Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    324

    Question for SONY users

    I am seriously considering switching from SONY to Canon or Nikon sometime next year. Since I am not heavily invested in SONY (beginner), the cost of switching will not be high.
    My question is: Why shouldn't I switch? Or put another way: Why should I stay with SONY?

    Thanks,
    Juan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    In-Body-IS is the only think I can think of.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    Without an investment ... the idea of having all three camera manufacturers on your shelf is also possible. A lack of commitment leads all sorts of flexibility and asking others to justify your fickleness seems ... self-indulgent to an extreme.

    YOU are the photographer, Juan. It is up to you to decide how you want to play this out. There is an entire forum worth of reading that can answer this ... so, you might want to sit back, do some of that reading, and get back to us on this, obviously, perplexing question.

    Good luck in your pursuit.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-23-2009 at 06:35 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    In-Body-IS is the only think I can think of.
    So far, that has been the only thing I've been able to come up with.
    Thanks, Elisha -- I know you recently made the switch to Canon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez View Post
    So far, that has been the only thing I've been able to come up with.
    Thanks, Elisha -- I know you recently made the switch to Canon.
    Primarily for video and secondarily because I could not get the lenses I want used locally.

    Other than that, I was perfectly happy with my a700.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    Primarily for video and secondarily because I could not get the lenses I want used locally.

    Other than that, I was perfectly happy with my a700.
    Well, those are the two main reasons I am thinking of switching -- video and availability of items. I can't get anything for Sony locally, and Sony seems to be taking a bit too long to do video. Since I won't do anything until next year, maybe they'll wow me with the A700 replacement
    That being said, I did play with a Canon 7D the other day, and it was awesome.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post

    Other than that, I was perfectly happy with my a700.
    are you saying the IQ of the 7d is the same as the a700 ? the iso capability is the same ? the AF is the same ? wow. thats not exactly a ringing endorsement of the 7d just quietly.

    juan, i think the question you ask is pointless unless you're ready to switch NOW. ie: who knows what sony will release when you're ready to buy ? they should definately have a new a700 whoich could be a pearler. so if you were switching today then the answer is easy...get a 7d. but in a few months that could all change.

    there are also other manufactureres that offer inbody IS if its so important. olympus and pentax.
    Last edited by Rooz; 11-24-2009 at 03:41 AM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    are you saying the IQ of the 7d is the same as the a700 ? the iso capability is the same ? the AF is the same ? wow. thats not exactly a ringing endorsement of the 7d just quietly.
    But that's not why I switched though. I was craving video bad.
    The rest is a HUGE bonus. Would I go back to Sony? Not unless they can top the 7D with it's features!
    I had a TTL flash for the Sony so high ISO indoors wasn't such a big deal for me.
    But I don't have a TTL flash for Canon so high ISO is a God send.

    As far as AF is concerned, I think it is a wash. the a700 may have been faster in lower lit areas just cause it had a dedicated AF assist LED. But having 8 more focus points is pretty nice. Maybe I need a better lens on the 7D to fully capitalize on it's AF speed.
    Last edited by Elisha; 11-24-2009 at 08:12 AM.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Rooz, pearler is a new term to me. I love that kind of stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez View Post
    I am seriously considering switching from SONY to Canon or Nikon sometime next year. Since I am not heavily invested in SONY (beginner), the cost of switching will not be high.
    My question is: Why shouldn't I switch? Or put another way: Why should I stay with SONY?

    Thanks,
    Juan
    I had an A300, and when the time came to move up, I went with a 40D instead of the A700.

    One reason I switched was just to have a fresh start. I could have just traded/sold off the Sony/Minolta gear I didn't like or use much and got new, but it was kinda fun to start over from scratch, and I made some different decisions.

    In body IS is very nice. I don't have IS on any of my lenses, and it would be really nice to have on the primes.

    One thing I mentioned here several months ago was the usefulness of cheaper glass on Sony vs. Canon. The example was the Tamron 17-50. That is just one lens, but it is my most commonly used lens. On Canon you buy a $400 lens with great optical quality, but no IS, and because Canon has no in-body AF motor, the Tamron AF motor is used. It is pretty slow, and dreadfully loud. On Sony you get the same optical quality, slightly faster AF, and much quieter AF (although certainly not SSM/USM/SWM sound or speed).

    Other issues - pro Canon (many apply to Nikon):
    - Much better prime selection
    - Almost all camera stores carry new and used Canon, many do not carry Sony/Minolta
    - USM available on mid-range lenses
    - 3rd party accessories (Sto-Fen omni bounce for 430EX and 580EX are easier to find, pocket wizards with TTL don't support Sony, Sigma/Tamron tend to introduce new stuff for Nikon/Canon before Sony)
    - strong mid-range lenses (f/4 L glass, very good crop UWA)
    - high ISO (this was the main reason for my switch, I don't even think about using ISO 800, and ISO 1600 is very, very usable. for some reason Canon and Nikon excel at this, and the other 3 lag considerably)

    pro-Sony:
    - Minolta glass, all with IS
    - cheap FF
    - the pro zoom trinity is has 2 CZ, and by some accounts better glass (in part because Canon is due for an update on the 24-70 and 70-200)
    - I think the A300 with its better grip, tilting screen, and LV AF makes a much better back up camera than the Rebels
    - people tend to be more friendly. Sony has a bit of a niche feel, so people help each other out more. here, dyxum, and dynax digital are more fun than the huge population of newbies and nerds at potn
    - some of the really good used stuff is cheaper. there is less demand for the long primes

    I will be surprised if Sony doesn't have video in the A700 replacement, but I was surprised it wasn't in the A5x0 series. (has anyone bought those?)

    My feeling when I switched was that Sony offered more interesting beginner stuff, and some great pro level stuff (outside of sports/wildlife), but Canon offered more in the middle. If Sony beefed up the prime selection, maybe offered a few cheaper options (I love my 85/1.8) and threw in some G or CZ f/4 glass around the $1000 mark (instead of the current stuff in the $1500-2000) I would be really interested in the A850. If I reach the point of using more expensive gear I think CZ primes with IS are really hard to beat, but for now I don't have the cash.

    I think Rooz is right, if you aren't in a position to switch right now, hold out for the A700 replacement, because that will probably have a big effect on what you should do. One other big benefit to Sony is that they are willing to push into areas that Canon and Nikon don't. The fancy Live view AF is a good example, and I think we will see some surprises with the A700 replacement.
    Last edited by laydros; 11-24-2009 at 08:34 AM.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    324
    Thanks, Jason, for taking the time to write your response. I really appreciate it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •