon universe or the Sony universe.

Event Photography Sydney New Member • Posts: 2
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over Sony A6000?

The D5300 looks way better than the Sony A6000 besides you're comparing a D SLR to a Sony camera. Still if you are looking for value for money then go ahead with the A6000

Aberaeron Senior Member • Posts: 5,944
Re: It is about the system
2

PerL wrote:

Jkim7 wrote:

Hey guys,

I'm pretty set on getting an A6000, and from what I understand mirror less has pretty much caught up with DSLRs. Especially with the AF of the A6000, wouldn't an A6000 be just as good as a D5300? Is there any reason why I should prefer a D5300 over it? It's just that I still see so many people buy t5i's and D5300s and entry level APS-C DSLRs.

Look at the system and consider if you want to be a part of the Nikon universe or the Sony universe.

Surely he's after a camera, not a starship. ''It's a camera Captain. But not as we know it!''

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Sony SLT-A57 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro +21 more
zackiedawg
zackiedawg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,489
My advice - avoid advice from those who badmouth another camera or brand
9

Just my opinion and advice - worth no more or less than anyone else's here.  But personally, I find that any advice that comes with not just a recommendation for a certain camera or brand (virtually always from someone who bought and uses that brand, no coincidence there) but also a specific and intentional slag at another brand, is simply biased to the point that it no longer has relevance or use to me.

I don't see any reason in today's world, and the current camera marketplace, which is filled with an excellent and highly diverse selection of cameras of nearly every size and type, all with wonderful IQ, that a person needs to try to put down another brand or camera in order to make their brand of choice look or seem better.  Consider how a person posts the advice they do, and decide if it sounds genuinely unbiased and useful - can a person admit any flaws to their own system of choice?  Can a person remove their personal choice from the equation and consider the wants and needs of the original poster?  Can a person talk up the selling points of one camera or brand without insulting another?  Can a person list both positives and negatives about BOTH brands or choices, then state their own reason they chose the one they did?

What you see throughout this thread, ironically, is what BOTH types are accusing eachother of - Nikon fans and Sony fans both insulting the opposite choice and exhibiting pure fanboy bias, as well as detractors of each brand coming in to insult and tear down the other brand.  Also, there is a lot of biased opinion coming from those who consider only their own needs, and are blind to the possibility that someone else's needs may be different.

Within all of these posts, there are small tidbits of fact, or useful information, unfortunately often segued by brand loyalty or a need to hurl insults at another brand.

Here's the fact that fanboys of any brand hate to hear:  All cameras are excellent nowadays, and virtually all interchangeable large-sensor cameras are more capable than the majority of users that shoot with them.  And most of these interchangeable camera systems will have plenty of lenses that the average user will need not just now, but likely for years to come.  Very few photographers in the world truly need more than a handful of lenses, avid enthusiasts often use 10 or less lenses regularly.  Many of us who happen to just love gear and lenses might own 30+ lenses - yet in reality we might really use 5 or 6 of those lenses 95% of the time.

Things to consider:  not just the SIZE of the lens selection available, but specifically whether lenses that are relevant to YOUR shooting are available and at a reasonable price.  Those who shoot wildlife don't have much need for macro or fast short prime lenses, those who shoot landscape don't have much need for 500mm and 600mm primes, and so on.  If you honestly believe your photography will stretch the gamut, and cover many types of photography, the question is whether you can get the lenses you'll need - if a 400mm prime covers your wildlife needs, and you can find a good one in 4 different brand mounts, then it doesn't really matter if one of those mounts has 400 lenses to choose from and another has 200 lenses to choose from...what matters is that they have the lens YOU need.

Ergonomics - how do the cameras you're considering fit you?  Are you comfortable holding them, carrying them, reaching the relevant controls, do you like the feel?  Do the controls feel natural?  Do you like the viewfinder, be it optical or electronic?  And so on.  No two people are alike - some may like larger bodies, thicker bodies, deeper grips, others may like thinner bodies, smaller bodies, shallower grips.  Don't worry about what other people think - worry about what fits you.

Why would one pick a DSLR body over a mirrorless body?  A few reasons might include: generally larger overall lens selection which can provide more specialty lens needs, usually more long lenses available, typically have optical viewfinders which some prefer, generally have longer battery life, often have larger buffers, bodies tend to be thicker and wider with substantial grips which can offer handling advantages for some with long lenses, typically have well established accessory market for various needs (eg: flash systems).

Why would one pick a mirrorless body over a DSLR body?  A few reasons might include: generally smaller bodies, often smaller lenses when choosing shorter focal lengths, usually have EVFs which some prefer, generally function faster/better in live view shooting modes for those who like exposure simulation when shooting, tend to be highly programmable/customizable for control layout, often have additional advanced functionality in camera such as multi-frame stacking, HDR, pano stitching, etc, usually have much greater adaptability to myriad other lens mounts making them good for adapting to manual focus and older lenses.

The A6000 and D5300 both appear to be excellent cameras.  What do you want?  What will you be shooting?  Have you handled either?  Do any of the advantages of either system above help sway you towards one or the other?

Despite all the wrath and fury thrown around these forums about DSLR dinosaurs and mirrorless trolls and how they both hate eachother, and never the twain shall meet - there are plenty of us shooting with BOTH DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, and quite happy with both.  Many of us have been photographers for decades, many of us have dozens of lenses, and somehow have found all the lenses we need for both systems, can use both EVFs and OVFs interchangeably, and can appreciate advantages of each system at different times.

-- hide signature --

Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony SLT-A68 Sony a6300 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 +22 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: My advice - avoid advice from those who badmouth another camera or brand
1

zackiedawg wrote:

I don't see any reason in today's world, and the current camera marketplace, which is filled with an excellent and highly diverse selection of cameras of nearly every size and type, all with wonderful IQ, that a person needs to try to put down another brand or camera in order to make their brand of choice look or seem better.

This is a gear forum, it is a please where seemingly non-existent or non-obvious differences get teased out. If this isnt your thing, you can spend your time better else where.

But other people obviously see the whole point behind this exercise. Many, like OP, come here and ask for advice. Others frequently post how they regret buying into a system, or more frequently, asking which other system they should switch to. Getting into a wrong / worse / less optimal system is a very common thing and people like to be better informed to avoid it.

Once you start debating over gear, it is nature that some people are more passionate about what they own than others, it is human nature and you can never separate that from a debate. The completely impassioned debate that you advocate for doesn't even exist in governments and courts, so how it exist in a hobbyist forum?

While it is true all modern systems can produce good results, how easy and how cheap it is for them to achieve good results would vary, and that is the essence of this type of discussion.

Here's the fact that fanboys of any brand hate to hear: ....And most of these interchangeable camera systems will have plenty of lenses that the average user will need not just now, but likely for years to come.

You have gone a bit overboard here. If you like to shoot portrait and want a sharp and and fast 85mm with AF, what option do you have with Sony? Or if you wanted a light weight, super sharp 400mm prime with fast AF for BIF?

Limited lens selection and even more limited secondhand lens market are very significant factors keeping people from buying Sony.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: My advice - avoid advice from those who badmouth another camera or brand

ultimitsu wrote:

zackiedawg wrote:

I don't see any reason in today's world, and the current camera marketplace, which is filled with an excellent and highly diverse selection of cameras of nearly every size and type, all with wonderful IQ, that a person needs to try to put down another brand or camera in order to make their brand of choice look or seem better.

This is a gear forum, it is a please where seemingly non-existent or non-obvious differences get teased out. If this isnt your thing, you can spend your time better else where.

But other people obviously see the whole point behind this exercise. Many, like OP, come here and ask for advice. Others frequently post how they regret buying into a system, or more frequently, asking which other system they should switch to. Getting into a wrong / worse / less optimal system is a very common thing and people like to be better informed to avoid it.

Once you start debating over gear, it is nature that some people are more passionate about what they own than others, it is human nature and you can never separate that from a debate. The completely impassioned debate that you advocate for doesn't even exist in governments and courts, so how it exist in a hobbyist forum?

While it is true all modern systems can produce good results, how easy and how cheap it is for them to achieve good results would vary, and that is the essence of this type of discussion.

Here's the fact that fanboys of any brand hate to hear: ....And most of these interchangeable camera systems will have plenty of lenses that the average user will need not just now, but likely for years to come.

You have gone a bit overboard here. If you like to shoot portrait and want a sharp and and fast 85mm with AF, what option do you have with Sony? Or if you wanted a light weight, super sharp 400mm prime with fast AF for BIF?

Well actually, with Sony you can use the Canon ones for AF....as well as the older Sony/Minolta ones or even Contax G.

Some of those are quite slow to AF, others ok.

I prefer manual focus and Canon FD L lenses, others will differ.

Limited lens selection and even more limited secondhand lens market are very significant factors keeping people from buying Sony.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 17,157
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?

ultimitsu wrote:

EthanP99 wrote:

Image Stabilization is in body. I guess you have never even seen a Pentax or Sony body before

You can also buy the new lenses too: heres an example

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-sal70400g2-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-zid27-SAL70400G2/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses

Of course I know they are IBIS, you missed Olympus. But it is common knowledge that IBIS is much inferior compared to ILIS for telephotos.

Not only that, but even if for the sake of argument we said that IBIS was functionally equal to optical stabilization, IBIS makes no sense to use in a DSLR. It stabilizes the sensor and nothing else. The photographer (especially with a zoom or tele lens) has a jittery, twitchy view through the viewfinder; the metering and AF sensors have to try and make sense out of the same jittery twitchy 'view' they pick up through the unstabilized lens, which makes their job harder to do. It certainly isn't going to help with AF tracking.

There is a reason Canon and Nikon use optical IS in their DSLR's and it's not so they can charge more for the lenses; it's because it's the best way to do the job.

IBIS may be debated as an advantage in a mirrorless camera, but isn't even on the radar for a DSLR.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 17,157
Re: Proceed with caution

peevee1 wrote:

Rename A6000 or E-M10 "Canon" and put in in every store some Rebel junk is in, and people will buy it in millions.

"Rebel junk"? LOL.  Pretty dismissive for a quite capable entry level DSLR.

Your claim about renaming A6000 or E-M10 'Canon' and selling millions of them is right out of the clear blue sky.

zackiedawg
zackiedawg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,489
Re: My advice - avoid advice from those who badmouth another camera or brand
5

ultimitsu wrote:

This is a gear forum, it is a please where seemingly non-existent or non-obvious differences get teased out. If this isnt your thing, you can spend your time better else where.

It's not about not discussing gear, or even recommending it - it's about the approach.  If you wanted to recommend the D5300, for example, in the OP's scenario - you could say that it's a good camera, nice buffer, sensor is really strong at high ISO, has good battery life, has an optical viewfinder which some prefer, and there's a good selection of lenses.  I can say all of that without having to rip down or insult the other system - I'm making recommendations, pointing out some advantages and good features of the Nikon, and things to consider.  Instead, the approach too often is more like this:  Get the Nikon - it's a REAL camera, and blows the stupid Sony toy out of the water - the Sony has junk lenses, and few of them, the controls stink, and the EVF is terrible.

See?  I'm not even technically talking about the Nikon.  It's a gear forum, yet that argument doesn't even present any of what the gear can do - all it does is insult another system.  The first approach, to me, is much more useful, gives much better information about the Nikon, and doesn't turn the boards into a ridiculous civil war of trolls throwing poop at eachother.

You have gone a bit overboard here. If you like to shoot portrait and want a sharp and and fast 85mm with AF, what option do you have with Sony? Or if you wanted a light weight, super sharp 400mm prime with fast AF for BIF?

If you want to shoot portrait, then you use the lens you prefer - what rule says it requires an 85mm lens?  Portrait can be shot with myriad lenses - if an 85mm that autofocuses is absolutely significant and important to you, then choose a camera that has one in its lens collection.  If that was the lens that mattered to you, the Sony wouldn't be the camera you choose.  Did the OP hint at needing an 85m AF lens, or that portrait would become the photography of his future?  Why argue based on something only the OP can know if he'll need?  What if you want a stabilized AF 30mm F1.4 prime, or stabilized 10mm UWA?  You can get that with the Sony - but it would be silly to base a recommendation, and moreover to hurl insults against the other brand, based on that fact.

Limited lens selection and even more limited secondhand lens market are very significant factors keeping people from buying Sony.

Again, YOUR situation and YOUR argument - not everyone's - don't assume what other people need.  If you feel that Nikon's lens selection is an important recommendation, then say so - instead of mentioning how limited you perceive Sony's lens selection to be.  Limited lens selection only matters if the lens selection is limited in lenses a person needs.  If you can find what you need out of Sony's 105 current A mount lenses, or 27 E-mount lenses, then it simply doesn't matter if there are another 200 lenses available in someone else's lens line that you DON'T need.  And if AF is not one of your requirements, then tens of thousands of lenses are available for the Sony.  Note: all I'm doing is pointing out some advantages of one system without calling out the faults of another.

Of course governments can't communicate this way - they're idiots.   Politicians, lawyers, and bull-headed blind supporters of their party - those aren't the people to try to emulate.  The forums don't have to be as disfunctional, closeminded, idiotic, bull headed, insultory, and blindly-faithful as politics and international relations.

-- hide signature --

Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony SLT-A68 Sony a6300 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 +22 more
NowHearThis
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,121
Re: A great marketing line - but believe it all?

Midwest wrote:.

IBIS may be debated as an advantage in a mirrorless camera, but isn't even on the radar for a DSLR.

Really?  Than what does Pentax use in its DSLRs?  What had Sony used in all its DSLRs/DSLT?

Optical Stabilization does work well, but so can IBIS.  I've shot the big Sony 70-400 handheld at lower shutter speeds even racked all the way out to 400mm.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads