I've made the point that ALL these cameras are capable over and over and highlighted that its mainly just marketing at this poing. I don't see where I've EVER tried to convice anyone to buy EITHER brand. My point has been one side has a poor marketing strategy for most of the young people and I see that as leading toward them not being as dominant in the future. Again over and over I've clearly state not only that the R8 and R6MII are better than the Sony equivalents but even WHY they are better.
And I agreed with this. Sony is the marketing king in camera brands.
Wait so you are telling me that If I had a bunch of friends who shoot Canon, and I bought the R8 instead becase I now have access to $2500 lenses for free you would be shaking your head?
No, Here's your quote "I told them after months of research I was going to pull the trigger on the R8 and they talked me out of it."
It clearly says that they talked you out of it. If you had said, I chose Sony because I now have access to their lenses, that's a different story. Please don't move the goal posts, as they say.
Wait, so at first you say all these cameras are capable but now the Sony cameras are just overhyped, spec sheet pretenders and low quality. And Sony isn't innovating? They are the ones out there with a 61mp camera..
Sony has always prioritized the spec sheet over quality, in my opinion. I gave numerous examples of where they underperform including shutter durability, dust removal, EVF brightness and clarity, ergonomics, weather sealing (certainly in their earlier models, may be better now.) Sony has innovated no more than other brands as far as I can see. Did they innovate focus stacking? (no, they still don't have that, as far as I know) Hi Res-Pixel shift? Live ND filter? High FPS? Even something as simple as shutter dust protection? The point is, everyone mentions innovation when it comes to Sony. I say they are no more innovative than anyone else.
And infiltrating forums? Please show me one post where I've EVER talked down about a SINGLE canon camera?
Not talking about you. Anyone who has been on various forums since at least 2014 (when I first started visiting camera sites) is well aware.
I agree with all of this until you get to the end. Sony, Tamron, Sigma all make great lenses. Heck even companies like Viltrox and Samyang make great lenses. Are all of these lenses tack sharp for edge to edge, of course not. But that's not the goal of all of them. If a lens maker makes a lens that is decently sharp in the center at f2.8 and soft at the edges is that a poor lens? What if someone wants to primarily shoot at f2.8 where the edges will be blurry anyway and would rather pay 1/3 the price which is what that lens is sold for how is that a bad lens? It fits its primary purpose.
Never said Sony did not make good lenses. But their earliest lenses often suffered from not taking into account the narrower flange distance of their mount, as far as I can determine. When I bought my first A7II, the photos away from the center where so much less sharp, I was sure my lens was defective and returned both camera and lens and exchanged them. The 2nd copy was no different. Both the 24-70 lenses (the Sony and the Zeiss-Sony) had numerous reviews stating the same concerns about image quality. To Sony's credit, their newer lenses seem to be of a very high quality.
Canon has awesome lenses and but not a lot of options. To fault other companies for providing those options as a bad thing seems off.
Never faulted anyone for delivering options. I only have mentioned that many folks, including reveiwers, ignore the EF and EF-S lens lineups when disussing the RF mount.
Have you ever thought that other people don't want the same thing from a camera as you. Its sort of like you saying I'm an idot because I bought a sports car with cramped leg room and your car is more comfortable and gets better gas mileage.
Of course, everyone has different needs. Are you saying that I said that? Or just making it up so you can create an argument that makes me look like an idiot?
Some people need those specs other people don't. I know people that NEED 4k120 because it allows them to get great b roll and they're able to punch in and still have at least 1080p. Does that make 4k120 a gimmick to people that don't have a need for slow motion video?
Some folks need certain specs. Yes, obvious. Never said they didn't.
No, we actually crap on Sony all the time. Again, I think this goes back to the younger generations don't have an allegiance to legacy brands. They just want to get shoot cool content and get paid for it. They buy mostly third party lenses therefore essentially NOT supporting Sony because honestly you cant tell the difference between the two lenses in a 1080p Youtube video or Instagram post on a 6 in Iphone screen.
I think we agree here. And your last statement is what I'm saying. Camera tech will look VERY different 15 years from now. Canon seems invested in the NOW and not even starting that transition to the future. They had to be brought kicking and screaming to mirrorless because they weren't looking toward the future.
Ah, your last sentance is exactly the type of bullcrap that Sony folks always say. "Canon had to be brought kicking and screaming..." You have no idea when Canon started doing R&D into mirrorless. No idea. The M series launched in 2012, I believe. Their FF ILCs followed Nikon by a couple months maybe?
It's odd that you keep pointing out how the other brands are going to succeed because they concentrate on the high end and the low end is a dead end. It's odd because perhaps the biggest complaint from Canon users is that Canon is only concentrating on the high end now and leaving consumers and APS-C users out in the cold. Their are still far more consumer level cameras (and yes, DSLRs) being sold than high end models. Are you saying that those folks should just be abandoned and told - real cameras are only for the rich now. Is that a good marketing strategy? Or maybe a company can create products for a wider audience.
