Sony or Canon?; General Purpose and Macro...

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I had an NEX-7 (aps-c) and now have an a7II (full frame). One of the biggest differences I’ve noticed isn’t so much in the quality of pictures (which is better) but it seems to make it easier to take the pictures. The auto focus is much quicker and the layout of the buttons are easier to use. I just feel like it makes your life easier. So when deciding aps-c vs full frame, you can likely get by just fine with the aps-c but the full frame is probably going to be a more enjoyable camera. Of course this is all just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Derrel]

The best thing to do would be to test the cameras out in a camera store. Sony tends to be more expensive (because all the lenses are newer) but they also lead in testing results. Canon is still a favorite of many because of their ergonomics. The that feels right in your hand is the best one for you.

Thanks for all of the replies. It gives me a lot to think about. The D850 and some of those lenses are pretty extavagant for my budget.

There is a big part of me that likes the idea of the Sony but it does look like we have a local store where I could check out some bodies in this range with prices the same or similar to the Internet. Ergonomics are certainly important if you are going to spend a lot of time with a machine. So far, I'm not a giant fan of touch screens. Some say the Sony interface is really good without them.

Do you think I could get by OK shooting buildings and basic landscape shots with the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Lens that is commonly bundled with the Sony Alpha A7 II? It seems like a good deal and gets a "respectable" dxomark of 22. Most of the shots are for a book and the quality doesn't have to be incredible. Or is there another lense that is wider angle that you'd recommend that isn't too pricy from say, Tamron or another?

The Tamron macro lens mentioned looks pretty well rated by dxomark for the price coming in at 32. And, AF macro tubes don't look too spendy either. What do the rest of you think about this strategy for a hobbyist? Or, even macro tubes with the Sony macro for that matter. I might decide to pony up the extra cash in a few months. It looks incredible with a dxomark of 40!

YES, I agree with using extension tubes if you need to get very,very close with a macro lens. KEEP IN MIND, that extension tubes will NOT work with the shorter end of a zoom like a 35-70 or 28-70mm: the normal-length tubes of 12mm to 25mm tubes will bring the focus point to literally a point that is _inside of the lens barrel_, so only the longer end of say a 28-70mm zoom will work with extension tubes.

A 90mm or 100 or 105mm macro lens would be sweet! A 'regular" field telephoto or 70-200mm zoom would work well with a 12mm to 25mm extension tube, for general macro shooting.

 

[benhasajeep]

I am a Nikon DSLR guy so can't really tell you much about Sony or Canon gear in terms of macro. From what I read Tokina makes a great 100mm macro lens for about 1/3 of Nikon or Canon lenses of similar length. I own 4 Nikon Micro lenses. Only 1 has vibration reduction. And that's basically good for walking around type macro shots. Other wise when your on tripod or similar sturdy support. You don't need VR, IS, OS, or what ever each manufacturer calls it.

As for camera body. The best value / bang for buck, is probably Pentax K-1. I am a Nikon guy (for DSLR anyway), tried Canon years ago and just stuck with Nikon. Right now between Nikon and Canon I would sway people towards Nikon. As I think you get the best performance per dollar from them over current Canon models.

I think the Nikon D7500 is a good choice for body. It's a crop sensor DSLR with a tilt screen. So, you have the viewfinder option for bright days, and the tilt monitor for low and odd angle use. I would pare the D7500 with the Tokina 100mm macro lens. The kit lenses are decent walk around lenses. But you can also buy the body on it's own and buy specific lenses for your normal needs.

 

[downplay]

Thank you all so much!

Since I last posted I've been taking a different approach as I've had time. I've been finding lenses and then pairing them to bodies. Dxomark is awesome in this regard. For example, so far I've seen lens scores for a Nikon D3400 high as 26-30 on the wide angle lens at doable prices with the inexpensive camera body, whereas for the Canon 7D mark II I'm looking at numbers around 12-16. The ratings for the lenses I could get for the Nikon are nearly double!

What do you think about this approach?

I'm going to check out the recommendations above like the D7500 but if you have any recommendations along these lines that might speed things up: What camera bodies have high scoring lenses available at non-astronomical prices?

 

[cherylynne1]

DxO Mark is somewhat useful, and it is considered the standard, but I’m not sure I would base all of my decisions off of it. For instance, the results are somewhat affected by the sensor that the lens is attached to, and Canon sensors don’t do nearly as well as Nikon/Sony (Sony makes most of Nikon’s sensors) in testing scenarios.

DxO Mark is also very useful in finding out how sharp a lens is, or how much distortion or vignetting it has, but it’s useless in many other regards that many photographers considered the most important parts of a lens. For instance, bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas, can’t be quantified in a number. Neither can color rendering, ergonomics, handling, or even aspects of autofocusing.

So, yes, use it as the great tool it is, but don’t let it keep you from reading real world reviews as well.

Every company has great lenses at astronomical prices, okay lenses at reasonable prices, and a couple of “gems,” great bang-for-your-buck lenses. I don’t think Canon or Nikon really has an advantage over the other there.

 

[downplay]

I can see why he said the Pentax K-1 is a great deal for body features, but in terms of overall costs, lens quality, and some uses that will be common for me, the Sony A7 II is looking really good again at the moment. The A7 II might have a more enjoyable user experience like one reviewer said over cheaper APS-C machines, Sony is the sensor maker as you have pointed out, they get a lot of good ratings for photo quality, and I can get a 16mm prime rated by dxomark at 26 for all my buildings and landscapes for about $480 or a 16-50mm wide/zoom rated at 23 for $750--all ratings well above Canon equivalents and slightly edging out Nikon as well, while not really shattering the bank into pieces.

 

[cherylynne1]

I think you’re looking at Sony ASP-C lenses with a full frame body. I don’t know of any Sony full frame 16mm lens, nor a 16-50mm. Both are available in their APS-C E-mount line, however (for cameras such as the a6500.) APS-C lenses tend to be cheaper than their full frame equivalents.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

DxO Mark is somewhat useful, and it is considered the standard, but I’m not sure I would base all of my decisions off of it. For instance, the results are somewhat affected by the sensor that the lens is attached to, and Canon sensors don’t do nearly as well as Nikon/Sony (Sony makes most of Nikon’s sensors) in testing scenarios.

DxO Mark is also very useful in finding out how sharp a lens is, or how much distortion or vignetting it has, but it’s useless in many other regards that many photographers considered the most important parts of a lens. For instance, bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas, can’t be quantified in a number. Neither can color rendering, ergonomics, handling, or even aspects of autofocusing.

So, yes, use it as the great tool it is, but don’t let it keep you from reading real world reviews as well.

Every company has great lenses at astronomical prices, okay lenses at reasonable prices, and a couple of “gems,” great bang-for-your-buck lenses. I don’t think Canon or Nikon really has an advantage over the other there.

Right, dxo mark is great for the objective qualities that can be compared but says nothing about those subjective matters. Those need to be seen/felt/experienced in person. Read reviews, talk to people who have the gear, and go to your local camera store to use it yourself.

 

[beagle100]

I need a camera to shoot some buildings and landscape locations.

But, I've also always wanted to get into some macro photography. From what I've read Canon is the hands down winner in Macro for its 65 mm 1-5x magnification lens. So, I always thought Canon was the way to go for me.

But, looking around, I see the Sony Alpha A7 II looks pretty awesome and I see that there are adapters to use Canon lenses with it. I like idea of the full-frame sensor, image stabilization, and a few other features. It just seems like it might be great for all of my non-macro purposes.Would it be too much of a stretch to combine the Sony with the awesome Canon macro lens using an adapter?

I have read that DPAF may be superior on Canons but I can't figure out how to really compare the two brands. There seem to be some advantages to how the Sonys operate as well, like faster and quieter lens motors, more compact size, etc.

Is there some major or obvious reason to just go with a Canon, like an 80D or 6D instead of the Sony?

check out the macro photo sections here or at other camera forums like FM, DPrev, POTN, etc
Canon is the obvious "hands down" choice (lens, IQ) but look for yourself

 

[downplay]

I think you’re looking at Sony ASP-C lenses with a full frame body. I don’t know of any Sony full frame 16mm lens, nor a 16-50mm. Both are available in their APS-C E-mount line, however (for cameras such as the a6500.) APS-C lenses tend to be cheaper than their full frame equivalents.

Actually, the dxomark article that gives these inexpensive lenses such high ratings is specifically about the Sony A7 II, but they are not Sony brand lenses. They are aftermarket brands like Tamron, Samyang, Sigma, etc. Maybe I should want Sony lenses, I don't know, but I did own a nice Tamron wide angle lens a while back for a Canon Rebel and I was very happy with it. It seemed to deliver a lot of bang for the buck and I had no problems with it.

As suggested, I'd always read that too, Canon is overall the best brand for macro. And, that is what I may have to decide also, which is more important to me. I said I'd be using the camera for buildings and landscapes for business but the truth is, I like taking landscape photos a lot too just for fun, not just macros. I will go to the store and check them out as suggested, but the Sony brand 90mm macro has a really high dxomark rating of 40, and I could buy it with an extender, and one of the highly rated aftermarket wide angle lenses. It sounds like the best of both worlds to me, without opening up my budget to the extreme--looking at the overall situation in terms of lens quality and costs.

 

[cherylynne1]

Could you link the article? I have no issue with Sigma or any other 3rd party lens maker. In fact, I’ve often suggested one or all of the Sigma APS-C Trinity (19, 30, 60) for new Sony users on a budget. They get excellent reviews, considering the price. However, I don’t know of a full frame 16mm or 16-50mm lens from any company. Both are available for Sony’s ASP-C cameras.

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I’d be thrilled to find that there are new inexpensive options for Sony full frame. But I just want to make sure you have access to all the correct information when making this decision. I would hate for you to base your choice on a poorly written article or chart.

I’ve never heard of Canon having any advantage for macro in any sense, other than from Canon fanboys. All the major companies do well with macro lenses.

 

[downplay]

Could you link the article?

I’ve never heard of Canon having any advantage for macro in any sense, other than from Canon fanboys. All the major companies do well with macro lenses.

No, I can't, as it turns out I was looking at an article for the Sony A77 II. I didn't notice that extra sneaky "7!" Sorry about that!

"Canon fanboys," that is hilarious! It is amazing how many people love their irrational and emotional attachments to things

 

[cherylynne1]

Lol, I told you that the Sony naming system was insane!! Yes, that’s an A-mount camera. I don’t know their lenses as well, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had those lenses. Rumors have it that Sigma and Tamron will be jumping into Sony E-mount full frame soon, but I don’t know that we have any solid announcements yet. Fingers crossed!

 

[downplay]

The Nikon D750 is looking very good so far. The camera body is on the higher end but not terrible and the lens selection seems to offer great bang for the buck if you don't have an unlimited budget! The body price is off BH and the rest were the estimates on dxomark.

 

[downplay]

The Nikon D3400 APS-C has a pretty nice lens lineup as well for quality and affordability. Would you expect to get similar or even better performance from these lenses on a D7200 or D7500, or is that too much to hope for?