Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,836
Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
1

Long video but you get the gist at the beginning and end.

I have had decent luck adapting EF glass to various gen 2 and 3 FE bodies, but there are definitely still limitations. However, basic and more affordable native glass like 3rd party 2.8 zooms and a 35/1.8 still aren't available 5 years in. For example Tamron G2 2.8 standard and tele + 35 1.8 is nearly half the price of the standard + tele GM and the 35 2.8. Obviously 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than 1st party ones but not always (Tamron 35 1.8 vs Canon 35/2 IS for example). Hopefully now with Canikon in the FF MILC game 3rd party manufacturers will be more expiditious in porting these basic lenses over. Because currently adapted functionality, even with Sony A glass, is limited.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
Sony a9
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
18

Not being funny here, just wondering why a successful Miami-based photographer who’s shot some 300 weddings over eight years and whose most popular package is $3,400.00 can’t afford a Sony 70-200 GM...

Hope he’s happy with his EOS R. Did not learn much from watching the overlong video other than native glass usually outperforms adapted.

And I realize this isn’t your reality, but I’ve got the 16-35 GM, 35 Distagon, 50 Planar, 55 Sonnar, 85 FE and CV 65, and plan on picking up the Samyang 85 next week and am pretty happy with what’s being offered and what’s in store from Sony, Tamron, Samyang, Zeiss et al.

FWIW Canon’s really jacking up the price of their RF glass cf to EF, and Panny’s L-mount is pricey too.

-- hide signature --
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,308
Yes
4

sportyaccordy wrote:

Long video but you get the gist at the beginning and end.

I have had decent luck adapting EF glass to various gen 2 and 3 FE bodies, but there are definitely still limitations.

The fact it works at all is somewhat surprising. The conversation about adapted glass has always been difficult because you have different bodies , lens, adapters, firmware, expectations. Etc.

If I am selling wedding gigs and charging a couple Grand a pop I am going to buy whatever I need to do the job.

However, basic and more affordable native glass like 3rd party 2.8 zooms and a 35/1.8 still aren't available 5 years in.

I don't know. First is that five years is NOT a long time for measuring a new platform.

For example Tamron G2 2.8 standard and tele + 35 1.8 is nearly half the price of the standard + tele GM and the 35 2.8.

BUT there are other choices. The Tamron 28-75 is an absolute gem for the price IF someone can deal with the range.

Obviously 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than 1st party ones but not always (Tamron 35 1.8 vs Canon 35/2 IS for example).

There is also the rokinon 35 2.8 that is a decent little value albeit imperfect.

Hopefully now with Canikon in the FF MILC game 3rd party manufacturers will be more expiditious in porting these basic lenses over.

They are gaining steam BUT Sony has a headstart and open code. If they CAN they will make and sell lenses for all three mounts. It may or may not be that easy .If they have to prioritize they will focus on whatever mount gets them the most sales.

Only they know the exact answer to that one. Sales figures seem notoriously difficult to find. Most of the stuff thrown around here seems to be partial numbers. BUT it from what I have seen Sony FE is still outselling Canon and Nikon. At least pre RP release. All the apsc models also have potential buyers for third party lenses.

Because currently adapted functionality, even with Sony A glass, is limited.

It is. In an ideal world I would always go native. If someone already has a collection of glass they at least have a transition period available. If you want to buy one mount for certain advantages while trying to be cheap buy buying glass in a different mount and then complain about performance then your priorities are misplaced.

Look. I love unicorns as the much as the next eight year old girl BUT you just have to be realistic. Companies want to make money and they are gonna squeeze every penny out of you that they can. Sony FE has WAY more budget options than they had three years ago and now a better experience with adapted glass. Meanwhile their real competition has almost no "affordable " native glass but a pretty decent adapter experience. So you could make the same arguments about them.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 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
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,173
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
4

jonpais wrote:

Not being funny here, just wondering why a successful Miami-based photographer who’s shot some 300 weddings over eight years and whose most popular package is $3,400.00 can’t afford a Sony 70-200 GM...

Hope he’s happy with his EOS R. Did not learn much from watching the overlong video other than native glass usually outperforms adapted.

And I realize this isn’t your reality, but I’ve got the 16-35 GM, 35 Distagon, 50 Planar, 55 Sonnar, 85 FE and CV 65, and plan on picking up the Samyang 85 next week and am pretty happy with what’s being offered and what’s in store from Sony, Tamron, Samyang, Zeiss et al.

FWIW Canon’s really jacking up the price of their RF glass cf to EF, and Panny’s L-mount is pricey too.

I have adapted EF lenses on Sony bodies in a few years. They will work but have clear compromise, just more or less especially in AF-C tracking, eye-AF reliability and consistency, in low light, with side AF points etc. Therefore I sold most EF lenses and replaced them with FE counterparts. Even a MF lens such as Canon 17L TS-E that has no FE counterpart, occasionally had lens contact error that I had to unmount/remount and powered off /on to regain the contact. Adapting certainly has hassles and always has compromise somewhere, more or less, only a temporary solution in my opinion.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +17 more
OP sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 15,836
Re: Yes
5

golfhov wrote:

The fact it works at all is somewhat surprising. The conversation about adapted glass has always been difficult because you have different bodies , lens, adapters, firmware, expectations. Etc.

If I am selling wedding gigs and charging a couple Grand a pop I am going to buy whatever I need to do the job.

Yea that's a legitimate ding against him. But he wanted to give it a try.

However, basic and more affordable native glass like 3rd party 2.8 zooms and a 35/1.8 still aren't available 5 years in.

I don't know. First is that five years is NOT a long time for measuring a new platform.

How do you figure? Canikon's FF MILC systems are brand new and already have much better adaptability than Sony stuff.

For example Tamron G2 2.8 standard and tele + 35 1.8 is nearly half the price of the standard + tele GM and the 35 2.8.

BUT there are other choices. The Tamron 28-75 is an absolute gem for the price IF someone can deal with the range.

Not a choice if you can't deal with the range (I can't)

Obviously 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than 1st party ones but not always (Tamron 35 1.8 vs Canon 35/2 IS for example).

There is also the rokinon 35 2.8 that is a decent little value albeit imperfect.

2.8 normal primes.... yuck.

Hopefully now with Canikon in the FF MILC game 3rd party manufacturers will be more expiditious in porting these basic lenses over.

They are gaining steam BUT Sony has a headstart and open code. If they CAN they will make and sell lenses for all three mounts. It may or may not be that easy .If they have to prioritize they will focus on whatever mount gets them the most sales.

Only they know the exact answer to that one. Sales figures seem notoriously difficult to find. Most of the stuff thrown around here seems to be partial numbers. BUT it from what I have seen Sony FE is still outselling Canon and Nikon. At least pre RP release. All the apsc models also have potential buyers for third party lenses.

There is money in it. Though ironically the better adapters of the Canikon system may disincentivize native 3rd party glass.

Because currently adapted functionality, even with Sony A glass, is limited.

It is. In an ideal world I would always go native. If someone already has a collection of glass they at least have a transition period available. If you want to buy one mount for certain advantages while trying to be cheap buy buying glass in a different mount and then complain about performance then your priorities are misplaced.

Look. I love unicorns as the much as the next eight year old girl BUT you just have to be realistic. Companies want to make money and they are gonna squeeze every penny out of you that they can. Sony FE has WAY more budget options than they had three years ago and now a better experience with adapted glass. Meanwhile their real competition has almost no "affordable " native glass but a pretty decent adapter experience. So you could make the same arguments about them.

They have more options but not all of them. In 2 years Nikon Z will have a more complete lens lineup than Sony built over 6. It's about quality and completeness, not sheer quantity. 35mm is the perfect example. 6 lenses... no AF 35/2 or 1.8. Those were among the first primes Canon and Nikon came out with. All the sensor performance and tech in the world only means so much if you can't get the lenses you want. That's just basic photography.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 3,609
Re: Yes
10

sportyaccordy wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The fact it works at all is somewhat surprising. The conversation about adapted glass has always been difficult because you have different bodies , lens, adapters, firmware, expectations. Etc.

If I am selling wedding gigs and charging a couple Grand a pop I am going to buy whatever I need to do the job.

Yea that's a legitimate ding against him. But he wanted to give it a try.

"give it a try" is not something that should be done on a paid gig.

However, basic and more affordable native glass like 3rd party 2.8 zooms and a 35/1.8 still aren't available 5 years in.

I don't know. First is that five years is NOT a long time for measuring a new platform.

How do you figure? Canikon's FF MILC systems are brand new and already have much better adaptability than Sony stuff.

gee that's funny, tn compared an adapted ef-mount canon lens on the eos-r to other milc bodies, and called it "the worst performing camera of the group"

because it was only good for about 2.5fps af-c... canon dslr lenses on canon milc are a joke.

https://youtu.be/-oXHiORuRk0?t=1m46s

For example Tamron G2 2.8 standard and tele + 35 1.8 is nearly half the price of the standard + tele GM and the 35 2.8.

BUT there are other choices. The Tamron 28-75 is an absolute gem for the price IF someone can deal with the range.

Not a choice if you can't deal with the range (I can't)

I can.

Obviously 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than 1st party ones but not always (Tamron 35 1.8 vs Canon 35/2 IS for example).

There is also the rokinon 35 2.8 that is a decent little value albeit imperfect.

2.8 normal primes.... yuck.

funny that you have repeatedly touted the merits of the canon ef 40/2.8 stm lens on dpr, but now you suddenly contradict yourself, and claim that it's "yuck", because it's f/2.8

really tho, that's just another example of you trying to trash anything that's related to sony, like you always do out here.

since you obviously hate sony, to the point that you are constantly making a bunch of false claims about the brand, just move on to something else.

They have more options but not all of them. In 2 years Nikon Z will have a more complete lens lineup than Sony built over 6.

just more idle speculation on your part.

sony ranks fe lenses by performance, at 15-20fps capability... Nikon has never had anything like that, at all.

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,308
Details
9

sportyaccordy wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The fact it works at all is somewhat surprising. The conversation about adapted glass has always been difficult because you have different bodies , lens, adapters, firmware, expectations. Etc.

If I am selling wedding gigs and charging a couple Grand a pop I am going to buy whatever I need to do the job.

Yea that's a legitimate ding against him. But he wanted to give it a try.

No doubt. Everybody likes unicorns

However, basic and more affordable native glass like 3rd party 2.8 zooms and a 35/1.8 still aren't available 5 years in.

I don't know. First is that five years is NOT a long time for measuring a new platform.

How do you figure?

Measuring the depth of the lens ecosystem. EOS didn't start with a hundred and something lenses. Nikon has kept a somewhat same mount for decades so that is different. 4/3 is the oldest current mirrorless system and Sony is already starting to rival them in selection despite 4/3 having two manufacturers . Fuji got passed by Sony a while ago in selection and AFAIK X mount is a little older.

So the fact that Sony is where it is at AND the fact they seem to be getting the most mirrorless third party lens love says something

Canikon's FF MILC systems are brand new and already have much better adaptability than Sony stuff.

They are ahead in the adaptation game but behind in the native game. What 12 lenses between both of them?

For example Tamron G2 2.8 standard and tele + 35 1.8 is nearly half the price of the standard + tele GM and the 35 2.8.

BUT there are other choices. The Tamron 28-75 is an absolute gem for the price IF someone can deal with the range.

Not a choice if you can't deal with the range (I can't)

No problem. It is still a CHOICE. Canon didn't have a decent stabilized 24-70 2.8 until the sigma art came along. So despite the age and size of the system Canon purchasers still had to make CHOICES too.

You can't say "there are no choices" and then just complain that you "don't like the choices". Two different things. If you don't like them then don't buy them . But don't pretend they don't exist just because you decided you don't like a compromise.

Also pro tip. ALMOST every "budget" choice features some sort of compromise

Obviously 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than 1st party ones but not always (Tamron 35 1.8 vs Canon 35/2 IS for example).

There is also the rokinon 35 2.8 that is a decent little value albeit imperfect.

2.8 normal primes.... yuck.

Repeat. If you don't like it that is up to you. CHOICE is an awesome thing because then people can choose what THEY want in a system.

Hopefully now with Canikon in the FF MILC game 3rd party manufacturers will be more expiditious in porting these basic lenses over.

They are gaining steam BUT Sony has a headstart and open code. If they CAN they will make and sell lenses for all three mounts. It may or may not be that easy .If they have to prioritize they will focus on whatever mount gets them the most sales.

Only they know the exact answer to that one. Sales figures seem notoriously difficult to find. Most of the stuff thrown around here seems to be partial numbers. BUT it from what I have seen Sony FE is still outselling Canon and Nikon. At least pre RP release. All the apsc models also have potential buyers for third party lenses.

There is money in it. Though ironically the better adapters of the Canikon system may disincentivize native 3rd party glass.

I am curious how that plays out. Also the effects of a receding market. Although it is easy to see how some of the "cheap third party" makers have really upped their game.

Because currently adapted functionality, even with Sony A glass, is limited.

It is. In an ideal world I would always go native. If someone already has a collection of glass they at least have a transition period available. If you want to buy one mount for certain advantages while trying to be cheap buy buying glass in a different mount and then complain about performance then your priorities are misplaced.

Look. I love unicorns as the much as the next eight year old girl BUT you just have to be realistic. Companies want to make money and they are gonna squeeze every penny out of you that they can. Sony FE has WAY more budget options than they had three years ago and now a better experience with adapted glass. Meanwhile their real competition has almost no "affordable " native glass but a pretty decent adapter experience. So you could make the same arguments about them.

They have more options but not all of them.

No doubt. The 35 2 is a glaring omission. I didn't miss the fact that both Canon and Nikon made that a release lens

In 2 years Nikon Z will have a more complete lens lineup than Sony built over 6.

Hahaha.........come on man. You are smarter than that. Nikon released a roadmap. If Sony never released another lens Nikon won't catch them in double that time.

Of'sabout quality and completeness, not sheer quantity. 35mm is the perfect example. 6 lenses... no AF 35/2 or 1.8. Those were among the first primes Canon and Nikon came out with.

Already noted. But just think about your logic. You are saying ONE choice is better than two. With Sony right this second you can choose from two other 35 apertures. And then on top of that you have budget choices on each side too.

All the sensor performance and tech in the world only means so much if you can't get the lenses you want. That's just basic photography.

And you have FAR more choice in Sony right now. I know both will close the gap as fast as they can BUT the head start Sony has is massive.

Some common focal lengths

35 Sony has SIX different native options with AF compared to ONE. For fun too Sony does have the wider 28 2.

50 Sony has SIX again compared to ONE

Mid range zoom. By the end other year Canikon will have two each. Sony has......SIX.

85 Sony has SIX compared to........One between both?

Wanna do 20? 24? UWA?

I could go on and on about this. YES there are gaps in the lineup but at this point it is mostly at the extremes.

I do love cycles. Canikon now find themselves facing the exact shortfalls that they knocked the A7 series for years ago. The logic reversals amuse me to know end

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 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
Philnw2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,543
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
4

jonpais wrote:

Not being funny here, just wondering why a successful Miami-based photographer who’s shot some 300 weddings over eight years and whose most popular package is $3,400.00 can’t afford a Sony 70-200 GM...

Hope he’s happy with his EOS R. Did not learn much from watching the overlong video other than native glass usually outperforms adapted.

And I realize this isn’t your reality, but I’ve got the 16-35 GM, 35 Distagon, 50 Planar, 55 Sonnar, 85 FE and CV 65, and plan on picking up the Samyang 85 next week and am pretty happy with what’s being offered and what’s in store from Sony, Tamron, Samyang, Zeiss et al.

FWIW Canon’s really jacking up the price of their RF glass cf to EF, and Panny’s L-mount is pricey too.

I can forgive most things but a 1 hour video by the OP, thats too much, like 55 min to much   All to say there are limitations - like we don't know that  already.   I just flipped to the last minute or two and got all i need to know about this video.

As to your "wondering why" a professional would take on the task of doing such a video.  Sounds to me like the OP, like several professionals today, are looking at what Sony has accomplished and are being a bit envious.  The less invested professionals are going to be able to make the switch far easier than the OP, so have some advantages.

I think the OP in some ways would be better of selling his Canon equipment now, than in a few years.  But he would take a hit in the short term to learn a new system and change over equipment - OUCH.  Not my problem so i'm not worried

-- hide signature --

Phil B

 Philnw2's gear list:Philnw2's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 3,609
Re: Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?
14

jonpais wrote:

Hope he’s happy with his EOS R. Did not learn much from watching the overlong video other than native glass usually outperforms adapted.

look at the date on the video:

"Travis Harris Photography Published on May 6, 2018"

he was using ancient a9 firmware, from a year ago, prior to the 3.0 late june firmware, that was a watershed moment for sony milc, because it really improved adapted lens af… that firmware eventually trickled down to the other 3rd-gen cameras:

"Improvements in auto focus performance and functionality (ver. 3.0):
-Improves tracking performance of moving subjects in AF-C mode
-Improves auto focus speed in low light
-Adds AF Track Sens as a selectable option for custom key settings
-Adds support for all focus areas when using LA-EA3 mount adaptor
(Focus Area options added: Zone, Expand Flexible Spot, and Lock-on AF)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4295132

so here we have sportyaccordy, claiming that a dslr guy who knows nothing about sony, using really old firmware, has somehow defined "the reality of ef glass on the a9", lol

this thread is just another of his pathetic anti-sony diatribes.

Magnar W
Magnar W Senior Member • Posts: 4,341
A different perspective here
3

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 ...

 Magnar W's gear list:Magnar W's gear list
Sony a7 Sony a7R III Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 35 +2 more
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: A different perspective here
2

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 ...

I don't think this guy knew well enough about Sony camera, based on his comments. I also don't think a sane person would expect A9 with adapted lenses could AF as well as a 1DX II.

If all his income from the last 8 years was just from these 300 wedding events, a full set of Sony professional gears is probably too much for him anyway.

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,872
Re: A different perspective here
12

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 . The "features" in most advanced mirrorless cameras such as eye AF are just conveniences to make something easier not do something impossible people have been using fast shallow DOF lenses for decades. Too many here confuse something being easier with competence

Only brand obsessed fans like these kind of threads inevitably attract { 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. It is frankly idiotic , every forum has its over obsessed fans, but man there is a plague of them in this forum. 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

Just before the old hormones kick in and the fanatic club gets into foaming at the mouth attack mode, I have no Canon gear and no interest in having any.

-- 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

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,872
Re: A different perspective here

vett93 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 ...

I don't think this guy knew well enough about Sony camera, based on his comments. I also don't think a sane person would expect A9 with adapted lenses could AF as well as a 1DX II.

There are some folk here who argue exactly that kind of thing

If all his income from the last 8 years was just from these 300 wedding events, a full set of Sony professional gears is probably too much for him anyway.

He has a website you can see what he does  , I don't think he is short of work . Now if only he had Sony gear poor poor guy

-- 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

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
vett93
vett93 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,834
Re: A different perspective here
2

James Stirling wrote:

vett93 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 ...

I don't think this guy knew well enough about Sony camera, based on his comments. I also don't think a sane person would expect A9 with adapted lenses could AF as well as a 1DX II.

There are some folk here who argue exactly that kind of thing

IMO, no one else is confused by A9 with adapted lenses competing with 1DX II.

If all his income from the last 8 years was just from these 300 wedding events, a full set of Sony professional gears is probably too much for him anyway.

He has a website , I don't think he is short of work . Now if only he had Sony gear poor poor guy

The issue is not short of work. If the most popular package is $3,400 and he has done 300 wedding events over 8 years, the average annual revenue over 8 years is $3.4K X 300/8 = $127.5K. The net would be much less than that. If I just make $127.5K a year, I don't think I can afford Sony FF gears.

-- hide signature --

"Keep calm and take photos"
Photography enthusiast, from 12mm to 500mm

 vett93's gear list:vett93's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a6500 Apple iPhone 11 Pro
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,308
Re: A different perspective here
1

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

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.

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.

Too many here confuse something being easier with competence

Some confuse possibility with ability.

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,

All those 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

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.

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.

-- 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
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,872
Re: A different perspective here
2

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 , if video is critical to what you do there are better options than DSLR's/ mirrorless FF cameras . the claims of some Sony fans the differences at high ISO are insignificant .

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

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/

All those 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 .

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.

-- 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

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,872
Re: A different perspective here

vett93 wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

vett93 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 ...

I don't think this guy knew well enough about Sony camera, based on his comments. I also don't think a sane person would expect A9 with adapted lenses could AF as well as a 1DX II.

There are some folk here who argue exactly that kind of thing

IMO, no one else is confused by A9 with adapted lenses competing with 1DX II.

You might be surprised at some of the bonkers claims made by some here 

If all his income from the last 8 years was just from these 300 wedding events, a full set of Sony professional gears is probably too much for him anyway.

He has a website , I don't think he is short of work . Now if only he had Sony gear poor poor guy

The issue is not short of work. If the most popular package is $3,400 and he has done 300 wedding events over 8 years, the average annual revenue over 8 years is $3.4K X 300/8 = $127.5K. The net would be much less than that. If I just make $127.5K a year, I don't think I can afford Sony FF gears.

For what it is worth he does other things apart from weddings and runs workshops and the like. From a price perspective do you think high end Canon gear like the 1Dx II is cheap ? To be fair I did not watch the whole video { life is literally too short to watch a youtube opinion piece for an hour  }  so I do not know where the 300 weddings thing comes from .

I used to run a very profitable wedding business as a side income to my "real job" though wedding shooting is far from fun , I would rather face a charging lion than deal with a mother of the bride . I could buy pretty much any equipment that tickled my fancy , though when doing so for business you have different priorities.  If he only spent 5% of his income over that period on "gear" he could have bought $51000 worth of kit which I am sure would generate a rather nice Sony kit

-- 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

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,308
Smalls
4

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?

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.

All those 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.

Anyway. 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

-- 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
Magnar W
Magnar W Senior Member • Posts: 4,341
Re: A different perspective here
2

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 .

I think you should read what I wrote. I have not mentioned anything like "you will succeed with brand A and fail with brand B" stuff.

As a professional I have switched brand myself, because of too many failures and expensive repairs with what I thought should be among the very best gear.

 Magnar W's gear list:Magnar W's gear list
Sony a7 Sony a7R III Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 35 +2 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,872
Re: Smalls
7

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

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 . 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

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 because they lack some feature/gimmick . 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

Anyway. 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

-- 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

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads