Is a Sony Camera Something to Lust After? Or Avoid?

[theraven871]

You won't lose autofocus, it's just slower. For landscapes...who cares? But for other uses, losing AF speed can be a big deal

Interesting, I am not a sport shooter but a slow AF is out of the question for me, I own fast glass that on my D750 is lightning quick AF, I wouldn't be ok with slow AF.

I've seen many videos on youtube. Most instances show the autofocus to be fairly quick.
Although I've seen some videos that show the autofocus performance slowing down.
There was a major firmware update I'm told that sped this up.

I think this is something that needs to be tested further before we can say if its fast or slow. But it should definitely be a concern.

 

[Gary A.]

Something else to consider.
The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters). I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.

So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available. You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one. Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).

If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810. Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test). I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.

Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?

If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.

Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's

Maybe nothing wrong for you. But I find manual focusing a SLR or Film Rangefinder is faster and easier than manually focusing a digital camera. I've manual focused mirrorless MFT (Olympus EM5 and EM1) and mirrorless APS-C (Fuji XP1, XE2 & XT1) using native lenses and legacy glass. After decades of shooting every working day with manual focusing film cameras ... I find modern AF focusing quick and a joy to use. I find depressing a button more more stable than twisting a ring when shooting non-stationary subjects at low shutter speeds. For what I shoot and how I shoot, I see little point in purchasing an expensive auto focusing camera just to toss all that AF-ing monies away for manual focus.

When one is on a tight budget, I can see shooting manual focus glass until the savings are replenished and an AF lens is purchased. Or for specialized lenses and applications. But for normal, day-in and day-out shooting ... I'm AF-ing all day long.

Gary

 

[gsgary]

I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking

 

[theraven871]

Something else to consider.
The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters). I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.

So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available. You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one. Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).

If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810. Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test). I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.

Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?

If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.

Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's

Maybe nothing wrong for you. But I find manual focusing a SLR or Film Rangefinder is faster and easier than manually focusing a digital camera. I've manual focused mirrorless MFT (Olympus EM5 and EM1) and mirrorless APS-C (Fuji XP1, XE2 & XT1) using native lenses and legacy glass. After decades of shooting every working day with manual focusing film cameras ... I find modern AF focusing quick and a joy to use. I find depressing a button more more stable than twisting a ring when shooting non-stationary subjects at low shutter speeds. For what I shoot and how I shoot, I see little point in purchasing an expensive auto focusing camera just to toss all that AF-ing monies away for manual focus.

When one is on a tight budget, I can see shooting manual focus glass until the savings are replenished and an AF lens is purchased. Or for specialized lenses and applications. But for normal, day-in and day-out shooting ... I'm AF-ing all day long.

Gary

You don't lose autofocus on the Sony A7 unless you are using an adapter which doesn't support it.
I grew up shooting on film. Mostly Olympus, Canon and Pentax cameras. So I know how to manually focus faster than the average guy. Or, it may be more accurate to say that I'm more comfortable doing so.
Given the option, I will use autofocus every time.
Understanding how and (more importantly) when to manual focus is a useful skill.
But I personally wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on a camera or lenses that were manual focus only.

Back to the topic at hand, the Sony a7 system is very interesting. Performance looks good, and some of the features are ahead of what Canon/Nikon offer.
But, like all photography, it comes down to lenses. Sony hasn't released any fast zooms yet (24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8) and that concerns me.
I like the idea of using Nikon/Canon lenses on the Sony a7. But it doesn't make much sense to buy Nikon/Canon lenses unless you plan to use them on Canon/Nikon.
Now, if you were already invested into Canon or Nikon, then this would help you switch to Sony.
I would imagine that if they started coming out with new lenses frequently, then most peoples concerns would be mitigated.

 

[theraven871]

I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking

If you absolutely have to manually focus, the focus peaking feature in the Sony cameras are extremely useful.

 

[Gary A.]

I have Focus Peaking, Magnification and Electronic Split Image on the Fuji's. I still find it easier and quicker to AF. But it is nice to have those options. There are some applications like macro where, for me, the photographic experience isn't diminished by manual focus. But for nearly all that I shoot it's, AF all the way.

 

[Gary A.]

I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking

Have you tried auto focusing the A7?

 

[goodguy]

Something else to consider.
The E-Mount is designed to take Nikon & Canon lenses (with adapters). I've only done a limited amount of research, but there doesn't appear to be any light or quality loss with these adapters.

So, I don't quite understand the argument that the Sony E-Mount doesn't have good lenses available. You can easily mount a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to it.
This is another reason why I'm tempted to buy one. Many of the lenses I currently own can be used on the Sony Mirrorless system (A7, A7s, A7r).

If someone already owns the "trinity of lenses" in either a Canon or Nikon mount, then buying a Sony a7 (with the correct adapter) doesn't require you to sell all your old gear.
For this reason, I'm tempted to rent one for a week and put it up against a D750 & D810. Then I could compare both systems using only Nikon glass (which, in my eyes, is an accurate test). I just don't know where I could rent an adapter from.

Main question is, will it still AF or just MF ?

If it will MF only then what is that good for ?
If it still AF then that is a rather interesting piece of info.

Whats wrong with manusl focus with my A7 I only manual focus been doing it all the time with my Leica's

Because you are young, if you were as old and blind as me you would shake the hand of each and every Japanese engineer that works on these AF systems.
Its nice to have 20/20 vision, sadly I didnt have that even when I was 16 LOL

I'm not that young

Apparently you are young enough not to be forced to use AF

 

[gsgary]

I manul focus the A7 because I only use my Leica mount lenses on it, all have focus tabs except 50F1.5, 2 quick presses and it zooms in on the subject or you can use focus peaking

Have you tried auto focusing the A7?

Yes on my friends A7R and it seemed good the A7 is supposed to be better

 

[ConradM]

Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing. They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling. Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players? It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world. They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.

What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?

 

[goodguy]

What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?

You are correct, it is arguably but I agree the a77 II even the a77 I are good cameras.

 

[theraven871]

Sony has a history of making a splash which quickly fades into nothing. They are always developing new and innovative products, but they never seem to last, and when they do, they're propietary to the point of being crippling. Does anyone remember the software that Sony used to ship with their MP3 players? It made iTunes seem like the best thing in the world. They have some neat products, and some great ideas, but if you're seriously buying into a system, then Nikon or Canon on a professional level and Nikon, Canon, or Pentax on a consumer level.

What? The Sony Alpha line has been around for years and the a77ii is arguably the best APSC body out currently. As far as being proprietary can you give any examples?

The top APS-C cameras are
Canon 7DmII
Nikon D7100
Pentax K3
Sony a77.

I would take the Pentax K3 over any of them.

 

[Stevepwns]

Has anyone taken into consideration how long it took Nikon and Canon to get their customer base? Sony has jumped into the camera market and done some pretty damn good things in a short period. You don't come into a market and just take over. At some point you have to realize it takes time and getting a very loyal customer base to jump ship from one manufacturer to another doesn't happen over night. Personally I think these conversations keep coming up only because they are actually giving the other camera makers something to fear. Yeah is Sony getting into a market already heavily dominated by 2 very good product lines. But take into account how far they have come and what they are producing in a short amount of time. Give it time and look at the R&D that has taken place and has to take place for these products to come to the market. Sony is doing a lot to the market and has produced some very formidable cameras compared to Nikon and Canon. In some places, outshines them. I think everyone is being impatient and needs to realize they aren't going to take the industry over in a decade. The market place doesn't work like that, and when the other 2 companies involved have such a strong line of products it takes even more. There is nothing to reinvent that's going to make the market do cartwheels, just producing a good product that can compete is hard enough. Sony is doing that. What more do you want?

 

[Derrel]

Steve, I totally "get" what you are saying, and I agree with almost everything you say. Please let me offer my ideas of what lies on the other side of the coin. In some industries, getting people to "jump ship" NEVER occurs in significant enough numbers to benefit a new entrant in the marketplace. Ford vs Chevy, Jim Beam vs Jack Daniels, John Deere versus "the red brands", Macintosh versus PC, Packers vs Bears, Yankees versus Red Sox..there actually are many longstanding allegiances that no amount of marketing, not even hundreds of millions of dollars and literally decades' worth of hype and PR and advertising, can overcome. Some allegiances, formed early, last a lifetime. A head start is worth a hellll of a lot in most races!

The camera market is divided into the traditional "camera maker market" segments, as well as the newer, consumer electronics market segments. For some people, a camera is a cam-er-uh. For others, it is an electronic gadget. Sony has entered a market that has had a number of companies that had been in the camera market segments of the business for many decades. Sony entered a market where Nikon had basically, a fifty year head start in Nikon F-mount lenses, and a legacy. Sony entered the "serious camera market" segment of the business after having been in the lower-end P&S digital business for a few years, when they bought up the serious camera intellectual property and the lens mount of a bankrupt camera maker, the smoldering ruins of Minolta, which went +i+s up and sold out to Konica, which formed Konica/Minolta; Konica had been an old Japan based camera maker-OLDER than Nikon, but it too had gone +i+s up...so...Sony tried to buy its way into a legacy-dominated camera segment with the wreckage of TWO failed traditional camera makers, Minolta, and Konica, neither of which could handle the competition from Canon and Nikon.

Let's say I am Donald Trump, and I want to start my own world-wide soda pop company. I plan to dethrone Coca~Cola brands, and Pepsi~Cola. I have 977 million dollars for advertising. Know what? I have a snowball's chance in hell. This is what Sony is trying to do, in a business where the products are **expensive**, and there are older, more-established brand names, with resale outlets for older, discarded equipment, as well as millions of legacy lenses and accessories for sale. Even though Sony severely cut prices on its d-slr offerings, like the A900 24-MP FF camera at $2499, and the A800 24-MP FX d-slr at $1899, the $7,999 Nikon D3x outsold both of those very,very nice, beautiful Sony cameras. All three cameras used the same Sony-made sensor. Sony has tried to "buy into" a very exclusive, mature camera market dominated by two much older, legacy camera brands, with the idea that the industry is just a niche within the consumer electronics business. News flash: not all of it is consumer electronics.

 

[theraven871]

Steve, I totally "get" what you are saying, and I agree with almost everything you say. Please let me offer my ideas of what lies on the other side of the coin. In some industries, getting people to "jump ship" NEVER occurs in significant enough numbers to benefit a new entrant in the marketplace. Ford vs Chevy, Jim Beam vs Jack Daniels, John Deere versus "the red brands", Macintosh versus PC, Packers vs Bears, Yankees versus Red Sox..there actually are many longstanding allegiances that no amount of marketing, not even hundreds of millions of dollars and literally decades' worth of hype and PR and advertising, can overcome. Some allegiances, formed early, last a lifetime. A head start is worth a hellll of a lot in most races!

The camera market is divided into the traditional "camera maker market" segments, as well as the newer, consumer electronics market segments. For some people, a camera is a cam-er-uh. For others, it is an electronic gadget. Sony has entered a market that has had a number of companies that had been in the camera market segments of the business for many decades. Sony entered a market where Nikon had basically, a fifty year head start in Nikon F-mount lenses, and a legacy. Sony entered the "serious camera market" segment of the business after having been in the lower-end P&S digital business for a few years, when they bought up the serious camera intellectual property and the lens mount of a bankrupt camera maker, the smoldering ruins of Minolta, which went +i+s up and sold out to Konica, which formed Konica/Minolta; Konica had been an old Japan based camera maker-OLDER than Nikon, but it too had gone +i+s up...so...Sony tried to buy its way into a legacy-dominated camera segment with the wreckage of TWO failed traditional camera makers, Minolta, and Konica, neither of which could handle the competition from Canon and Nikon.

Let's say I am Donald Trump, and I want to start my own world-wide soda pop company. I plan to dethrone Coca~Cola brands, and Pepsi~Cola. I have 977 million dollars for advertising. Know what? I have a snowball's chance in hell. This is what Sony is trying to do, in a business where the products are **expensive**, and there are older, more-established brand names, with resale outlets for older, discarded equipment, as well as millions of legacy lenses and accessories for sale. Even though Sony severely cut prices on its d-slr offerings, like the A900 24-MP FF camera at $2499, and the A800 24-MP FX d-slr at $1899, the $7,999 Nikon D3x outsold both of those very,very nice, beautiful Sony cameras. All three cameras used the same Sony-made sensor. Sony has tried to "buy into" a very exclusive, mature camera market dominated by two much older, legacy camera brands, with the idea that the industry is just a niche within the consumer electronics business. News flash: not all of it is consumer electronics.

What's disturbing isn't that Sony tried to buy into the market, its that they tried to buy into the market by purchasing Konica/Minolta.
I absolutely mean no offense to long time Minolta fans.....But that company was stagnant for years. Minolta didn't need money, it needed innovative ideas.
Personally speaking, I don't understand what Sony attempted to gain by purchasing. They didn't seem to have any technology or R&D teams worth salvaging. (But, I don't pretend to know everything). All the Minolta buyout gave them was a lens mount that accepts some old lenses. But, when I'm shopping for cameras, I don't go looking at how many 30 year old lenses I can mount to it. I personally look at what new lenses are currently available.
That said, Sony has done a great job putting buckets of technology into their newer cameras.
Although, I think they are making bigger waves with their Mirrorless DSLRs than their standard ones (a77, a99, etc).