Have you sonycucks started selling your gear yet? Before everyone wakes up and your stuff loses value
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer USER Image-Specific Properties:
When i was in phuket i got drunk and lost my ricoh gr at muay thai fight. They only have a few camera shops on the island which very little range. I had to settle for a rx100m3 and honestly its the worst camera i ever used. As soon as i got back to Australia i went out and brought another gr straight away. Thats my only exposure with sony but based on that camera i wont use them again.
Can anyone explain the Sony hate?
>>2824290
>sony hate
LOL feigning ignorance is the new tactic of the Sony shill.
>Sony makes some pretty decent products, you should collect them all ;) on paper they are the best cameras in the universe anyway ;)
>>2824292
gr8 b8 m8 8/8
No, seriously, I'm actually ignorant on the hate. Please enlighten me.
>>2824294
>Please enlighten me.
They use an army of internet shills to hype their products. Some of whom will be along to shoot me down shortly. While it's true that Sony do make pretty decent sensors there is more to a camera than a sensor. The rest of the camera sucks donkey dick.
When the A7 was launched they promised their users a "roadmap" of new lenses. Since then they have released half-a-dozen new bodies and about two, really expensive, lenses. The main feature of the RX100 series is that it fits in your pocket ... along with keys, coins, condoms, bits of tissue, pocket fluff and packets of gum.
Not a good place for a camera to be and when you take it in for repairs you get treated like shit and you'll lose the camera for months on end.
>>2824290
The sony hate is mostly crossboarders from /v/.
I think they are trying to protect you from what they deluded themselves to think is the most evil company in the world.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:27 09:29:28 Image Width 1952 Image Height 1110
Those three should be enough, carry on with your delusions, OP.
>>2824284
>I had to settle for a rx100m3 and honestly its the worst camera i ever used.
I'm honestly interested in your specific criticism and comparision between the tho cameras. The RX100 I does me some good favour. It satisfies my needs to a pocket camera a lot more than a Canon S90 I before.
I just had higher expectations in low light conditions, which is why I still keep my eyes open.
>>2824290
I don't hate Sony, I just don't find their products appealing. I tend to not buy into hype or get involved in buyers remorse.
If I don't like something, I sell it.
>>2824325
>When the A7 was launched they promised their users a "roadmap" of new lenses. Since then they have released half-a-dozen new bodies and about two, really expensive, lenses. The main feature of the RX100 series is that it fits in your pocket ... along with keys, coins, condoms, bits of tissue, pocket fluff and packets of gum.
b-b-but they're not releasing an A7III yet or an A9 and it's already almost May!
>>2824325
48 lenses in 2 years http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/
Which is a massively larger amount than any other company. And sigma have pledged to make native fe lenses too.
Or if 48 different lenses isn't enough, use a canon adapter and get almost the same speed af as on canon native bodies - but more accurate.
Not to mention the possibility for uncomprimised lens design, just compare the canikon 28mm f2.8 offerings to sonys 28mm f2, its sharper, faster and cheaper. The Sony also gives LOTS more choice, want a set of small high quality primes - look at leica and voigtlander, uncompromised professional lenses - look to the gm range, and with the 28mm and 50mm sony are clearly looking out for the more casual hobbyist too, rich as fuck - zeiss got your back.
>>2824344
>48 lenses in 2 years
>Only 17 of those 48 are FE compatible
Might as well drop this off before the thread takes too steep of a nosedive.
DSLR fags bitter about Mirrorless Master Race.
nothing to see here m8.
>>2824347
Someone didnt read the article ;^)
>>2824344
So far adapters are a real alternative only in theory. I do not know the native lenses, but believe me adapters with Canon lenses is crap!
>>2824344
>uncomprimised lens design,
lmao holy fucking shit the delusion
didn't believe it until now
the 55mm "zeiss" 1.8 all sony faggots constantly auto-fellate themselves over has some of the shittiest, flimsiest build quality and design ever to be put in lenses in the past decade or more
>muh "zeiss" held together by a little bit of glue
top fucking kek
they can't even be repaired properly
just thrown out
cheaper for sony
as expected from a consumer electronics junk company
>>2824357
Please make more posts, let everybody see how insane you are.
>>2824359
can't you handle the truth?
better stop using the internet lest you stumble across facts that contradict your faggoty narrative you have going on there
>>2824359
Nice damage control, sonywhore. You have all of us convinced.
>>2824284
>>2824342
Realistically, what is it you are hoping for by participating with a post like that in a thread like this?
Sony will quit the camera business if we shit up /p/ with slander?
Let's assume for a moment your wildest dream will be prophecy, Sony quits the camera business. Will this make your camera any better?
>>2824344
>48
>10 aren't even out yet
>1 cine lens for video
>1 aps-c lens that doesn't completely cover FF
>10 ching chong MF trash
>6 cine lenses for video
>2 lens baby toy lenses
I count 18 actual photography lenses. I think sony is getting a good lineup of lenses. You don't need to count anything other than Sony or Zeiss lenses. Anything else is budget trash that doesn't even have autofocus and is available for other cameras. I'll even give you couple of the upcoming sony and zeiss lenses.
Saying EF mount has more than 21 lenses (including 3 upcoming lenses) makes you look really desperate and discredits all the great lenses that are available.
>>2824294
My theory is that it's a perversion or hobby of a sort for some people, I'm pretty sure that it's actually the same group of people who hype sony who later on go around bashing, just to keep this "duality" around it. It's some sort of a stale meta-Baneposting phenomenon that can get funny from time.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 95 dpi Vertical Resolution 95 dpi Image Created 2016:02:23 22:12:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1304 Image Height 892
>>2824352
So youve used a mk 2 body with a good adapter? No? Didn't think so.
Can you even say why they don't live up to expectation? No? Didn't think so.
>>2824357
I like the way you're losing your shit over supposedly bad build quality, its pretty much all metal construction that feels incredibly solid, check any number of reviews for support to that idea. And they can be broken down for repair just fine.
Why would anyone be so assblasted over a company and their cameras is beyond me, you're no better than the bogans that hate holden because they love ford or the children that hate xbox because mummy got them a PlayStation.
>>2824272
I just don't trust Sony. Photography is a very small part of their business. I'm worried if I invest in the system, bored, ilinformed Sony executives dealing with item #17 on the monthly executive agenda will vote to change the lens mount to save a few pennies and I'm fucked.
>>2824377
Because the MD mount hasn't had a long lifespan or anything, right?
And canon hasnt had 4 different mounts within the last decade either, right...
>>2824379
This is why Pentax is still relevant. Well this and the fact they make awesome cameras from entry level and up.
>>2824373
>So youve used a mk 2 body with a good adapter? No? Didn't think so.
>Can you even say why they don't live up to expectation? No? Didn't think so.
Sony A7R2, Metabones IV, 70-200 USM II, Extender 2x III and the af is not able to focus. Even without the extender the camera does not focus at the large end. For low light the problem already exists for ~160mm.
>>2824365
>Realistically, what is it you are hoping for by participating with a post like that in a thread like this?
>Can anyone explain the Sony hate?
I wanted to shed some light on why I personally don't like them. I don't shit up the board with it in every thread so this seemed appropriate.
>Sony will quit the camera business if we shit up /p/ with slander?
Yeye, that's what I want senpai.
>Let's assume for a moment your wildest dream will be prophecy, Sony quits the camera business. Will this make your camera any better?
It's not my wildest dream though. I don't want Sony to quit the camera business and it certainly wouldn't make other cameras any better. Look at how complacent Canon and Nikon got over the years.
Now, what did you expect to achieve with your shitpost? Was it a response? well haha u trolled me xD I replied.
>>2824385
Let's not pretend this is the first time you've given out your wisdom in these matters. All your arguments are like a broken record by now.
>and it certainly wouldn't make other cameras any better.
I like this part though, it shows you're not entirely mindless. The question just remains, what is it we hope to achieve from repeating the shit slinging?
>>2824387
yeye m8, just search all my posts by my tripcode desu. You'll see that I've been posting my opinion consistently on the board every day.
>>2824387
>The question just remains, what is it we hope to achieve from repeating the shit slinging?
How am I supposed to know? I don't judge people by what camera they're using since everyone who's not carrying a LF camera on their back is an utter pleb. That includes you too Alex Burke.
>>2824388
You are a dishonest person as well it seems. I can only point at facts such as you taking up effort to create your own reaction images / or saving them for these occasions.
You clearly have an ongoing vendetta on this topic.
>>2824391
yeye, clearly I do. I'm being dishonest when I say I don't find Jason Lanier to be a talented source of wisdom. That all his videos are unbiased in every way. I think it's fine to shoot a wedding in a leather jacket while you have a cold too.
I didn't save the picture from a film vs digital thread a while back into my /p/ folder. Not at all.
>>2824392
Rotten, vengeful personality and dishonesty are the wrong to use when you want to inspire sympathy against the evil Sony.
I am merely advising you to alter your tactics.
>>2824393
but I don't care about Sony, bruh. They can continue to release whatever camera or lenses they want.
>I am merely advising you to alter your tactics.
I don't have any tactics. I'll stop responding when you stop responding.
Protip: I'm not the ricoh fag who went to Thailand to fuck some ladyboys.
but I won't let this shiner go desu:
>personality and dishonesty are the wrong to use when you want to inspire sympathy against the evil Sony
>are the wrong to use
>are the wrong to use when you want
Consider learning English as a second language, even if you already consider it to be your first.
>>2824381
Lol, there are countless people using that exact setup very successfully with no problems.
Well done on being a fat handed twat
>>2824373
lol only assblasted one itt is you oz shit
look it up
the lens is cheaply made
>>2824402
>there are countless people using that exact setup
which encounter the same problems. Its no secret.
Let's turn the game
>So youve used a mk 2 body with a good adapter? No? Didn't think so.
>Can you even say why they live up to expectation? No? Didn't think so.
You are so fanatical that you won't allow minor faults on the system of your choice. You seem to even expand that to Sony/Metabones in general.
>>2824403
Googled "fe 55mm bad build quality" first 2 pages were all reviews praising how fantastic the build quality is.
Yes there were issues when sony first started their fe lenses with sample variation, so people returned them for new, good samples. Its a completely moot point, especially now these variances seem to have all but disappeared.
And as for optical quality, its currently the 3rd highest rated normal prime after the otus and sigma 1.4 on dxo.
Stay frosty canon cuck
>>2824344
>use a canon adapter and get almost the same speed af as on canon native bodies - but more accurate
get cucked.
doesn't even work over 200mm
>>2824406
>Let's turn the game
>You are so fanatical that you won't allow minor faults on the system of your choice. You seem to even expand that to Sony/Metabones in general.
Its not even about sony, but one can say without doubt that the a7 range of bodies have a high quality sensor that can produce the highest quality photos, and that good adapters work extremely well and the combination of on sensor pdaf and cdaf gives not only suitably quick af, but more accurate than any dslr pdaf only solution can do.
The fact that the vast majority of people use the 70-200 without fault indicates that you either used faulty equipment or it was human error.
>>2824419
The sigma mc-11 is vastly superior to the metabones and not only offers full speed af, but also offers the same features as using a native lens, such as eye tracking.
And its half the price of the metaboner
And it also does sigma mount lenses
>>2824423
>The fact that the vast majority of people use the 70-200
The effort of writing that text would be used best if you build on facts, but you aren't. Regarding your praise prayers on the camera, I've never said anything against native usage and I support positive feedback, however, I'm not a Sony driven robot with the mission to brainwash the internet. You shouldn't be a robot too
>>2824437
So... got any references for the dozens of people having problems with their 70-200?
Or are you just another canikon shill desperate to put down sony as they have a monopoly on the sensor industry.
>>2824443
Are you able to support your claim? I'll hit google in about an hour, currently on my mobile
>>2824417
The 55mm was revealed recently in a teardown on AF mechanisms to have retarded and inferior design because the designers attached the AF motor on a thin edge with only glue. thus making it prone to AF-motor detachment.
And this was not on an entry level kit lens.
>>2824449
And since it's focusbywire, if the AF motor does die you're fucked.
Good luck with sony service, maybe it's actually not shit wherever you are.
The odds of that are, by all accounts, rather slim.
The loxia 50 is a better buy, or even that cheapo sony-only branded 50 coming out.
>>2824449
>>2824450
no amount of googling could find what you were referring to, did find this article though https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sony-fe-35mm-f1-4-za-lens-teardown/
And it's closing off paragraph
>And let me close by saying the malignant fanboyism, both pro and con, that the hate that the new Sony lenses are generating is just inappropriate and not useful. Sony is boldly going where no camera manufacturer has gone before. They’ve brought out more new technologies in the last couple of years than everyone else combined. We all want new technologies. But new technology often takes a couple of generations to fulfill its potential.
As someone who only shoots a legacy primes, the A7 was by far the best FF camera on the market for me. $900 later and I have a camera that can use every prime I have from my 35mm setup. I have no complaints, the camera kills it.
>>2824325
>Anyone who likes Sony stuff is a shill
>Anyone who hates Sony stuff is hip
Ok. Wonderful.
>>2824450
Y'all better sell your EF 85mm f/1.4L lenses. Focus by wire is shitty by here to stay.
>>2824443
Anecdotes aren't evidence. "Go find a story of a dissatisfied cutomer" is stupid.
Return rates and fail rates (according to a very large retailer here in the Tri-State) of the Sony products are no different than for the other major manufacturers. Canon is a little higher, but mostly the low-end stuff and that isn't fair to include in a comparison.
This thread is really pathetic.
>>2824459
Cont...
I could personally care less about Sony lenses. I honestly have never even looked at them...I have no idea what's even offered. I bought into the camera fully intending to use my own glass and I know that I'm not the only one.
>>2824463
Just don't overlook the Sony glass, you won't find a better price/performance on a 28mm.
I can't believe so many cucks here still think their camera is the reason they take shitty photos. This is why I stopped coming here in the first place.
>>2824467
SHILLLLLS!
>>2824443
>>2824444
So I have a hard time to find an official statement, there's nothing even in the firmware release log, however, there are references stating an issue.
Now I found out, the issues are probably fixed with the current firmware update.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56907965
https://youtu.be/RhNwZzS3di8?t=58s
https://youtu.be/Nwy6O774NR4?t=7m13s
Also there's one top comment:
Bobby Lopez Creative3 months ago
>Can you do some more tests with that canon 70-200 2.8 II and the metabones if you still have it? Every other video I've seen online shows issues shooting at anything above 140mm. Your subjects were super far away from the camera. I'd like to see how it performs on a model shoot outdoors. That's how I use my 70-200mm most and I suspect many other viewers might as well. Thanks, Dan!
This fucking thread
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 426 Image Height 434 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2824423
kek
Technocrat's lesson today: Field test or double-check data sheets and theoretic specs of your trusted manufacturers, even if that means you can't suck gear 24/7.
>>2824457
google harder
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/
>>2824272
Why does Sony make those big ass lenses? I mean back it the film days, we have the Olympus OM series and the Pentax M series of SLRs and even though they small tiny full frame 35mm SLR bodies, they still have small lenses.
actual reply from the best lens maker in the world
>>2824500
>I mean back it the film days, we have the Olympus OM series and the Pentax M series of SLRs and even though they small tiny full frame 35mm SLR bodies, they still have small lenses.
They didn't have autofocus, nor OIS.
Leica lenses are tiny, but everything is manual without any extra electronic motors adding bulk and weight.
>>2824509
>Leica lenses are tiny, but everything is manual without any extra electronic motors adding bulk and weight.
Then they can forge them with heavier and more rugged metals for our fine Japanese sand.
>>2824502
Spoken like a true sales rep
>>2824534
Uh, Mike seemed to want the smaller lens.
Besides, it'd probably have to be the Batis, not Milvus...?
>>2824284
had a similar experience with the rx1. got it for like $800 with the EVF a year ago, if it wasnt so "cheap" (relative to its resell value) id never have bought it.
definitely one of the worst camera experiences I've had. sure the specs are amazing but its just a clunky clusterfuck of a box to use. sony cameras are not a very smooth user experience, at all. poor control layouts and slow response times for everything, not good.
still trying to sell the damn thing while i can but nobody wants to buy it. i imagine thats how it is for most sony cameras more than a year old. bought a shitty little SL1 with the 40mm and havent looked back. specs are shit in comparison but at least it operates quickly (and with the pancake i can actually fit it in a jacket pocket/forget its around my neck).
>>2824543
I got the chance to try out an NEX-7 years ago back when they were still supposed to be great (and were great, on paper, in comparison against my 30D) but I hated it. I hated holding it, I hated trying to use it, I hated the controls and the menus, I hated everything about it.
I haven't tried an A7 or a6x00 line but I don't think I'll ever bother trying. It was such a turn off, and I frequently hear echos of my old feelings when I see people talk about the new ones.
![Canon-logo[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/yzBNOi1.png "Canon-logo[1].png")
Forget the Sony. I want Canon to fucking go bankrupt. Their loyal userbase is actually the worst. Even worse than Fuji or Sony. Try asking on their forums about the canon dynamic range. They will fucking threaten you with murdering your whole family and post hundreds of photos from National Geographic and likes. Fucking hell.
>>2824576
>Pointing out that it's not that big a deal, and backing it up with obviously great photos taken on canon cameras in order to, at best, help show you that your worship of test scores may not be as fulfilling as you think, and at worst, to get a troll to go away.
=/=
>threaten you with murdering your whole family
People who prove you wrong aren't the problem.
>>2824576
>I want Canon to fucking go bankrupt. Their loyal userbase is actually the worst.
Lel, I don't want them to go bankrupt, because why would I, but their fanboys are 100% autistic. They are completely sealed in one system. And their "L lens/red ring" cult, it's as cringey as "Retina Display" in Apple world.
I feel like Nikon users are the most normal out there.
>>2824502
That's not Schneider.
>>2824734
>can make good lenses but are fuckhuge
no thanks
>>2824502
Angry Photographer is going to be butthurt when he reads that.
He already barricaded himself and climbed up the DSLR tree so high, he will never be able to admit he is wrong all along.
>>2824745
They make the best lenses, and they're supposed to be big.
>>2824748
I thought he was apeshit about fuji these days?
>>2824753
Well, best in one area anyways. For me, "best" involves being able to take it out and use it and carry it and beat it up, and it has a bright aperture, and great autofocus speed and accuracy. Sharpness, for me, doesn't really come into it much.
>>2824756
>autofocus
Oh, I forget people still use toy miniature cameras.
>>2824734
Zeiss actually is the best lens maker, just not the best photography lens maker.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 28 dpcm Vertical Resolution 28 dpcm Image Created 2014:03:21 16:08:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3177 Image Height 1600
>>2824465
I'm all for native glass but the Sony 28mm has the worst distortion and more chromatic aberration of almost any 28mm out now. It's not a "deal" or a "steal". It's a budget lens.
>>2824467
They didn't get the memo when they made this.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2824824
>eyebrows and eyelashes not covered
ZEISS
>>2824500
Ignore this >>2824509
Optics are optics. AF and OIS can make a lens wider but they only change the internal movement of elements, not the overall length.
The reason modern lenses are bigger (not just Sony) is because they need more glass to be sharp wide open. SLR lenses of the past weren't really sharp wide open. Today's big expensive lenses are expected to be sharp wide open and they are.
The other reason is digital sensors. Those old lenses are designed for film which is just a raw piece of sensor. Digital sensors have an extra piece of glass in front of them. That piece of glass has the same problems as glass in lenses. It bounces and reflects light around. Some film lenses didn't even have coating on the last elements but digital sensors bounce light back into the lens.
When it comes to Sony you usually have lenses getting closer to the sensor. There is the benefit of more space for corrective lens elements but the downfall is that light hits the sensor at an angle. This is not a problem for film. Film can take light coming from almost any angle. Digital sensors don't like light coming into the corners of the sensor so steep. Lenses have to be corrected to make up for that. The benefit you gain in having space for more elements where the mirror would be you give up correcting for light hitting the sensor at an angle and overcoming the filter in front of the sensor.
This is what I understand so far. I might be wrong.
>>2824837
Child, how old are you?
Is your brain even aware this lens could be made even larger than that? There is no upper limit to how large you can make a lens.
>>2824862
>There is the benefit of more space for corrective lens elements but the downfall is that light hits the sensor at an angle.
I don't think this is correct Anon. The more elements you can insert, the more you can control the light rays and their angles.
The RX1 is the ultimate example of this, it's controlling the light rays all the way to the end nearly touching the sensor.
More control = better
>>2824824
Well, zeiss lenses aren't exactly made by them.
Not the ones anyone here uses anyway.
They're made in Japan by a third party.
So as far as anyone here s concerned, zeiss may be the best lens designer.
>>2825027
But that's just a simple 8-element sonnar. You're contradicting yourself in your own fucking post, bro.
And yes, the wide angle-short-flange-focal-distance problem is well known and documented.
>>2825155
No. That lens right next to the senser, you say it's a curse, it's a bad thing, the design would benefit from it being further away just like DSLRs.
But why is it the lens designers disagree with you on this?
Are they just morons?
What is this arcane knowledge you have which they lack?
>>2825162
>What is this arcane knowledge you have which they lack?
months of shitposting on a mongolian sand painting trading post
>>2824497
>https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/
I did notice, when I actually used to frequent there, that at any given time there were more threads dedicated to complaints in the the sony forum at dpreview compared to pretty much every other subforum on there dedicated to any particular manufacturer.
Lots of bitching by a7ii owners (usually whinging that they don't have some feature present on the a7rii)
Lots of autofocus complaints.
If sony native lenses, stick with the zeiss-zeiss lenses: eg. loxia/batis rather than the seemingly more dubious sony and sony-zeiss stuff.
>>2824292
I wonder how much it would cost to purchase one of each of Sony's current crop of consumer products.
>>2825162
It's a bad thing for lenses that haven't been designed exclusively for a camera with a very short ffd, retard. You know, the bulk of all lenses out there in the world.
>>2824380
>This is why Pentax is still relevant. Well this and the fact they make awesome cameras from entry level and up.
LOLno
Firstly, they're not really relevant. They have basically no market penetration at any level.
Secondly, the reason Pentax still exists is Ricoh is a fuckhuge company and uses them to dick around with ideas and as a tax writeoff.
>>2825417
You are basically saying placing random elements that aren't part of an optical design into said design is bad for said optical design. It's like stating the obvious, no shit Anon.
But here is the thing, if a lens designer had the freedom to design a new lens, and he had the freedom to place optics right near the sensor, your argument is claiming he would avoid that at all cost.
But if you use your brain just a little bit, you would see this is wrong thinking.
Look at the real world. See>>2825027
The guys who designed that lens had the freedom to do anything, and yet given that freedom they avoid the DSLR desgins.
Given that freedom, they chose to utilize every distance from the sensor they wanted.
Could it perhaps be because this is actually preferable?
>>2824328
>what is physics
Anon get your shit right
>>2825421
>But here is the thing, if a lens designer had the freedom to design a new lens, and he had the freedom to place optics right near the sensor, your argument is claiming he would avoid that at all cost.
>But if you use your brain just a little bit, you would see this is wrong thinking.
It's cute how you insist someone else is "wrong thinking" while you assume that he would put elements there.
You're just as wrong as he is, for the same reasons, but from the other direction.
I rented the A7 for 3 weeks and the A7Rii for a week when it came out.
What it comes down to, to me is;
1: no trinity set up (15-200 using 3 lenses at 2.8 each) this is a major set back for my work kit.
2: Battery life for a days work means carrying 4 batteries and coupled with the bigger lenses it's around the same weight as my D810.
3: On the jobs that required tracking (I was shooting London fashion week) I kept getting missed shots where my D810 simply had a much better hit rate.
4:The sensor alone is not worth giving up all the other stuff my D810 gives me.
5: Only having one SD card slot is a major problem for work.
Finally, if you already have a beefy modern full frame you are much better of going with a Fuji, Ricor, Sony rx, Micro four thirds.
Sony fails for lots of pro work and fails as a true travel camera it kinda sits between both and does neither very well but hey I'm sure it has its usages
>>2825431
Are you really this thick?
>Hurrrr, having less limitations on lens design means worse quality lenses and every lens designer for every lens would definitely put at least 5cm of empty space between the back of the lens and sensor.
Mirrorless is hands down preferential, it leaves lens designers the option of putting glass exactly where they want.
>>2825431
>while you assume that he would put elements there.
That's because Nikon does it, and Canon does it too.
When the idols you worship would gladly use the space available, given the chance to, why shouldn't you do it?
Is there something you and him know which Canon and Nikon doesn't?
Are Canon's lens designers just retarded for putting lens elements close to the sensor?
Where is your god now? Who do you turn to for worship when all the lens makers in the world comes to agreement? The Angry Photographer?
>>2825434
Jesus, you can't actually argue a point that's presented, can you? You have to twist it to something else entirely before you have a hope, but I think I figured out why:
You don't actually understand that we're talking about physics here, and not interior design. While they might call the process of creating a lens formula "designing" there is literally not one scintilla of "art" to it. This isn't like "ohh, this is a nice big room so we could put a settee over there or maybe have just a box with a bunch of pillows! My but this extra space opens up endless superior possibilities than are present in a broom closet!"
Yes, there is room for more elements in that particular area, but that doesn't mean, imply, or even suggest that it is a beneficial thing to put anything there. And I'm grown up enough to say yeah, there are likely cases where you can see benefit from elements in that space, but you cannot just see "ohhh, more space to stick shit, so that's automatically better".
Another point that you seem to be unaware of, is that any element that they put there has to increase performance of the lens by more than the presence of additional elements decreases performance. We still don't have that magical substance with perfect transmission and refraction properties. Every time you make a gain in one area, you're taking a loss somewhere else (which is a side-point you seem unaware of: lens performance isn't a single factor (nor can it be boiled down to a single factor) and literally everything about every lens made is a collection of compromises).
Another point to consider is that additional elements equate to additional manufacturing costs, so performance increases have to be such that they can be justified to the market at a price level people will buy.
>>2825449
>Yes, there is room for more elements in that particular area, but that doesn't mean, imply, or even suggest that it is a beneficial thing to put anything there.
When you design your lens to take advantage of said room, it will be a far better benefit than otherwise. See>>2824326
That is a clear demonstration from the same designer, given the opportunity to place elements there, the lens can be designed differently, better, smaller, lighter.
Or same size, slightly heavier, far better.
See>>2825444
When Canon is given the choice to use all of the real estate, they don't do into DSLR fanboy mode, they actually design their lens to make use of all of it when it's beneficial.
Do you understand now? This isn't a conspiracy against your DSLRs.
>>2825449
>Another point that you seem to be unaware of, is that any element that they put there has to increase performance of the lens by more than the presence of additional elements decreases performance.
Which is why every SLR lens wider than 50mm has to put in extra glass to compensate for not being near the sensor.
As has already been said - you HAVE to compromise with DSLR lenses in SOME situations, but not with mirrorless, ergo, mirrorless is preferential for lens design.
If you were a chef and you were given the option of cooking with all ingredients, or being told you can use everything except salt - which one has the potential to offer a better dish?
Also, are you just gonna ignore all the amazing performing rangefinder glass, which is usually much smaller and better performing than their DSLR counterparts, espescially on the wide end?
>>2825451
>better
>better
>better
You keep using this word without really understanding any of the concepts that made Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc. decide what they actually thought "better" means. Your assumption is that it automatically means "optically better", which isn't the case. It can easily be "optically good enough, but more what the customers want".
>This isn't a conspiracy against your DSLR
Homie, arguing like a shitslinging jackass doesn't make you more anything but an insufferable prick. I own cameras in the three major form factors (rangefinder, mirrorless (separating out from RF because at least the ones that I have are very different from each other), and dSLR). I don't really have a general favorite of them and tend to use each in different situations. I'm all for cameras getting better, glass getting better, and the entirety of this field getting better however it does it.
>>2825454
>As has already been said - you HAVE to compromise with DSLR lenses in SOME situations, but not with mirrorless, ergo, mirrorless is preferential for lens design.
Oh for fuck's sake. No, you have to compromise period. The differences in the different form factors are that the compromises made are different which makes different form factors more suited to different roles.
>>2825458
Please tell me more about how mirrorless in inherently compromised for lens design
>>2825458
Mirrorless is compromise of AF, not a compromise of lens design. There is no lens design compromise for mirrorless. Get your shit straight man, the insufferable prick here is you.
>>2825461
please tell me more how mirrorless is inherently compromised for AF
>>2825455
>Your assumption is that it automatically means "optically better", which isn't the case.
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_milvus/milvus2821.pdf
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_loxia/loxia_2821.pdf
This actually is the case, Loxia is objectively is the better lens than Milvus 21.
>>2825467
So do you finally understand now? Mirrorless means you have more freedom for optical designs.
>>2824824
>even their logo looks like a swastika
My sides have achieved orbit
>>2825470
I understand that your head is so far up your ass you will keep repeating that as if it means something.
>>2825474
I'm afraid it's you who have your head up in the battery compartment of your dslr.
Look Anon, how do you explain this Canon lens here>>2825444?
In your flawed theory, Canon would benefit more from clearing that area close to the sensor and use a different optical formula. But in reality, Canon has decided your theory is shit and have gone against your recommendation.
Why are they doing this?
Does Canon simply hate you? Or is it because this was the better choice?
>>2825480
>flawed theory
It's actually a fact that just because something is possible does not mean it is optimal. There's no flaw nor theory to this statement.
>Canon would benefit more from clearing that area close to the sensor and use a different optical formula
Nope. Never said nor implied that was the case.
>your theory is shit
More like your retarded strawman is shit
>have gone against your recommendation
My recommendation would be to make the lens as small as possible while retaining as a high of a level of optical performance that allows for a decent profit margin--emphasis on small because the M series is primarily a small form camera first. I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what they did, but they didn't ask me because they're not retarded and can figure stuff like this out on their own.
>Does Canon simply hate you?
I'm pretty sure they don't know me.
>Or is it because this was a better choice?
You keep using "better" as though you understand what their criteria for "better" is. You clearly don't.
>>2825492
>Never said nor implied that was the case.
The problem is you continue a long string of arguments, defending the argument of someone who did.
Why take over an argument when you don't agree with his standpoint?
The mess created here is your fault Anon.
>>2825494
Actually my first...well might have been second post in this thread (can't be assed to open it) was telling both sides that they were wrong, so to assume that I'm the same guy who was making the referenced argument is kind of a pretty hard failure on you and your buddy's end.
>>2825499
>telling both sides that they were wrong
Really edgy of you Anon.
But the camera manufacturers aren't wrong. Once you get past that phase, perhaps you can come to terms with something which all the camera manufacturers actually agree on.
>>2825505
>Really edgy of you Anon.
No, telling two absurdistly extremist sides that they are wrong is not remotely edgy.
>But the camera manufacturers aren't wrong.
I never said they were. What's broken in your mind that keeps turning what I'm saying into this nonsense? Do we even have a name for this condition?
>past that phase
You mean understanding that there's a shitton that goes into business decisions and simple concepts like because something is possible does not mean it's optimal? God I hope I never become irrational.
>come to terms with
This isn't a breakup or anything I'm emotionally invested in no matter how many times you make the implication. Also, I'm probably pretty damn well at home with it considering I own an XT1...
>>2825509
>absurdistly extremist
Can you explain how it's absurdly extremist to claim there are exclusively advantages to lens design in a fixed lens camera where you are free to place any elements anywhere.
Please be rational about this.
>>2825513
>Please be rational about this.
Why should I? You're not.
>>2825519
Rational claim: A fixed lens mirrorless is free to place any optics anywhere, allowing the most uncompromising lens design.
I am the rational person here. You are irrational because it annoys you to admit the fixed lens mirrorless systems have the least design restrictions.
>itt: all this tl;dr bullshit
bottom line:
sony promises so much but ends up delivering too little
too bad
so sad
maybe next year
~fin~
>>2825524
>Rational claim: A fixed lens mirrorless is free to place any optics anywhere, allowing the most uncompromising lens design.
>free to place any optics anywhere
Nope. Still not rational.
>allowing the most uncompromising lens design
depends on your definition of "uncompromising"
>I am the rational person here.
Clearly you're not.
>You are irrational because it annoys you to admit the fixed lens mirrorless systems have the least design restrictions.
Why would I be irritated at facts irrespective of their level of truth?
>>2825541
>free to place any optics anywhere
>Nope.
This is the part you are unable to explain. And yet you dare call yourself rational?
Did you know that fixed lens mirrorless cameras don't depend on any particular mount?
You could make the mount of the lens 1 kilometer wide in diameter if you will it so.
>>2825545
>unable to explain
Alrighty, let's put it on the other side of Arcturus...or behind the lens. Oh, I know, let's put it in some place that massively degrades the image quality by introducing ghosting and massively moving out of phase 550nm and shorter wavelengths! Oh and while we're at it, let's entirely ignore any kind of business factors while producing this lens because a mirrorless fixed lens by Anon's reasoning MUST be ideal.
If you're going to claim to be rational, be rational.
Placing it anywhere is a specious statement because the same level of "freedom" you're implying is also present in SLRs. Just lock the mirror up or remove it...or fuck, who cares if the mirror does hit it? If you're going to include a base level of functionality to your statement, then no, you can't put elements "anywhere" because any place you put them needs to provide a base level of functionality, which is not true of all configurations, so again, "anywhere" is not viable. Beyond this, by pretending all of this is purely academic and free of business constraints is likewise idiotic. If there are not enough business reasons to produce a lens it doesn't matter how optimally that space is used. On that same token, since we're talking about lenses that are produced for a profit, we're also talking about lenses being designed with a series of priorities many of which negatively affect pure IQ performance.
>>2825561
>s...or behind the lens.
meant to put sensor here.
>>2825563
>>2825561
>or behind the sensor
If it benefits the image quality, you are actually free to do this, you just have to resign your sensors differently than normal.
Either way, everybody can understand now that you are irrational.
You are the extremist who can never admit mirrorless systems have more design freedom than dslr.
>>2825564
>can't prove irrationality
>fuckit, I WIN!!!
>>2825561
wtf is this retard going on about
seriously i've been shit stirring sonyfags this entire thread but this nigger is just pure retardation
>>2825583
You are part of the problem Anon. You should at the very least consider stop doing that.
>>2825589
nah
shit threads warrant only shitposts
welcome to nu/p/
(same as the old /p/)
There are no camera manufacturers who deserves any of the vile shit you guys are spewing in here.
>>2825600
Sony does though.
>>2824824
Sony Zeiss Lenses are not made or designed by Zeiss germany.
Zeiss Photography Lenses are designed by Zeiss germany and manufactured by Cosina and other third party companies
If you want Zeiss germany: Some of the high end contax lenses were made in germany.
Carl Zeiss Jena were produced and designed in the communist shithole GDR with neanderthal technology.
Real Zeiss Germany cinema lenses are still made in Oberkochen and you pay accordingly for that, everything else is a compromise.
>>2825624
>Real Zeiss Germany cinema lenses are still made in Oberkochen and you pay accordingly for that, everything else is a compromise.
So, basically, everything from an Otus to a Touit isn't Zeiss and the only real zeiss lenses made anymore are superduper pro cine lenses nobody on this site will ever see?
>>2825636
Yes, remember when Zeiss said they could not offer AF lenses because the quality would suffer? They are a company, they need to make revenue. There is no way they can compete on the camera lens market in the lower price segment without outsourcing production. The Sony licensing deal is just another steady source of income. Hassblad has dropped Zeiss in favour of Fuji. If you want ultra high end german made quality like the old contax stuff, and by that i mean pre yashica contay stuff then only the cine lens line is left.
For everything else Zeiss is just a blue badge on a generic lens with T* coating. Lens technology has advanced, simulation has advanced and there are skilled young optic engineers out there that can design better lenses. Sigma has shown they are capable, although sacrificing build quality. Tamron has shown it, Nikon surely has the knowledge to do so, so has Canon and Fuji can as well.
If you enjoy jerking of to a dead name and an image of the past go buy leica.
>>2824428
My comment is for the metabones and I have yet to see the sigma.
Have you actually used it?
I don't care about mirrorless vs DSLR but actually interested to know if someone here has had a good adapter experience.
why respect canikon when my sony can do anything you can?
>>2829416
>why respect canikon when my sony can do anything you can?
lol, you mean like focussing and tracking things that move and retaining enough battery power to fire the shutter? Riiiiiight
>>2825823
Used it? I own one
>>2824463
and this is why you're a shit photographer wasting his life taking pictures of rust with cheap garbage, while i have completely eliminated the need for a tripod even in very low light with my a7r II because of its 5-axis IBIS accompanied by the greatest sensor ever created - a full frame back illuminated sensor, meaning i can activate my super advanced "auto ISO minimum shutter" at 1/60 hitting ISO's producing quite literally 0, yes 0 noise at 2500 ISO and with quite literally 0 camera shake due to the 5-axis IBIS, meaning i can walk around with my 55mm prime with no OSS shooting left right at center with my high-tech auto focus system photographing everything like a retard at a great distance then being able to crop the image an astronomic amount without losing even a bit of detail due to my massive 43 mega pixels. all of the while you are dribbling over your pentax, slack jawed grunting like boar as it mounts your tripod just to avoid destroying your photo by going over 600 ISO with your shitty APS-C. all of the while i am becoming a great and loved photographer smashing my shutter button spending all hours learning to process or doing something useful while you sit learning the mechanics of your shit equipment.
>>2825541
>>2825561
>>2825564
man you're so retarded it hurts
I mean you're right in advocating that mirrorless lenses have more design freedom, but your arguments ffs
>>2829426
but focus tracking is objectively better on the A7RII than any DSLR
>>2829616
Forget him. Let's continue doing what all the other Sony photographers are doing: taking great photos while the canikon peasants cry over their buyers remorse.
>>2829602
if you're going to pasta,
at least reply to an anon that isn't an a7-totting sonyfg that agrees with everything in said pasta
perhaps go back to b to learn how to maymay properly
>>2829616
>>2829625
my photographs are still way better than yours
No one is saying Sony is bad. They make some pretty nice equipment. The issue is that they have yet to release a product that isn't matched by a Canon or Nikon (or even fuji for fucks sake) line up for a far cheaper price
If you got the money, fine, get a7r ii and some overpriced g lenses. but you can't act even for a minute that a 5D mark iii + 24-70mm ef wouldn't eclipse that for a far cheaper price.
>>2825642
i have the fuji x-pro1 with the 35mm 1,4 & 18,, f2 lenses....
the contax g2 with it's 45mm
+ the c/y zeiss 50mm f1,4
is it a good idea to use the c/y 50mm on the fuji with an adapter ?
>>2830037
this. and the 5Diii will be an even better value once they finally release the iv (presumably end of thos year).
keeping fingers crossed, but really only two options:
1. the iv will actually support 4K and be worth the $2500 pricepoint.
2. it will have very minor updates to an already great camera and probably bring the iii's used price down to $1500.
can't wait. probably the best time to get into full frame with canon.
>>2824325
>They use an army of internet shills to hype their products.
Dear God you are stupid.
>>2832254
>few months ago
>trying out a Fuji X-T10 in a store
>getting used to the new menu layout
>salesman has a nikon strap
>tells me he doesn't work for store
>is a Nikon rep
>starts talking about sharpness
>well if you can live with 16 megapixels
>stare blankly at him
>hand him back the camera
>leave store
I don't like hanging around gearfags too long. He seemed old enough to have shot enough in the film days, but clearly he was converted to faggotry later in his life :^)
>>2832269
>well if you can live with 16 megapixels
>well if you kept your feet on the ground
>customer leaves
Seems like you are the faggot
>>2831986
>the iv will actually support 4K
>>2832269
He was literally a nikon shill. What do you expect?
>>2832225
lmao check this naive little whore
>>2824284
The Canon SL1 is a great little camera, considering the price. Go fuck yourself.
>>2832269
you are the gearfag
how bout that sony lens (24-70) beating canon and nikon equiv. in sharpness/IQ? lel
eat a dick haters
>>2832375
> beating canon and nikon equiv. in sharpness/IQ?
Shame Sony don't make cameras that are able to focus on anything that moves faster than a large rock in direct sunlight
>>2829602
pretty much exactly this desu
>>2832384
pretty much exactly this desu
>>2832453
worst interface
worst customer service
bad QC
yeah, has everything going for it lmao
>>2832453
>test
>takes great pictures of charts in controlled conditions
lol how much do they pay you for this drivel? Take the fucking thing out and try USING it. You'll soon find out what a pile of dogshite it really is.
Though I do realise that Sony users are more interested in the thing itself than they are in actually taking photographs with it so I guess usability doesn't matter much to them. So long as the lab tests look good on paper that's all the matters eh?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 1230 Image Height 1232
Nah a6000 is pretty cool, better quality than my t3i and the net cost of upgrading was only 50$. It's small and the auto focus is reasonably quick (I've only used the t3i before so I don't have anything high end to compare it to). I'm a huge fan of the mirror less form factor especially for crops since they're actually small af. Regret not getting a fuji cause the cheaper lenses and classic appeal would be worth the shit auto focus and worse resolution. Fuji would've costed a bit more for something I'd like though. Might upgrade to either xpro2 cause I love the pseudo rangefinder style, or just keep being a cuck and buy an a7r or something
>>2832375
If you get a good one, sure. If not, enjoy those soft edges.
t. A7 user
>>2832575
>Fuji
>Shit
>Fuji lenses
>cheap
>>2832744
>cheaper
Also I've heard the auto focus is terrible on fuji cameras might not be true I guess
>>2832747
The auto focus on my X-Pro2 is pretty awesome.
Are they going to release updated version of A99?
>>2832764
but ergonomics is dogshit
>>2832798
Absolutely false.
>>2832798
on a sony?
yes
fuji have awesome ergo for mirrorless
it's the reason why some would downgrade potential IQ from FF to use fuji
because it feels good to use
like ur mum m8
>>2832527
That's actually sad that those are the images that pop up.
>>2832798
What's dogshit about the ergonomics? Looks like any 35mm rangefinder with a little grip added.
>>2832476
What's bad about the interface? I mean, I only use my A7 in manual mode with manual focus lenses but I've never had a problem with the interface.
>>2832476
>worst interface
Who needs an interface when you have 3 dials and enough buttons to set a custom one for 9 different functions. "Takes marginally longer to setup on 1st use" is hardly a deal breaker
>worst customer service
Entirely dependent on where you live, sony have also addresses their cs and have said they plan on improving it. Also, canons service in the uk at the least is average at best, expect to get an item repaired in about 2 to 3 weeks, if a warranty repair takes over 30 days your entitled to an immediate and full refund through EU law.
>bad qc
Not on their latest products, and older lenses have been revised to be much more consistent. Completely moot point though, if you get an iffy copy, return it for a new one.
>>2832527
I do... Its a joy to use, autofocus never, ever misses. The evf is lag free and a pleasure to view. The 28f2 and 55f1.8 are almost perfect. My canon L glass all works fantastically on it. Battery lasts all day. Exposure preview takes away all those wasted moments chimping. The body and pancake lens fit in my pocket. I can hand hold 1/30 at 200mm thanks to the ibis. I can choose between a trio of rangefinder primes or pro zooms or sony primes, depending on what I'm shooting. I dont look like a dslr sperglord.
And all of that is just the shooting experience, knowing i have objectively the best equipment to do all this is little more than peace of mind.
>>2833031
>worst customer service
>Entirely dependent on where you live,
Agreed, some places have no customer service at all
>autofocus never, ever misses
just takes a week to get there
>Battery lasts all day
>fit in my pocket
nuff said
>objectively
lol
>>2833055
>objectively
Sony gm 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 out resolve and out bokeh every comparable lens
Sony sensors out perform everyone else's
I like how you have no defense other than 'lol', you've sure shown us sonyfags.
I like how all the people who were all "eughhhh sony has no pro lenses" seem to have disappeared.
As have most of the "eughhh sony has no autofocus" crowd, well, apart from those who haven't used/seen a 6300 in action.
Ergonomics fags are still around though, complaining that the best performing gear in the world is also the most compact. Great argument.
And soz, not a 3rd worlder, I wouldn't know about how bad your customer service is. All i know is that for the developed world it is perfectly fine.
>>2832780
Is Sony even updating their dslr lineup at all, or are they putting all their eggs in the A7 and A6X00?
>>2833241
E-mount is gone for good. As is A77 and A99.
A7R II with A99 features and XAVC-L is all you can wish for.
>>2833257
Figured as much since Sony is giving their E Mount cameras Alpha badges.
>>2833064
>Sony gm 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 out resolve and out bokeh every comparable lens
>Sony sensors out perform everyone else's
Sadly Sony users fail to outperform anything. They are too busy trying to get their superior sensors and bokeh monsters to focus on the scene before it moves on.
>objectively
If i took half a dozen images off flickr, one from a Sony camera and five from Canon you wouldn't be able to tell by just looking which one was the Sony.
Your insistence that Sony is better is based on nothing more than sketchy lab tests and the assurance of blogs who have a vested interest in plugging Sony. Neither of which you offer as evidence so you are clearly not fully convinced yourself
>>2833241
it's slt.
not dslr.
>>2833643
>out bokeh every comparable lens
hahahahahhahaha no
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2833676
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2833643
>If i took half a dozen images off flickr, one from a Sony camera and five from Canon you wouldn't be able to tell by just looking which one was the Sony.
>Your insistence that Sony is better is based on nothing more than sketchy lab tests and the assurance of blogs who have a vested interest in plugging Sony. Neither of which you offer as evidence so you are clearly not fully convinced yourself
Give me 6 raws and I'll tell you which one is sony, heck, give me 6 jpegs that haven't been processed to shit and I probably still could tell you which one is sony.
And you're missing the point, why would you not want the highest quality files? What makes you think that the camera you use has any direct affect on which shots you take (well excluding all those moments where you have to go over 800 iso on canon, we all know that's just a waste of time).
Also, love the paranoia. "Hmmm these results that can be repeated at home, and most websites seem to agree on MUST be sony shilling". They make all the sensors, for nearly every non canon camera, they have the largest r&d and fabrication facilities. Of course they're gonna smoke old boy camera companies when it comes to digital stuff.
>>2833676
Lens sucks. Have you compared it to Canon's 135? Wide open, the Canon is very sharp with minimal chromabs, while even at 2.8 the Nikon is mushy with chromabs out the ass. In that case, who the fuck cares about bokeh?
>>2833676
stay mad.
85 1.4 GM bokeh is the best.
>>2833681
Sharpness isn't always an admirable quality in a portrait lens desu
>>2833643
Pretty much this. Also, I like how he complete ignores the major shortcomings of Sony cameras - their functionality, especially in the half-assed menus. There is no excuse for how terrible they are. What's the point if a camera has the best sensor and lenses in the world if it's a pain in the ass to use?
>>2833680
>Give me 6 raws and I'll tell you which one is sony
>let me read the exif and I'll tell you which one is sony
Nice try faggot
>>2833692
Not him but actually hardly ever use the menus. The only time I do is to transfer photos via wifi or to format my memory card. Wtf else do you need menus for?
>>2833754
Setting the camera specifically for different uses and subjects
I know on a camera with mostly manualf focus you don't need to set anything ever, but normal people make photos of moving subjects and wildlife and different kinds of sports. And portraits. I know I know, those slightly blurry portraits with pin-sharp noses can be entertaining to some extent but people working with their camera need more accurate focusing.
>>2833772
So set a button to focus mode. Tada, all your focus modes with one click and a dial swish.
Can you think of more than 9 different things you regularly need to change (excluding iso/aperture/ss), if not the sony may well have the perfect interface for you.
>>2833747
Change the exif or give full size tiffs, its still an easy task.
>>2833777
What, you think setting focus means I just choose between single and continuous focus? Continuous focus has tonnes of different settings depending on the environment and the subject. What kind of potatoshooter do you use?
>>2833772
I still don't understand what menu options you need for shooting moving subjects, wildlife, and sports? Only thing I can think of is changing focus settings which is just as easily accessible as any other digital camera I've owned.
The only things you find in the menus is stuff you probably aren't changing that often, if ever, after you set things up to your liking.
I know you may not have been the one originally talking about it, but I'm really curious what aspects of the interface give people problems. I've used lots of digital cameras and there's the muscle memory, learning curve but after a day or two every camera I've tried has been incredibly easy to navigate.
The only issue that comes to mind was changing aperture on Canon DSLRs. That shit is annoying and I never quite got used to it. Much preferred how Nikon did it with the dial in the back and button in the front.
>>2833786
Use a real camera, then you will know.
>>2833791
Digital cameras I've used:
>Nikon D70s
>Nikon D3
>Nikon D2H
>Nikon D200
>Canon Rabal
>Canon 5D and 5dII
>Canon 7D
Still don't know. How about you enlighten my dumbass with some actual reasons?
>>2833808
>look at all these cameras I used on Auto
The archetype of a Sonyfag.
>>2833816
You got me, full auto with off camera flashes and a fully manual lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D70s Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 822 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 486 dpi Vertical Resolution 486 dpi Image Created 2010:06:16 00:31:49 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 533 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2833779
>What, you think setting focus means I just choose between single and continuous focus? Continuous focus has tonnes of different settings depending on the environment and the subject. What kind of potatoshooter do you use?
So you havent used a sony then?
There's 2 menus for af settings, so thats 2 of the 9 custom buttons used to cover the different types of af and mf and all the af modes.
You can even use a custom button to instantly use a set af mode, this is useful if you're shooting a mix of people and environment as you can set eye based af for example, under a single button toggle.
Aside from my 3 dials, heres what i have set under custom buttons, what more would you ever need?
Focus mode
Af settings
Focus peaking
Bracketing
Flash compensation
Flash mode
Vf zoom
Ibis settings
Zebras
Theres also set buttons for ae/af lock & back button focus
#nevermenudivemasterrace
#toggledialsareforpovvos
>>2833816
Literally never used auto, stay frosty x
#canikujiBTFO
Oh, im using an a7ii :^)<
>>2833817
>implying wide angle can miss focus
I don't see your 200-600mm shots with moving subjects such as a sports car or a plane approaching mach 1 or a very small bird doing high speed turns chasing insects.
My enty level camera can do it. Your ultrapckle exmor bullshit can't. Stay mad, plebsky.
He was pretty much going Mach 1 for this.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D70s Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 750 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 225 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:04:15 19:20:50 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 150.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 433 Image Height 650 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2833820
You're in luck, I shot long lens more than wide!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D70s Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 946 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 225 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2006:07:01 20:39:52 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 150.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 465 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2833824
What an excellent example shot Anon, it is magnificent! It is a masterpiece! Could you post the big resolution so I can put it in my gallery?
People have to see this, it is such a cacophony of emotions, I bet it will be on the cover of Times.
>>2833822
Nice one, shame there is no subject. I would add some grain and vignetting and post it on Instagram, it will be a hit for sure.
>>2833824
>150mm
>long
HUAHUEHUAHUEHUAHUEHUAHUE
>>2833820
>Taking photos of birds, planes and sports cars with stupidly large lenses
>not being a middle class 50 year old white male that just took up photography
Stay pleb, son.
>>2833820
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0GEkbKXtzI
or look up any af test on the a6300 and get BTFO
>>2833839
This infomercial was brought to you by:
[ ] Sony
[ ] Sony
[ ] Sony
(tick as appropriate)
>>2833680
It's pointless to argue with these people. Much in photography is very subjective, but some things we can measure. IQ is one of them and Sony is king in this regard.
I don't understand what the problem is that other brand users have. If you want to be hip, but a pair of Beats by Dre and a Fuji camera. If you want objective audiovisual quality, by Audio-Technica and Sony. You will never look as cool with an A6000 as you'll look with some Fujifilm cameras, but you'll also not get the IQ and AF of Sony on Fuji. It's a decision you have to make, not some issue to go full retard over.
>>2833866
You probably know a thing or two about this. How do the A6000 series compare to the A7 series in terms of tracking and AF? A6000 generally seem to have that feature advertised more than the A7 series. Does the smaller sensor somehow aid tracking? You would think that with the price and size of the A7, it would do everything the A6000 does and more.
>>2833869
Bad AF;
A7, A7s, A7r
Good AF
A6000, a7ii, a7rii
Best AF
A6300
It will only be a matter of time before the new A7 and A9 range launch with the newer, better, on sensor PDAF. AF performance will vary on adapted lenses.
>>2833866
>look up any tracking test with an a6300... The results
Please link me to a real world test in middling to low light against a 7Dmk2 or 5Dmk3 or something similarly spec. Won't even bother with the 1D series.
>>2833890
So what, you're now shooting fast moving planes, small birds and race cars indoors?
OK pal.
>>2833890
This. The tests that don't show the desired outcome don't get posted. And the winners (performance based DSLRs) aren't even bothering to do the tests because they aren't threatened at this point.
>>2833897
Are you implying that, for the sake of being able to say Sony wins, that nobody ever shoots things that move in anything other than great light?
First of all, most people don't use tracking at ALL. second of all, most people who do are shooting pets and kids indoors.
There's also wildlife at dawn, evening sports for your kids, things happening in the deep forest where light is dim, etc.
At best, in optimum circumstances, with the perfectly selected lens, mirroless AF systems will keep up with DSLRs. In any other condition, they're still way behind.
>>2833680
The difference between Sony users and other brands' users:
Sony wants to show you how well their stuff COULD do, in tests and comparisons, which have nothing to do with real world usage (i.e. post raws so I can push both by 5 stops, even though that isn't really necessary in almost any situation!) and ignore actual photos and real life situations.
Everyone else points out there in the real world, where the results actually matter, there's nearly no difference.
Go to any of the most demanding and most high profile fields in photography, be it sports, or wildlife, or fashion, etc. You'll see a dramatic majority of Canon cameras. If Canon sucked as much as Sony test charts suggested, that would not be the case. People who need image quality to feed their children would never rely on something so OBVIOUSLY inferior.
>>2833860
IQ comparisons between the Fuji 16mp files and the photos from the a6000 always favor the Fuji. The same is true for the Fuji 24mp sensor vs the A6300.
The same is true for a same-sensor text between a Sony camera and a Nikon using the same sensor, as Nikon processes better.
Sony is great at making technological advancements, and nearly universally terrible at implementing them in a way that is actually beneficial or advantageous in the field.
>>2833860
Fujis XPro 2 uses the same sensor as the 6300 but handles detail and high ISO better... So by the same reasoning if they made a full frame it would also handle better given it was the same sensor in both. When Nikon uses a Sony sensor it preforms better than in a native Sony.
If we are talking just APSC Fuji smash the living shit out of Sony for lenses and ecosystem plus updates that make your body better after years. Also they update their XPro line every 4 years instead of yearly like Sony making the project hold value better. And they repair their own cameras.
>>2833909
>hurrr show me the camera tracking with a lens longer than 150mm in low light.
>people don't use tracking at ALL
You ok hun?
>>2833915
Have you ever considered that's because if any other brand tried to claim that they're the best, they would instantly be shut down with objective testing :^)
>Go to pro sports event where kit is provided by media outlets and needs to be shot and uploaded in seconds with next to zero PP
>Hurrr some people use Canon
Are you this dumb, or this un-informed?
>>2833917
lol, wut?
the A6000 is 24mp for a start
The XT-1 is almost double the price, 50% heavier, no internal flash and worse IQ http://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-a6000-vs-Fujifilm-X-T1
>Sony camera and a Nikon using the same sensor, as Nikon processes better.
No, Nikon tweaked theres for slightly better DR, Sony decided to stick with better colour depth - and Nikon are always gonna be a generation behind on the Sensors, or you won't get them at all. I hear nikon guys are STILL wanting that 12MP sensor from the A7S
So much butthurt in this thread.
>>2833919
>When Nikon uses a Sony sensor
Isn't this part a bit irrelevant now? Nikon has no control over whether they can use the 42MP sensor if ever at all.
>Fujis XPro 2 uses the same sensor as the 6300
This is straight up a lie.
>>2833917
psst.
your fuji sensor is a sony.
>>2833919
what about those stories about fuji getting less exposure for the same iso compared to other manufacturers?
>>2833950
That wasn't my post, but you can keep your eyes covered from reality if you like, it's not like I'm going to convince a deluded fanboy that their shit gear wasn't worth it.
>>2833953
>shit gear
You guys are taking this sensor envy too far.
>>2833926
>where kit is provided by media outlets
Incorrect, most of them are stringers who provide their own gear and the overwhelming majority use Canon. The rest use Nikon.
>if any other brand tried to claim that they're the best
Every brand claims they are the best, it's called advertising, duh!
And Sony know exactly who their target market is; late 20s-late 50s white male enthusiasts who are more interested in the gadget itself, which is why "objective testing" is so important to them. Because real world usage wont extend to anything more than snapshots of the cat/dog, the lamp post outside and perhaps some star trails.
>>2833926
>no internal flash
in what universe is no internal flash a con for a ilc?
do you use the shitty flash that comes on your sony?
seriously?
>>2833926
>I hear nikon guys are STILL wanting that 12MP sensor from the A7S
You heard wrong.
No Nikon shooter cares about ISO 3 million.
>>2833964
Of course! I don't always have my big flash with me and the small one can produce very nice results. It's only so-so for outdoor shots, but because of the way it comes out, you can point it at the ceiling at which point it produces absolutely wonderful results in a situation where you would otherwise be stuck with a buttload of ISO.
>>2834007
I suppose for when you really need that fill.
>>2833926
>No, Nikon tweaked theres for slightly better DR, Sony decided to stick with better colour depth
>he actually believes this
>he can't even spell "theirs"
>>2834007
>point it at the ceiling at which point it produces absolutely wonderful results in a situation where you would otherwise be stuck with a buttload of ISO
TIL Sony users are compelled to use a "buttload" of ISO, even when they don't need it, and that the situation can be alleviated by pointing a small flash at the ceiling
>>2834161
Can't fix it with your shitposting alone, bra.
>>2834190
Nor can you, panties
>>2834161
So whats your solution? Underexpose?
>>2834625
Don't worry, I am certain that a perfectly black image can be made very creative with VSCO.
>>2833676
>>2833677
>>2835224
Jeez it looks plastic as well
sony hired a lot of shills for /v/
said shills came to /p/
since /p/ is 1/100000th the speed of /v/, they destroyed /p/
sony spillover shills have killed this board
>COMPRESSING
>RAWS
>>2837629
Just no. Nobody fucking cares about this board. Sony isn't retarded and doesn't care about a bunch of semi autistic wanna be photographers or film shooters. In fact with a solid max of three exceptions there's nobody that would possibly do enough work to benefit from a more "professional" body. The only decent photographers here are really Burke and the dude who shoots girls with gels and a Sony.
>>2837642
ok
i will spell it out for you retard
>sony hires a bunch of shills for one board
>sony also makes shitty cameras
>sony sends shills to /p/ in their spare time
big companies are jews and this saves them money
>>2837642
>a bunch of semi autistic wanna be photographers or film shooters.
Who the fuck do think buys their cameras?
Sony knows exactly where their core market is; internet forums whose subscribers are easily impressed with technobabble. And giving freebies to shills is a fuck of a lot cheaper than mounting major advertising campaigns
