Interesting link. Many serious pros are now using Sony FF cameras.

[privatebydesign]

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/07/the-white-house-is-shooting-with-a-sony-a7r-ii-now/

I found this interesting.

I wonder when and if, Canon think they will have to reply to the ever increasing number of genuine full time high profile pros now shooting with systems other than DSLR's? The position I have always taken, and still do, is that I use lenses that only Canon make (and I am sure Sony never will) so personally the conversation is moot, but the majority of general shooting can be done with the modest selection of lenses now available for the Sony and this is obviously compelling enough for some people to change.

I actually shot with an A7R II the other day for a few hours, not long enough for sure, but I was totally unimpressed with the viewfinder/EVF, the lag and blackout was shockingly bad to me, it seems phone screens have better refresh rates etc than the >$3,000 Sony combo, and the menus were painful. But the IQ was excellent and for generalist use where I am not looking for ultimate narrow dof control f4 zooms work with the iso capabilities it has.

Certainly I am nowhere near convinced with this iteration, but many pros are, what are your thoughts?

And no, this is not a troll post, everybody that knows me here knows that. I just read the linked article and having used one myself on Monday I was interested in others thoughts.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

An individual pro will use what ever equipment he or she can afford, is comfortable using, and provides what the photographer needs for their individual type of photography.

It is up to the individual to choose which camera system he or she prefers to use.

 

[Maui5150]

I think they should be a little more cautious. Using "White House" and "Shooting" so close together will get you on the NSA watch list.

Then again, so will reading this thread

 

[jarrodeu]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

 

[Perio]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

I think many people are attracted by possibilities of using a wide variety of lenses from other manufacturers...

 

[Random Orbits]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

+1. It can't compete with the Nikon/Canon ecosystem. Love the RT system -- reliable and easy to use. What can compete with the 24-70 II and the 70-200 IS II? 1st party systems work they way they should. Adapting lenses does not - you get what you get and who knows if the next version will maintain the same level of compatibility for all lenses. The lenses are just as large/heavy as Canon/Nikon counterparts and the battery life is much worse...

For hobbyists, it provides a way of using vintage lenses. But many of those combinations don't perform as well as 1st party systems. Sony native lenses are also expensive, so no savings there. And the most ardent Sony mirrorless users have to upgrade every year to try and approach DSLR performance (i.e. tracking focus or low light focus). So which system costs more at the end of the day?

Mirrorless may get "there" in a few years, but until it does, I'll still use the DSLR.

BTW, I think that Sony has thrown its best shots, and the pace of advancement will slow considerably. Sony has refreshed camera sensors with the technologies used for cell-phone cameras first. IBIS, layered BSI sensors. What else? Can Sony survive in an environment where its users update every 3-5 years instead of every year?

 

[privatebydesign]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.

 

[3kramd5]

and the menus were painful.

They are, fortunately the camera itself is customizable enough that I rarely need to access the menus. Basically, if I'm not formatting a memory card, tethering, or wirelessly transferring photos to my phone, I don't access the menu.

That being said, the controls themselves, to me, leave a lot to be desired. But they're better than the menu (and better than the A7R, which collected copious dust in my closet, as opposed to the A7R2 which I use ~daily).

 

[dak723]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

I have had a Canon 6D for two years as well as a Canon SL1. I was intrigued by the Sony A7 mainly because of its size and weight. I hate carrying around the 6D and 24-105 lens for any sort of distance. If I'm going to take a hike and bring my camera, it will be the SL1. So the Sony really appealed to me. Alas, I also found the EVF really distracting and it did not give me a very accurate WYSIWYG when it came to exposure. I used to own the Olympus EM-1 and it had a far superior EVF and the WYSIWYG was much more accurate to set the exposure. Unfortunately, I bought the Sony withe the Sony kit lens - which was probably the worst lens I have ever owned. Very soft away from the center. I returned the camera and - just to make sure I didn't have a bad copy - bought the original A7 and kit lens (same sensor and cheaper). Found it to be the same story. Kit lens very soft away from the center. Now, if the sensor proved to be as great as all the hype one reads about on the internet, then I may still have kept the Sony, but compared to the 6D, I was not impressed. The greater DR was never noticeable in the shots I took. Overall contrast and color were not as pleasing to my eye. I'm hoping that the next generation of 6D will be smaller. That is my only complaint with the 6D and the main appeal of the Sony FF offerings to me.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.

I would imagine that if your job is taking pictures of Muckety Mucks doing business that a silent shutter would be a big factor.

I could imagine that yacking on the phone while a mirror slaps could be distracting.

 

[unfocused]

For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.

I would imagine that if your job is taking pictures of Muckety Mucks doing business that a silent shutter would be a big factor.

Actually, a fair portion of my work consists of just that. I find the near-silent shutter on the 5DIII to be very useful. Generally, I don't need complete silence in these meetings and presentations, but being as unobtrusive as possible is helpful. (Although frankly, without some sort of invisibility cloak, you are still going to be noticeable, especially as you move around to get the appropriate shot.)

I would find an even quieter shutter interesting, but honestly, the low light and cropping capacity of the camera is at least as important. So, as with most things, it still is the whole ecosystem that matters.

 

[Loswr]

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.

Jarrod

For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.

A 1D X would work just fine, if worn with appropriate clothing...a Kevlar suit, for example.

 

[Sporgon]

Let's return in six months and see what the situation in the White House is then. Mirrorless will always require power to view and currently isn't real time; may be one day. I still think a hybrid OVF / EVF system will win the day.

 

[bmwzimmer]

Let's return in six months and see what the situation in the White House is then. Mirrorless will always require power to view and currently isn't real time; may be one day. I still think a hybrid OVF / EVF system will win the day.

I've been hoping for a hybrid system for quite some time.... Best of both worlds and you can keep it small too like a SL1 with a full frame sensor. The central part of the viewfinder is optical but other parts can be Electronic.
With the weight/size/cost of fast mirrorless glass, this is Canikon's best shot at saving their future I think

 

[TeT]

... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.

looking at it that way the sony might make a little more sense.

just a thought

 

[unfocused]

... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.

looking at it that way the sony might make a little more sense.

just a thought

Except Pete Souza is 61 and was Ronald Reagan's White House photographer.

 

[retroreflection]

Mirrorless with a wide prime is where "smaller than dslr" is true. Also, less intimidating. Most who find their way into the Oval Office can handle a huge camera jammed into their faces, but I'm sure they can still be put more at ease. I really think wide is where it's at for most presidential photography.
I can also see a photographer with three or more cameras around his neck, if they are smaller than a 5DIII. Going for the gonzo 5 Leicas look- late 60's nostalgia sells, baby.
Add the aforementioned truly silent shutter, and you've got something intriguing for an official photographer. But, everything else needs to be there as well.

 

[Hillsilly]

A wedding photographer, Jason Lanier, recently put out a series of youtube videos about why he moved to Sony from a Nikon DSLR. Several other photographers have release similar videos. The general gist is that the areas where DSLRs outperform (faster autofocus, better autofocus tracking, better battery life) are less important to them than the areas where mirrorless cameras outperform such as having an EVF (and there are a lot of people who love the benefits of EVFs), more accurate autofocus, silent operation and form factor. Obviously other photographers feel differently about the pros and cons of mirrorless. And then there are the costs and learning curve in changing systems.

Using Pete Souza as an example probably isn't the best choice. He's known for using a variety of cameras. When we start seeing sports and wildlife shooters favouring Sony mirrorless cameras, then we'll know the days of DSLRs are numbered.

 

[TeT]

... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.

looking at it that way the sony might make a little more sense.

just a thought

Except Pete Souza is 61 and was Ronald Reagan's White House photographer.

I was speaking to some reasons for a possible trend...

 

[timmy_650]

So what I got from that article is that a Pro add a Sony to his bag. I am not shocked about that your surprised. If i could afford it, I would love to pick one. Doesn't mean I will leave canon. It looks like a fun toy.