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

[Aglet]

can only speak for myself but, considering all the different gear I have and use (and some not so much), Sony is not in my inventory for a variety of reasons.
But I am keeping an eye on it.
Meanwhile, my Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samyang, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc., all get a regular workout. I did buy some Sony action-cams .. but they don't count.

 

[drob]

Sony and Nikon are making innovative cameras in leaps and bounds with features that people want. Seems like Canon is always playing catch up with the rest and MAYBE gives one additional feature that no one else has, but the refresh rate is to slow for some. I get it, I love my Canon 6D but get a little gadget envy for the newer Nikon and Sony models. 4 to 5 years between each camera update is getting ridiculous. Don't think iphones would be around if you had 4 years in between models.

 

[sanj]

The only reason I can think of is photographers seeking the slight edge in IQ at base ISO and small form.

 

[Hector1970]

I think if you are serious photographer for a long time you are used to big size and weight.
If you are young coming into it and you've been using small light cameras a 5DIII or a 1DX is massive and very heavy.
I think Sony is exploiting small and light to the hilt.
Alot of people want this and can afford to pay for it.

They don't want something big and clunky because they may not be serious photographer using tripods etc.
Sony are good for bringing out new versions quite quickly and that appeals to alot of consumers too that want the latest. I'm not surprised more pro's are using the Sony cameras because they suit alot of needs especially if you want to travel light.

Where Canon continue to be successful is that their lens are excellent and work very well with the Canon bodies.
Menu system and layout has been perfected. There is very little learning curve when you upgrade.
You could not complain as a Canon user about the lens they produce (except the price).
If Sony want to progress they need to produce lens that are better than Canons.
I'm surprised that they don't look at taking over Sigma as Sigma has made great progress in this area.

 

[Orangutan]

Sony and Nikon are making innovative cameras in leaps and bounds with features that people want. Seems like Canon is always playing catch up with the rest

Why does Canon outsell those other brands? Why do Canon pro bodies retain value better? People always want to pick features from different brands and combine them into a single product, but at some point they have to lay down their money and buy a product that's available. That decision still favors Canon.

Just to be clear, I hope Sony and Nikon become more competitive to put pressure on Canon. So far they haven't figured out how to do that.

 

[JClark]

The only reason I can think of is photographers seeking the slight edge in IQ at base ISO and small form.

Exactly this. Why haul my 1dx around to do landscape work when I can get better IQ in a smaller, lighter package? The 1Dx has it's place, but the overhead compartment of a plane, or in a hiking pack, isn't it.

 

[tiltshift]

I wouldn't say I have switched from my 5dIII to Sony but i find myself using the Sony a7rII 90%. for me I just like using the camera more. I like the EVF (I way prefer an evf than optical now), the tiltscreen (this actually surprised me... dont judge until you have one), I like the steadyshot, and I like the IQ (Dr, resolution, iso), lastly I like to bust out old manual lenses and see how they render.

for "serious" work I still use all my Canon lenses and I can say there is NO weight or size savings but for me it isn't about that.

is it perfect no. but is the canon 5dsR perfect? no, or any camera for that matter? I think the bottom line is for some people the benefits of Sony (even with adapted lenses) out weights the cons when compared to Canon's current offerings. I am guessing many people, myself certainly included, are waiting for the 5D4 to see what Canon comes up with.

 

[benperrin]

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.

I really wouldn't use Jason Lanier as a good example of someone switching. His work is hardly great compared to some of the amazing wedding pros out there.

In terms of the mirrorless vs dslr debate I used my a7r2 and 5d2 at a wedding on Saturday and I can tell you that the 5d2 was far more reliable than the a7r2 (yes a 7 year old camera is more reliable than a brand new one). I was using the metabones and Canon lenses though which I know is a disadvantage for the Sony. The only area that I really preferred the a7r2 over the 5d2 was for video where the IBIS really makes a difference. A dslr just feels reliable and makes getting the shot much easier. I would prefer the a7r2 for landscape work though. Getting an estimation of what you will see speeds up the process and allows instant feedback which enables you to be more creative in my opinion.

 

[Sunnystate]

Just love it... Its exactly how predicted, it shows how posters here are detached from reality.

And how real photographers making non bias decisions based on logic not some bizarre brand patriotism!

Love it!

Waiting for more.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

I really wouldn't use Jason Lanier as a good example of someone switching. His work is hardly great compared to some of the amazing wedding pros out there.

In terms of the mirrorless vs dslr debate I used my a7r2 and 5d2 at a wedding on Saturday and I can tell you that the 5d2 was far more reliable than the a7r2 (yes a 7 year old camera is more reliable than a brand new one). I was using the metabones and Canon lenses though which I know is a disadvantage for the Sony. The only area that I really preferred the a7r2 over the 5d2 was for video where the IBIS really makes a difference. A dslr just feels reliable and makes getting the shot much easier. I would prefer the a7r2 for landscape work though. Getting an estimation of what you will see speeds up the process and allows instant feedback which enables you to be more creative in my opinion.

Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet.
Thing 2: For me it's about half and half which makes getting the shot easier. If I'm trying to track a bird across the sky with long lenses, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. Also if I'm in a situation where I am almost continuously moving the AF point around, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. If I'm manually focusing, the A7R2 is easier to use. If I'm shooting portraiture, the A7R2 with native lenses is easier to use due to eye AF.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Absolutely! The Whitehouse photographer needs to be as unobtrusive as possible. A silent shutter would be a huge factor. So would a increased resolution. These photos are going to be passed down infuture generations when 42 mp will be low resolution.

 

[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.

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

Yeah, I'm just messing with you.

 

[benperrin]

Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet.
Thing 2: For me it's about half and half which makes getting the shot easier. If I'm trying to track a bird across the sky with long lenses, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. Also if I'm in a situation where I am almost continuously moving the AF point around, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. If I'm manually focusing, the A7R2 is easier to use. If I'm shooting portraiture, the A7R2 with native lenses is easier to use due to eye AF.

I was actually referring to speed of autofocus, viewfinder blackout time and general lag when waking up. The a7r2 just seemed slower in so many ways that I felt like I was going to miss moments. I don't think I had any "aperture 0" moments so that wasn't a major issue. I still found the af of the 5d2 to be more reliable than focus peaking and focus magnification wasn't really an option during dancing and such moments. Someone talked before about silent shutter and I have to say that it's something that I loved as well.

Really I think it all depends on the situation. The a7r2 excels in many areas and dslrs also excel in many areas. My opinion is that a switch is not on the cards for me. I'll continue to use both side by side.

 

[NancyP]

If I were a wedding photographer, a really good electronic viewfinder might be a serious asset in dark churches. Also, there may be some things about the video on Sony cameras that are favorable, compared with the Canikons. I don't do video, so I don't keep up with it, but wedding photographers frequently do video.

I think that different types of pros would gravitate toward Sony vs. Canikon. Sports, wildlife, PJ photographers wouldn't touch Sony with a 10 ft. pole. (3 meter pole?) Agencies wouldn't use Sony, because the support is insufficient, compared with the repair and loaner support from the Canikons. On the other hand, studio product photographers with Arca or other view camera adapters for FF and a suite of Rodenstock digital lenses might go for the Sony A7Rii in a big way. Hybrid stills / video users might go for Sony A7S rather than a mostly stills-oriented Canikon. Landscapers are all over the A7Rii.

 

[Sporgon]

If I were a wedding photographer, a really good electronic viewfinder might be a serious asset in dark churches.

Or a serious hindrance - they don't work well in very low light

 

[3kramd5]

Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet.
Thing 2: For me it's about half and half which makes getting the shot easier. If I'm trying to track a bird across the sky with long lenses, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. Also if I'm in a situation where I am almost continuously moving the AF point around, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. If I'm manually focusing, the A7R2 is easier to use. If I'm shooting portraiture, the A7R2 with native lenses is easier to use due to eye AF.

I was actually referring to speed of autofocus, viewfinder blackout time and general lag when waking up. The a7r2 just seemed slower in so many ways that I felt like I was going to miss moments. I don't think I had any "aperture 0" moments so that wasn't a major issue. I still found the af of the 5d2 to be more reliable than focus peaking and focus magnification wasn't really an option during dancing and such moments. Someone talked before about silent shutter and I have to say that it's something that I loved as well.

Yah, AF is significantly peppier with the canon body and canon lenses (though if you're in single point, with recent firmware, PDAF on adapted lenses is quite fast). But native glass is a different ballgame. I'm not sure what I'd choose if I could bring only one rig to a wedding. I lean towards a 5D3, but more for battery life than anything else.

Oh, and I have yet to find a situation where focus peeking even seems reliable, let alone useful.

[quote author=benperrin]
Really I think it all depends on the situation. The a7r2 excels in many areas and dslrs also excel in many areas. My opinion is that a switch is not on the cards for me. I'll continue to use both side by side.
[/quote]

Exactly.

 

[Dylan777]

I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.

New gear :
1. A7r II use most with FE 25mm f2 and FE 16-35mm f4
2. A7s use most with FE 35mm f2.8, FE 85mm f1.8, FE 70-200mm f4
3. 1Dx + EF 200f2 all time

As others mentioned, I enjoy using eye and face focus from A7 series.

 

[3kramd5]

I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.

New gear :
1. A7r II use most with FE 25mm f2 and FE 16-35mm f4
2. A7s use most with FE 35mm f2.8, FE 85mm f1.8, FE 70-200mm f4
3. 1Dx + EF 200f2 all time

As others mentioned, I enjoy using eye and face focus from A7 series.

by the 25 f2 you mean the Batis? I still haven't managed to get my hands on one.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Ineed. Long gone are the days when a photographer who worked for a journal or a news outlet could pull the right tools for an assignment from a pool of company purchased gear.

How we consume images has changed radically in recent years, so I'm not sure we'll see vast numbers of pros along the sidelines of sporting events pointing their $12,000 white L-glass toward the scene of action. I don't know of many pros who can afford such luxuries.

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.

 

[Dylan777]

I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.

New gear :
1. A7r II use most with FE 25mm f2 and FE 16-35mm f4
2. A7s use most with FE 35mm f2.8, FE 85mm f1.8, FE 70-200mm f4
3. 1Dx + EF 200f2 all time

As others mentioned, I enjoy using eye and face focus from A7 series.

by the 25 f2 you mean the Batis? I still haven't managed to get my hands on one.

Yes, both Batis 25 & 85mm are wonderful. My 2cents, these should be considered as "must have" lenses for A7 shooters. The contrast, clarity, and color are just too wonderful. Prior to Batis 85mm, I used to shoot Canon 85mm f1.2 for portrait(still wonderful lens). I just sold my Canon 85mm after few hundred shots with Batis 85mm. I could not say enough about face and eye focus features in A7 series.