Should I ditch my Sony?

[o hey tyler]

lenses were hard to find and expensive for its mount.

The entire Four Thirds\Canon EF\Nikon F\Pentax K\Sony Alpha\Minolta MD\M42\Leica M\Leica R\Canon FD\Contax\Olympus OM\T2 selection of lenses is ​hard to find and expensive?

[Note: You're missing a key piece of equipment here]

I think if the OP is getting seriously into photography, they aren't going to want to be manual focusing with a bunch of old glass on an APS-C sensor with a pentamirror viewfinder.

 

[rexbobcat]

Hey man, I have a sony a290 and it is a beginners camera, I got it intending to take up photography as an artistic outlet, but Im also taking photography more seriously now and have some weddings lined up this year that im doing for free, for friends. I was having the same burning question. I figure I want to do a good job at the weddings..... no wait a great job!

This is someones big day that they will never get back and even though im doing it for free I still have a huge responsibility to get it right. (im actually terrified but we have to start somewhere right?) It is also benificial for me to produce some proffesional images for my port folio so this is what im planning to do... I want to pick a make of camera that I will stick to, as a wedding photographer your going to need a back up camera anyway so I have a budget of between 1000 and 2000 bucks (been saving all year!) but the way I look at it, its an investment. I havent decided what model of camera im going to get because its a big decision but I know I want a good, at least semi proffesional model (canon or nikon body only) and an f2.8 telephoto zoom lens. I have a f1.8 50mm portrait lens for my sony and can pick up a external flash also fairly cheap for my sony.

Im not saying do what im doing, I just thought it would be helpfull to know that im in the same boat. I will use my sony as a back up camera for now until the time comes for me to be able to afford to sell it and get a back up cannon or nikon, not sure yet what im going to get.

I still cant decide, ive done lots of research and to be honest I was going to create a thread on here to get some advice. I have another photographer friend that keeps telling me to get a Leica but im not sure at all. Anyway I just thought that might help you out a bit, but of course it is your decision and ive also no idea what your budget is. But once you decide if you want to purchace a new camera, or if you just want a new lens for your sony, remember to check google product search and ebay, you will get what your looking for much cheaper if you dont mind buying second hand.

Hayley

If you want an affordable camera system DO NOT GET A LEICA. Their prices are beyond ridiculous to the average consumer.

 

[MLeeK]

Ok... so I am STILL confused here...
What do you want? Professional or cheap?
If you want lenses and gear to shoot a professional wedding you'll need to up your budget. It doesn't matter if it's Sony, Nikon , Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Leica...

If you want budget you are fine with the gear you have. Sony has lenses, Sigma and Tamron make both their good AND cheap lenses for Sony.

If you want to advance to full frame and high end weddings? Get out of Sony regardless of the good lenses available for it from Sigma and Tamron. Take your budget up to about $10K-$15K.

If you are that serious? Switch. sell off the sony gear and start with a Canon or Nikon. Preferably full frame. Then begin saving your pennies because you need about $5k in basic lenses.

 

[rexbobcat]

Thanks for the tip, I will definatly be looking into this more

Please don't....most Leicas are rangefinders and their lens selection is rather slim, expensive, most of their cameras are manual focus unless you get their $700 p&s or their DSLR which is $27,000

 

[Crollo]

Only amateurs worry about that crap, Tyler. Professionals have been taking pictures long before fancy technology and they've gotton along fine.

My point is simple: You can't complain that a selection is small if you intentionally choose to ignore all of it.
When I watch movies with people it drives me insane that they choose to get up and leave during the most plot-important scenes of the movie, then they come back and say the movie sucks because they don't understand it.
It's so ignorant it's IQ dropping.

 

[ernestoc33]

Ok... so I am STILL confused here...
What do you want? Professional or cheap?
If you want lenses and gear to shoot a professional wedding you'll need to up your budget. It doesn't matter if it's Sony, Nikon , Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Leica...

If you want budget you are fine with the gear you have. Sony has lenses, Sigma and Tamron make both their good AND cheap lenses for Sony.

If you want to advance to full frame and high end weddings? Get out of Sony regardless of the good lenses available for it from Sigma and Tamron. Take your budget up to about $10K-$15K.

If you are that serious? Switch. sell off the sony gear and start with a Canon or Nikon. Preferably full frame. Then begin saving your pennies because you need about $5k in basic lenses.

Eventually I do want to move up, but for now I'm doing work for free / donations so I can build a portfolio. I won't have that kind of budget for quite a while. If I did trade in my a330 I could probably only get a D3000 or rebel t3i to replace it.

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk

 

[o hey tyler]

Only amateurs worry about that crap, Tyler. Professionals have been taking pictures long before fancy technology and they've gotton along fine.
My first camera was a fully manual FT QL with a stop down light meter and at no point did I think to myself "oh man if only I had a flashy AF system, it would really make my pictures better!" or otherwise feel that I needed 'new glass' to make my pictures better.

So you're saying that the large majority of professionals would much rather ditch their current high end digital gear/lenses and go for a fully manual film camera, or APS-C DSLR and antiquated lenses and adapters? Lenses, that mind you, are not designed with the resolution of digital sensors in mind.

Surely you also know the difference between the pentaprism viewfinder with a split prism focusing screen on the 35mm film SLR's and the pentamirror and much smaller viewfinder of the APS-C DSLR's. One is much easier to manually focus than the other. Can you guess which one?

 

[Crollo]

At absolutely no point whatsoever did he mention anything about lenses that had specific features, he merely states that lenses for the mount are expensive and hard to find, because he ignored 11 entire extra selections of lenses.
Are you suggesting that it's impossible to manually focus just because there's no split prism or micro prism? Please, I can manual focus on my 850 and E10 perfectly fine. It's maybe a little slower, but not even close to being impossible or otherwise deal breaking.

 

[Derrel]

Completely missing the point yet again.

I don't think Tyler was missing the point at all...using a mish-mash of old, manual focusing lenses with adapters is FUN for enthusiasts who like to dink around and play with lenses. As far as your first camera, a Canon FT QL...yeah...that was 35+ years ago...AF WAS at that time many years in the future...today's autofocusing cameras are optimized to work with autofocusing lenses, not relics from the 1960's and 1970's. I own a bunch of adapters myself, well over a dozen of them, and enjoy playing around around with M42 and F-mount lenses shot on Canon digital cameras. I would never suggest to a beginner that adapted manual focus lenses are the way to go, in this, the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century. FIFTY-year-old thread mount lenses are not exactly what I would suggest. I think it might possibly be you who is missing the point yet again...

 

[Crollo]

today's autofocusing cameras are optimized to work with autofocusing lenses

Split prisms and micro prisms are AIDS for manual focus lenses. Not requisites. It may be easier to MF with the assisting prisms but it's by no means difficult to MF without them, but that may vary. If it would be foolish to use a MF lens on a AF body it's foolish to have a MF\AF switch on the lenses. Why not just remove the functionality altogether if MF is so difficult on AF bodies, and only leave AF as a choice?

With the exception of loss of autofocus, and maybe a couple of lenses not having aperture control, what is there wrong with using 'old' lenses? I don't understand at all how the loss of AF can be so devastating, nevermind the quality of the optics themselves, that the lenses are completely unusable.

 

[o hey tyler]

today's autofocusing cameras are optimized to work with autofocusing lenses

Split prisms and micro prisms are AIDS for manual focus lenses. Not requisites. It may be easier to MF with the assisting prisms but it's by no means difficult to MF without them, but that may vary. If it would be foolish to use a MF lens on a AF body it's foolish to have a MF\AF switch on the lenses. Why not just remove the functionality altogether if MF is so difficult on AF bodies, and only leave AF as a choice?

With the exception of loss of autofocus, and maybe a couple of lenses not having aperture control, what is there wrong with using 'old' lenses? I don't understand at all how the loss of AF can be so devastating, nevermind the quality of the optics themselves, that the lenses are completely unusable.

There's nothing wrong with using old lenses, it's just not something that someone looking to upgrade their current camera system is going to look for... In fact, it would be somewhat of a downgrade in some aspects.

It's not always economical and does not increase ease of use when shooting.

Most people, I'd guess 90%+ will buy a DSLR with the intent of using autofocus regularly.

 

[o hey tyler]

At absolutely no point whatsoever did he mention anything about lenses that had specific features, he merely states that lenses for the mount are expensive and hard to find, because he ignored 11 entire extra selections of lenses.

Lenses that he probably didn't have an interest in using anyway... Because they're manual focus, and/or manual aperture diaphragm. These are not logical to purchase for someone interested in getting the most out of their DSLR, and still having the usability factor there.

Are you suggesting that it's impossible to manually focus just because there's no split prism or micro prism? Please, I can manual focus on my 850 and E10 perfectly fine. It's maybe a little slower, but not even close to being impossible or otherwise deal breaking.

I'm actually not suggesting that at all. Are you suggesting that I suggested something that I clearly did not suggest? Yes, you are.

It was indeed slower to focus with your E10. It has a smaller, dimmer viewfinder than your film camera, so that would make sense right? It wasn't impossible to do, but you're not going to want to shoot any kind of fast moving action with a solely manual focus lens, much less a wedding.

Sorry, the practicality is not there, Crollo.

 

[rexbobcat]

Split prisms and micro prisms are AIDS for manual focus lenses. Not requisites. It may be easier to MF with the assisting prisms but it's by no means difficult to MF without them, but that may vary. If it would be foolish to use a MF lens on a AF body it's foolish to have a MF\AF switch on the lenses. Why not just remove the functionality altogether if MF is so difficult on AF bodies, and only leave AF as a choice?

With the exception of loss of autofocus, and maybe a couple of lenses not having aperture control, what is there wrong with using 'old' lenses? I don't understand at all how the loss of AF can be so devastating, nevermind the quality of the optics themselves, that the lenses are completely unusable.

Nobody said unusable. They said it's uneconomical and tedious. Have you ever shot sports with follow-focus? Yeah...not the easiest task. Time is money, and the more time you spend fiddling with your MF lenses the less time you have to get that money shot.

Also, macro. <<<<---- reason for MF on AF lenses.

 

[chuasam]

Well, if you were me and you were at this inpass what would you do?

I have only my self and inexperience to blame, but I'm willing to take your advice.



Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk

What kinda professional photography are you planning to do? How serious are you about going pro? If you're dabbling, you might stick it out with Sony. If you're doing super high end pro, you'd be using Hasselblad and Mamiya anyway (or even a Sinar). If you're doing wedding and photojournalism, you're better off going to Canon/Nikon. You'll find it easier to get gear to rent, find it easier to get accessories, if you're at big events like the Olympics, the two big guys often have loaner lenses for photographers to use.

 

[chuasam]

today's autofocusing cameras are optimized to work with autofocusing lenses

Split prisms and micro prisms are AIDS for manual focus lenses. Not requisites. It may be easier to MF with the assisting prisms but it's by no means difficult to MF without them, but that may vary. If it would be foolish to use a MF lens on a AF body it's foolish to have a MF\AF switch on the lenses. Why not just remove the functionality altogether if MF is so difficult on AF bodies, and only leave AF as a choice?

With the exception of loss of autofocus, and maybe a couple of lenses not having aperture control, what is there wrong with using 'old' lenses? I don't understand at all how the loss of AF can be so devastating, nevermind the quality of the optics themselves, that the lenses are completely unusable.

How many pros use old manual lenses on new cameras? I am talking about bona fide pros, not middle aged men with a press pass from their local small town newspaper. Ermmm...NONE.