Moving away from Pentax... Canon, Nikon or Sony?

[Demon]

I could have said I'm so over the moon with the Sony A77/16-50 f/2.7 SSM package (under £1200 and superb for portraits/landscape), but with the usual Sony FUD above, I'll just go with my second choice,

The D7000.. as people say, it's just so cheap at the moment.. and it's a superb conventional DSLR.. I think the D7100 or whatever it will be will be quite a bit more, so less money for a reasonably bit of glass (going by D5200 prices!)

I admit, Sony isn't for everyone.. but it's hardly lacking in glass for 99% of the population.. In-body IS, Focus peaking, and on their latest SLT model, focus limiter , that all work on EVERY lens is notable. They also have Zeiss glass with AF, and some notable stand out lenses.. you can even go cheap and get a raft of decent performing minolta glass that even though it's 10+ years old still has Stabilisation by default.. Hell, the SLT feature set even has a tilt shift mode that shows you real time the effect and applies to all lenses..

However, I can't deny they need more top end pro-support, they've said they want to expand their pro-video services (excellent) to their DSLR range.. but I am not holding my breath (nor do I need them)..

 

[apeksdiver]

What are you getting rid of? If you don't like Canon then Nikon is your choice if you want a good range of lenses.

 

[Amp34]

Yep serious.
If budget won't stretch.. D700
If more finance is affordable/practical.. D800 or D800E

Basically it works out cheaper to buy the best you can afford, rather than getting a D7000, then D600, then D800 etc.

I would completely skip the D7000 and get a FF camera to begin with.

Except its not, FF will be great for landscapes but you lose the 1.5 crop factor and have to put up with a much bigger design which won't benefit landscape and wildlife. You also have lens edge issues on many lenses that the "sweet spot" of crop bodies don't. Obviously there are negatives for crop as well, for example more noise and more distortion at super wide focal lengths... Crop and FF both have their negatives and positives, when i started i was set on going FF but realised a little while after that there were just too many compromises that i couldn't justify it. It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be.

 

[2StepSteve]

As a Canon user for the last 6 years; just the other week I had the chance to start all over again with Nikon. It was tempting, however I chose to stay with Canon and bought the 5Diii. Purely due to the fact I feel at home with Canon and I prefer their selection of lenses, as Amp mentioned, the price of their midrange telephoto lens are more attractive.

I'm so happy with the 5Diii and feel that I've made the right choice. Everything feels good with it, the feel, the IQ and the phenomenal AF which can focus
accurately in crazy low light.

This is with full frame in mind though. There is no doubt that Nikon offer far better crop bodies than Canon for the money, if I was buying a crop sensor body I'd look long and hard at what Nikon have to offer.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Sony users always bring up the in body IS feature. My rebuttal is that an IS built into the lens is always better one built in the camera. It is designed purposely for that lens. Given the choice I rather have all these lenses to choose from than IS in my body. If push comes to shove, I will just get the Monopod out.

They will also mention Sigma and Tamron also plugs a lot of gaps in the lens line up, and the old Minolta glass. The truth is that what Sigma and Tamron brings out for Sony, they also bring out for Canon and Nikon, it is not like they bring out 1 lens exclusive to the Sony mount so that argument doesn't hold much water. The old Minolta glass, well, it is old. It might be good, but technology move on, new coatings invented all the time, better AF motors and better sealing.

Yes, Sony do bring out new lenses to plug those gaps but I don't think they do it fast enough. There are 2 photographic conferences every year, March and October, Canon seems to bring out a product or two in those conferneces every year. There was the 8-15 fisheye last year, then the 24-70ii, this year there was the 35/2.0, 40mm STM and there was another one which I forgot. And on top of that there was the 600EX-RT, this is on top of the 650D, 5Diii, 1Dx and 6D in the past 12 months. Sony are only not plugging them fast enough, they actually fall further behind by the year. That gap is getting wider all the time.

That said, at the end of the day is that between Canon and Nikon at least, the difference is marginal. The end result, the photo from both will be good, bad or damn right ugly. The weakest link is the user. Give someone who know what they are doing with either or even a Sony, hell, or a phone, they will get the images regardless with either system.

However, ask said person if Sony can provide the same kind of complete package as a whole as the other 2 main players, I doubt the ansewer will be yes.

 

[londonbairn]

^ best advice

Play with both Canon and Nikon and see what you prefer in terms of ergonomics and how to use.

 

[An Exception]

Sony users always bring up the in body IS feature. My rebuttal is that an IS built into the lens is always better one built in the camera. It is designed purposely for that lens. Given the choice I rather have all these lenses to choose from than IS in my body. If push comes to shove, I will just get the Monopod out.

I would actually much rather Sony's implementation. Would love stabilised F1.4 primes as they unfortunately don't seem to be possible/practical to manufacture.
Apparently Canon decided against adding IS to the new 24-70 due to the size/weight implications. Sure Tamron did it, but the glass is not the same quality.

I haven't looked into it much, but I was under the impression Sony's stabilisation was pretty much just as good?

Even if it isn't, I would only want 2-3 stops of stabilisation anyway, just enough to prevent the blur from shake. Any more stops of stabilisation and the subject will be blurred from it's own movement.

Monopods etc. are less than ideal due to bulk and less compositional freedom/flexibility.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I would actually much rather Sony's implementation. Would love stabilised F1.4 primes as they unfortunately don't seem to be possible/practical to manufacture.
Apparently Canon decided against adding IS to the new 24-70 due to the size/weight implications. Sure Tamron did it, but the glass is not the same quality.

I haven't looked into it much, but I was under the impression Sony's stabilisation was pretty much just as good?

Even if it isn't, I would only want 2-3 stops of stabilisation anyway, just enough to prevent the blur from shake. Any more stops of stabilisation and the subject will be blurred from it's own movement.

Monopods etc. are less than ideal due to bulk and less compositional freedom/flexibility.

Then the aguement is Canon can bring out 1 body with IS built in to fix this "problem". They just need to add the technology into it.

Sony will need to bring out about 10 lenses every year for the next 10 years to close the gap. Seeing Canon and Nikon won't stop making lenses on their end.

 

[An Exception]

Except its not, FF will be great for landscapes but you lose the 1.5 crop factor and have to put up with a much bigger design which won't benefit landscape and wildlife.

Do you mean sports and wildlife?
Yes that's true, you do often lose pixel density by moving to FF camera's like the D700/5D's. However FF camera's such as the D800E will give you more cropped resolution/resolving power than either a 7d or D7000.
The 24mp crop cams like the Nex etc. will still reign supreme in this area of what is effectively 'digital zoom'. However due to cropping the image circle of a lens, you are increasingly limited by the resolution of said lens.

The design of FF isn't that much bigger compared to D300/7D class bodies. FF sensor could easily be used in D5100/600D class body, but there is not much demand from many Pro's or Enthusiasts for such a camera. One genuine trade off is the size of lenses. However this advantage is reduced considering most people lug around FF lenses to use on their crop anyway. Also FF users can negate this size/weight disadvantage simply by opting for a slower lens and still not being any worse off overall in terms of dof and lowlight performance.

You also have lens edge issues on many lenses that the "sweet spot" of crop bodies don't.

In most cases in terms of resolution and other lens flaws, the corner performance on a crop will only perform approximately as good as FF in the corners. Usually FF still actually performs slightly better in the corners than on a crop. However lenses like the Canon nifty fifty are exceptions to this due to being much better in the centre relative to the corners.
On FF, the center will have approximately 50% higher resolution (sharpness), and lens flaws like CA will appear 50% less pronounced.

Obviously there are negatives for crop as well, for example more noise and more distortion at super wide focal lengths... Crop and FF both have their negatives and positives, when i started i was set on going FF but realised a little while after that there were just too many compromises that i couldn't justify it. It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be.

It's hard to make the most beneficial choices if you are not correctly informed.

 

[An Exception]

Then the aguement is Canon can bring out 1 body with IS built in to fix this "problem". They just need to add the technology into it.

Sony will need to bring out about 10 lenses every year for the next 10 years to close the gap. Seeing Canon and Nikon won't stop making lenses on their end.

I'v wondered why neither Canon or Nikon have done this. I assumed they were locked out by patents.

In any case, neither scenario is likely to happen soon.

 

[McGraw]

Unless you absolutely need all your pixels for big prints then you can just crop your FF shots to APS-C equivalent and even then, perfect resize can make fantastic enlargements of smaller MP files.

I am on a cropped sensor at the moment and because I mostly enjoy landscape and architecture photography I would love to go full frame.

The big drawback for me with FF is the price of glass...It would take me a lot longer to get the lenses I want.

Reluctantly sticking with APS-C due to the budgetary issues at the moment.

Get a second hand 5D Mark II with the 24-105mm if you can as a start if wildlife isn't your overriding concern (then you're pretty much looking at a 7d)

ps as you can probably tell I only know Canon.

 

[Columbo]

Sony users always bring up the in body IS feature. My rebuttal is that an IS built into the lens is always better one built in the camera. It is designed purposely for that lens. Given the choice I rather have all these lenses to choose from than IS in my body. If push comes to shove, I will just get the Monopod out.

They will also mention Sigma and Tamron also plugs a lot of gaps in the lens line up, and the old Minolta glass. The truth is that what Sigma and Tamron brings out for Sony, they also bring out for Canon and Nikon, it is not like they bring out 1 lens exclusive to the Sony mount so that argument doesn't hold much water. The old Minolta glass, well, it is old. It might be good, but technology move on, new coatings invented all the time, better AF motors and better sealing.

Yes, Sony do bring out new lenses to plug those gaps but I don't think they do it fast enough. There are 2 photographic conferences every year, March and October, Canon seems to bring out a product or two in those conferneces every year. There was the 8-15 fisheye last year, then the 24-70ii, this year there was the 35/2.0, 40mm STM and there was another one which I forgot. And on top of that there was the 600EX-RT, this is on top of the 650D, 5Diii, 1Dx and 6D in the past 12 months. Sony are only not plugging them fast enough, they actually fall further behind by the year. That gap is getting wider all the time.

That said, at the end of the day is that between Canon and Nikon at least, the difference is marginal. The end result, the photo from both will be good, bad or damn right ugly. The weakest link is the user. Give someone who know what they are doing with either or even a Sony, hell, or a phone, they will get the images regardless with either system.

However, ask said person if Sony can provide the same kind of complete package as a whole as the other 2 main players, I doubt the ansewer will be yes.

The answer is yes for your average Jo, non pro consumer.

I'm really not sure what 'gaps' you are talking about Ray, all I see Canon doing is re-hashing and renewing already existing tech and sticking a 40% premium price tag on it.

The 650D is nothing but a 600D with slightly better AF which in turn was a 550D with a vari LCD which in turn was a cut down 7D etc etc. The 6D is an utterly pointless exercise, over priced and over hyped. The 24-70ii is an utter rip-off for an already existing and excellent 24-70.

Also I thought the point of the STM lenses was to provide silent AF for video which they didn't and so missed the point utterly.

The 5DIII and 1DX were obviously superb releases however and deserved all the commendations they received.

You are a Pro so you see things from a Pro's perspective. However 95%+ of people buying SLR's will never ever want to be or be good enough to be a pro and that's where Sony matches both Canon & Nikon and with some tangible advantages over Canikon for your average consumer.

I'm not a pro, will never be and don't want to be. Usable Live View with full phase detect, Vari-Angle LCD, Full Phase Detect in Video and in-body IS are features that made me choose my A77 over everything else. Even an OVF feels ancient to me now after using the EVF for some time.

I currently own for my A77:
Tamron 10-20mm f3.5-4.5
Sony 16-50mm f2.8 SSM
Sony 30mm f2.8 Macro
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sony 85mm f2.8
Minolta 70-210mm F4
Tamron 70-300mm USD f4-5.6
Sony HVL-F43AM Flashgun
Metz 48-AF1 Flashgun

Where is the gap for your average consumer there?

I also didn't have to go digging in the mountains of Peru or visit the moon to find any of this gear, I simply went to a shop and bought it which some Canon users may find astonishing.

However in this case for the OP, as I said before the D7000 is the no brainer and will suit him perfectly.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The answer is yes for your average Jo, non pro consumer.

I'm really not sure what 'gaps' you are talking about Ray, all I see Canon doing is re-hashing and renewing already existing tech and sticking a 40% premium price tag on it.

The 650D is nothing but a 600D with slightly better AF which in turn was a 550D with a vari LCD which in turn was a cut down 7D etc etc. The 6D is an utterly pointless exercise, over priced and over hyped. The 24-70ii is an utter rip-off for an already existing and excellent 24-70.

Also I thought the point of the STM lenses was to provide silent AF for video which they didn't and so missed the point utterly.

The 5DIII and 1DX were obviously superb releases however and deserved all the commendations they received.

You are a Pro so you see things from a Pro's perspective. However 95%+ of people buying SLR's will never ever want to be or be good enough to be a pro and that's where Sony matches both Canon & Nikon and with some tangible advantages over Canikon for your average consumer.

I'm not a pro, will never be and don't want to be. Usable Live View with full phase detect, Vari-Angle LCD, Full Phase Detect in Video and in-body IS are features that made me choose my A77 over everything else. Even an OVF feels ancient to me now after using the EVF for some time.

I currently own for my A77:
Tamron 10-20mm f3.5-4.5
Sony 16-50mm f2.8 SSM
Sony 30mm f2.8 Macro
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sony 85mm f2.8
Minolta 70-210mm F4
Tamron 70-300mm USD f4-5.6
Sony HVL-F43AM Flashgun
Metz 48-AF1 Flashgun

Where is the gap for your average consumer there?

I also didn't have to go digging in the mountains of Peru or visit the moon to find any of this gear, I simply went to a shop and bought it which some Canon users may find astonishing.

However in this case for the OP, as I said before the D7000 is the no brainer and will suit him perfectly.

As I said 2 days ago....

Body comes and goes, lenses are where the money is at.

Sony (or Minolta) always have made great bodies, for the past 20 years. The Dynax series was great, what let them down, and still do are the lenses and accessories, and still the case to an extent. i.e. the New Sony A99, it has something like 100 AF points, Sony makes a good number of lenses but do you know how many that actually can use all those AF points?

2. Two. The rest of the lenses will let you use only a fraction of that.

As an amateur, they are all excellent, it is just the ceiling for Canon and Nikon are much higher. They both make lenses that Sony doesn't and probably won't for decades. I can't see for example Sony ever making a 17mm/TS-E lens.

Plus when you come to sell your gear, the second hand market for Canon and Nikon are much larger. Try selling Sony gear you are limited to a much smaller pool of users.

What I am saying is that you should look further than the current generations of bodies. To say the D800 is great (which is it) or the 6D isn't as good as it should have been (which is also true) or the 5Dii could've been better (true) are all valid. But time flies and we have a 5Diii which is a great body.

Look further, think ahead. Look at the system as a whole and see which one suits you best. To look at 1 body alone and is very shortsighted.

Sony users will no doubt trying to rebut my arguments but there is a reason why all the pros uses Canon or Nikon. Buying a camera is more than just buying the camera (body), it is much more than that. Canon CPS for one thing can be invaluable. In the US, the CPS can lent you gear to try out or even in case of emergency if you have your gear stolen. The CPS turn around time is also very fast, 3 days for me, which means I can get gear repair between weddings.

Yes, I am looking at it from a more professional perspective. But you know what, when I bought my first SLR, film camera, back in 2001, I didn't know I would be getting paid to take pictures. If you had said to me back then, in 10 years' time (or even 3 years ago) that I would be asked to shoot a wedding at St. Paul's Catherdral, I would think you are crazy.

I didn't get into this hobby to go pro, nor planned to. I bought a camera for fun, it is a passion, it just happens that people appreciate my work enough to ask me to take photographs for them. That I am grateful. The point here is that who know what the future holds, why put that ceiling on yourself? Why not remove that ceiling before taking the first step in the first place?

p.s. it is not rehashing old tech. It is making existing lenses sharper (24-70ii), sharper wide open (24ii), less CA (all of them), faster AF (85ii). Sure they put the price up but I rather have the choice than not. That is the point.

 

[An Exception]

If you had said to me back then, in 10 years' time (or even 3 years ago) that I would be asked to shoot a wedding at St. Paul's Catherdral, I would think you are crazy.

Is this like the photographers equivalent of name dropping?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Lol, it was just an example of what photography can do, that is my personal example. Other people who might like landscape might end up travelling to places they only dream of.

 

[An Exception]

Well congrats. You should put it on your blog, that way you may get a few more at that venue or others like it.
Personally though, my favourites are garden weddings, or even just a field and some hay bails.

 

[D.P.]

Except its not, FF will be great for landscapes but you lose the 1.5 crop factor and have to put up with a much bigger design which won't benefit landscape and wildlife. You also have lens edge issues on many lenses that the "sweet spot" of crop bodies don't. Obviously there are negatives for crop as well, for example more noise and more distortion at super wide focal lengths... Crop and FF both have their negatives and positives, when i started i was set on going FF but realised a little while after that there were just too many compromises that i couldn't justify it. It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be.

Agreed, it is surprising how many people immediately think FF resolves all their photography woes when for the most part the differences are not huge and there are as many drawbacks as there are advantages.

Even the whole image quality thing is not as large as one might think. A larger sensor captures more light but a better technology sensor can also capture more light with a higher quantum efficiency and can furthermore reduce noise in the processing pipeline.modern Nikon and Sony crop sensors outperform the canon FF 5dmkII in several keys, even the new generation Sony m43 sensors are offering similar image quality.....


The lower pixel density of many FF sensor is a massive penalty for anyone who needs reach and doesn't have 10 grand sitting around for a super telephoto. The d800 is the first FF camera that resolves this issue.


The main plus point is their creased ability for shallow DoF, which only costs if you use fast lenses anyway. Too many people will buy a 24-105mm f/4.0 to go on their new 5dmkiii and gain almost nothing from their crop sensor with 17-55mm f2.8! Bizarre. Now a 24mm f1.4 on full frame is just not replicable on a crop sensor.

 

[An Exception]

Agreed, it is surprising how many people immediately think FF resolves all their photography woes when for the most part the differences are not huge and there are as many drawbacks as there are advantages.

No there isn't. The only advantage crop sensors have is cost and potential weight savings. And the post your quoting is incorrect with regards to 'sweet spot' advantages etc. on balance FF still overall has an IQ advantage over crops even in the corners.

As for the other stuff.. it depends on the individual photographer as to whether the advantages are a big deal or not.
For example you prefer to shoot at smaller apertures as you like more depth of field. The lenses are sharper and show less faults at these apertures. Perhaps you use flash or tripods in lowlight.

If the above is correct.. I would ask why even get a D800 instead of a D7000?

For me on the other hand and how I shoot, FF is a must. I physically wouldn't have been able to shoot a wedding like I did at the weekend with a crop. There is just no way a crop could handle low light like 1/60 1.4 ISO 25600, I would have needed to use flash.. thus destroying the candlelight atmosphere.
Also part of my style, and why people choose me instead of saving money with a £500 photographer, is because they love the look of subject isolation you get with a shallow DOF. With a crop I would have a harder time achieving such a look, particularly with full length portraits.

Of course, if such shallow DOF's are less than desirable to you, and your not shooting in challenging lowlight environments.. then sure the differences would seem trivial.

 

[D.P.]

I agree that the biggest advantage is Depth of Focus control and I stated as much. I also said the larger sensor captures more light improving low light performance but that sensor technology can also improve low light light performance by improving efficiency, which is what we tend to see with the new Sony sensors compared to the older Canon designs.
And yes, th sweet spot agument is not fully correct but it is a fcat that most lenses tend to have softer edges so when you use such lenses on a FF camera and the image is displayed at 100%, as in you printed to the largest size possible at 300DPI you will notice softer edges than if you used the lens on a crop sensor and also printed to 100%, the difference is the crop camera will allow only a smaller reproduction. The FF sensor will always give equal or higher image quality with the same lens at equal reproduction sizes.


The bottom line is the main gain for FF cameras that is constant for all technologies is the DoF control, which we both agreed upon..

As for me, I want a D800 mainly for landscape and architecture, getting the most out of TS lenses, and using the 14-24mm as it was intended. For large amounts of my photography the D7K is just as capable and far cheaper!

 

[Richdog]

Well, I just went and bought a D7000 with 18-105mm for £725 with 3 year Nikon warranty on Body and Lens. Will pick it up tomorrow hopefully, can't bloody wait.