My coworker wants to buy a dslr for his wife. Both of them have close to no experience in photography. My recommendation was sony a6000. The response was that he wants either Canon or Nikon. I named certain cool things about the a6000 but he still insists that he prefers these two brands. In the end i told him to get canon 70d + efs24 2.8. He has no reservation this time.
The Canon Brand Still Means Something
- Thread starter sunnyVan
- Start date
That's good advice. Sony makes good sensors and seems to have learned their lesson after putting out bad ones several years ago that got the photo world angry with them for stonewalling. Canon and Nikon were badly hurt by these.
As for Sony Cameras and lenses, I'd have some reservations.
As for Sony Cameras and lenses, I'd have some reservations.
Upvote
0
Re: The Canon Brand Still Means Something-musings
I agree that the Canon brand still means something to me, and I have the bodies and lenses to prove it. Sometimes though, I don't know that I mean much to the brand. For professional sports or news photographers, or those doing constant professional shooting, Canon and Nikon are the systems. They have the full range of glass. For others, though, I wonder.
I wonder why Canon, who got a complete jump on digital SLR photography seemed to fall into a funk as competitors were more inventive. It could be that most of us grew up using 35mm SLRs and didn't want a different approach. It could be that pros need reliability, service, and versatility. Prosumers and artists can worry about bleeding edge effects, and spend days in post processing. Perhaps many want to use the same equipment as pros, even if they would do better with different cameras. Maybe we still think that we'll keep our cameras for decades–although my Hasselblads are just gathering dust. I don't know.
I will say that when a Sony a7II died in the middle of a firmware update (and yes, I do generally know what I'm doing with cameras and computers), it took a day to get an authorized warranty repair order and a 2.5 week turnaround (canon is awesome).
I think that sunnyVan made a fair recommendation to his friend. You know, if you only want a camera and one or two lenses, it doesn't much matter if he changes cameras in a year. I can afford to play with other systems, especially since sometime I want to carry small and light. But to me, Canon has been my go to camera for 30ish years, and I have a massive investment. Digital has brought the promise of medium format print sizes to a 35mm form factor. Now, it remains to be seen whether Canon can transition its customers to the best possible imaging system, preferably with the ability to continue with some gear.
I don't know if, outside of professional shooters, Canon or Nikon have the same cachet that they used to. Certainly, Nikon has made an amazing comeback from digital obscurity (which its old reputation for quality must have helped-who else would have stuck by Nikon when Canon was so much better).
I hope Canon can keep its reputation, with both amateurs and pros. We'll see. Right now, it's my lenses. When I drift over to DPreview, I wonder if they only do tests, or if someone actually uses the cameras that they review. Canon still seems to be desired, even though the reviews aren't so favorable. If I were buying a camera based on reviews and not experience, I wonder just how much the brand would matter to me. Well, the Swiss watch came back from the brink of extinction after electronic watches hit the market. Maybe Canon can hang in when everyone with an iPhone thinks that they're photographers.
That was quite a ramble. Sorry if I bored you. I often wonder about the future of photography. I also wonder if I'm being an idiot spending serious bucks on equipment.
I agree that the Canon brand still means something to me, and I have the bodies and lenses to prove it. Sometimes though, I don't know that I mean much to the brand. For professional sports or news photographers, or those doing constant professional shooting, Canon and Nikon are the systems. They have the full range of glass. For others, though, I wonder.
I wonder why Canon, who got a complete jump on digital SLR photography seemed to fall into a funk as competitors were more inventive. It could be that most of us grew up using 35mm SLRs and didn't want a different approach. It could be that pros need reliability, service, and versatility. Prosumers and artists can worry about bleeding edge effects, and spend days in post processing. Perhaps many want to use the same equipment as pros, even if they would do better with different cameras. Maybe we still think that we'll keep our cameras for decades–although my Hasselblads are just gathering dust. I don't know.
I will say that when a Sony a7II died in the middle of a firmware update (and yes, I do generally know what I'm doing with cameras and computers), it took a day to get an authorized warranty repair order and a 2.5 week turnaround (canon is awesome).
I think that sunnyVan made a fair recommendation to his friend. You know, if you only want a camera and one or two lenses, it doesn't much matter if he changes cameras in a year. I can afford to play with other systems, especially since sometime I want to carry small and light. But to me, Canon has been my go to camera for 30ish years, and I have a massive investment. Digital has brought the promise of medium format print sizes to a 35mm form factor. Now, it remains to be seen whether Canon can transition its customers to the best possible imaging system, preferably with the ability to continue with some gear.
I don't know if, outside of professional shooters, Canon or Nikon have the same cachet that they used to. Certainly, Nikon has made an amazing comeback from digital obscurity (which its old reputation for quality must have helped-who else would have stuck by Nikon when Canon was so much better).
I hope Canon can keep its reputation, with both amateurs and pros. We'll see. Right now, it's my lenses. When I drift over to DPreview, I wonder if they only do tests, or if someone actually uses the cameras that they review. Canon still seems to be desired, even though the reviews aren't so favorable. If I were buying a camera based on reviews and not experience, I wonder just how much the brand would matter to me. Well, the Swiss watch came back from the brink of extinction after electronic watches hit the market. Maybe Canon can hang in when everyone with an iPhone thinks that they're photographers.
That was quite a ramble. Sorry if I bored you. I often wonder about the future of photography. I also wonder if I'm being an idiot spending serious bucks on equipment.
Upvote
0
The Canon brand still means something because not everyone is more interested in specs and bells and whistles as are the majority on this and other forums. I tried both the Sony A7 and the A7 II with the hope that I could replace my 6D. Didn't happen, returned both of the Sonys. I know this is a shock to those spec lovers because, after all, the Sony sensor is so far superior. But if you don't care about specs and care about the actual pics, then there is no reason not to get a Canon. Plus you get a company with a reputation for great reliability (my 300D lasted over 9 years with no problems). The lenses - even the kit lenses are very good to excellent (the Sony kit lenses that came with the A7's may have been the worst lenses I ever bought. Both copies were very soft away from the center). So choosing Canon (or Nikon (though I have no experience with them) would be my recommendation to anyone looking for an ILC camera.
Upvote
0
dak723 said:
Well I sold my 5D3 and now have an A7R II and A7 II and cannot see myself going back. I switched solely because of the IQ which is is like night and day. If I was doing action/sports I would have kept my 5D3 but since I'm 99% landscape/portrait/street guy the Sony wins hands down IMO. No problems with my 4 adapter L lenses.
Upvote
0
After shooting with Canon gear, starting with film and transitioning into digital, I'd never switch at this point. But what continues to contribute to that choice, when I send my Canon gear in for warranty, service, or repair, it comes back within a week. That matters.
Upvote
0
There are many people who want Canon. Canon is the market leader if we look at the dollars and the yens.
Sony A6000 is an excellent piece of engineering with a picture quality that is difficult to match, an unbeliavably smart autofocus, a 10 shots capability and all the possible whistles and bells you ever can hope for.
Just do not buy it as your first camera. You will be lost in the menus and the operating instructions that are overcomplicated even to the experts on YouTube. Have a look, everybody is complaining about the Sony User Interface.
I have the A6000 but I really do not like it. It will be interesting to see if Sony is going to blow up its n
1 position as a sensor supplier in the market as they have blown their positions so many times before.
BTW do you know where Sony gets its money?
Insurances and entertainment. Still cameras are peanuts in their business figures.
Sony A6000 is an excellent piece of engineering with a picture quality that is difficult to match, an unbeliavably smart autofocus, a 10 shots capability and all the possible whistles and bells you ever can hope for.
Just do not buy it as your first camera. You will be lost in the menus and the operating instructions that are overcomplicated even to the experts on YouTube. Have a look, everybody is complaining about the Sony User Interface.
I have the A6000 but I really do not like it. It will be interesting to see if Sony is going to blow up its n
1 position as a sensor supplier in the market as they have blown their positions so many times before.BTW do you know where Sony gets its money?
Insurances and entertainment. Still cameras are peanuts in their business figures.
Upvote
0
So a person with no experience and we can assume little knowledge "prefers" to buy Canon/Nikon.
That's not exactly a glowing endorsement.
I can see the advertisement:
Four out of Five people who know little about photography prefer Canon/Nikon over other brands"
Hmmm ???
In the end pretty much any camera he choose will be good.
That's not exactly a glowing endorsement.
I can see the advertisement:
Four out of Five people who know little about photography prefer Canon/Nikon over other brands"
Hmmm ???
In the end pretty much any camera he choose will be good.
Upvote
0
MickDK said:
Funny as I am going opposite direction right now
I never skipped a single Sony FF body since the A99 and after getting the 5dsr I noticed that my A7r2 is now mostly collecting dust on the shelf... I take it for occasional personal shots, but thinking putting on eBay pretty soon. I was so impressed how the entire Canon eco-system works, and I also doubt I'm coming back to Sony, maybe in 10+ years if they reach the same heights as Canon now and offer lenses like the 200 f/2 or 300 f/2.8 at a reasonable price (check out price of the Sony 500 f/4 or Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G2, I guess the E-mount versions will be even more expensive ) While the Metabones MK4 is a great adapter, the AF is nowhere close to a native Canon body, especially in low light. A week ago I've tried the 85 f/1.2 on the A7r2 and it was an epic fail. It works great with the 55 f/1.8 or other native E-mount lenses, but for the Canon glass there is nothing better than a Canon body. If you miss a shot it doesn't matter how many out of focus DR stops it has
Upvote
0
My advice to everyone is to go to a brick-and-mortar store (if at all possible) to try out and buy your camera body. Ergonomics can make or break the camera experience. If you like looking through the viewfinder (or are a look-at-the-back-of-the-camera type) and like handling the camera, you will use it more often. I would say that a 70D, the 24mm STM lens, and a kit STM lens is a good starter kit for any beginner photographer who likes a DSLR-type camera and may want to do video (that includes most parents). Nikon cameras - I am sure that there's a nice starter camera there, same for Pentax, Olympus. If they wanted a mirrorless or a bridge camera, there are lots more choices, Sony among them. I will say that for a beginner who may not understand much about photography, ergonomics and ease of use matter more than ultimate image quality. A bridge camera that allows one to make aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual settings might be the best for some people. After all, if IQ were all that mattered, we'd be forcing rank beginners to learn the mysteries of the view camera.
Upvote
0
I think Canon stands on the quality of their lenses and, for DSLR, the quality and consistency of their bodies. There are still those who vastly prefer an optical viewfinder. The pros still seem to want DSLR for sports, but studio is opening up more and more to mirrorless. And look at how quickly the AF in mirrorless is catching up with DSLR. And then the latest hybrid AF of Canon seems to be catching up with mirrorless. It has to be said, Sony are the innovators. Trying new things, taking risks, and proving a lot along the way. Canon still has its quality and reliability and the remaining advantages of DSLR. And again, lenses.
Also consider that Sony lenses are very limiting if you consider anything outside of the kits. You pay, for example, around $1000 for way too many Sony lenses in the mid-range, like the 35/2.8 or the 10-18/f4. The Sony 70-200/f4 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Canon 70-200/f4 which still reigns as one of the best lenses anywhere. What was the mirrorless advantage again? An a7 with that huge 70-200 is still heavier and more bulky than my 6D with 70-200. Just one example.
I am about to buy an SL1 I think, with the 10-18mm which I'll get for $250, not $800 like the Sony or Olympus equivalents, or $1,300 for the only ultra wide option from Panasonic (in apsc or 4/3). What was the mirrorless advantage again?
Canon has come out with four really good lenses for the M. Obviously they need to expand that. And obviously they need an M model with built in viewfinder to compete with a6000 and a7XXX in the future. But they still have an opportunity to really do something with M based on their DSLR brand. But they aren't innovating like Sony and risk losing.
Also consider that Sony lenses are very limiting if you consider anything outside of the kits. You pay, for example, around $1000 for way too many Sony lenses in the mid-range, like the 35/2.8 or the 10-18/f4. The Sony 70-200/f4 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Canon 70-200/f4 which still reigns as one of the best lenses anywhere. What was the mirrorless advantage again? An a7 with that huge 70-200 is still heavier and more bulky than my 6D with 70-200. Just one example.
I am about to buy an SL1 I think, with the 10-18mm which I'll get for $250, not $800 like the Sony or Olympus equivalents, or $1,300 for the only ultra wide option from Panasonic (in apsc or 4/3). What was the mirrorless advantage again?
Canon has come out with four really good lenses for the M. Obviously they need to expand that. And obviously they need an M model with built in viewfinder to compete with a6000 and a7XXX in the future. But they still have an opportunity to really do something with M based on their DSLR brand. But they aren't innovating like Sony and risk losing.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
sunnyVan said:
The 70D is an excellent recommendation. The EF-S 24 f2.8 I'm not sure about, although it is cheap and if your co-worker is on a tight budget it's not a bad choice. But, for a beginner I think a zoom is a much more versatile choice and the kit 18-135 STM is really quite a good lens for the money.
Personally, I would never recommend Sony to someone I have to see regularly (such as a friend or co-worker). It's like the old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Canon and Nikon have been excellent brands for decades. They will be around long after Sony abandons the camera market and their product line has enough depth to cover everyone from the absolute beginner to the most sophisticated professional. They produce excellent cameras and they will continue to do so (I have nothing against Sony, but I am not willing to risk my money or friendships on a company that I am not convinced is fully committed to the market)
Upvote
0
My involvement in cameras, printers and other peripherals is more on the buying used and reselling end of things.
The Canon brand for me means (the most) consistent resale values. That is worth more than just something...
The Canon brand for me means (the most) consistent resale values. That is worth more than just something...
Upvote
0
