Nikon v Sony

I agree with his point that a pro body should have all of the features of a consumer body plus. The arguments against consumer features on higher end bodies have always struck me as being nothing short of stupid.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Is that how you pronounce Nikon? Neyecon?
Click to expand...


No.. that's how Americans pronounce it. The correct (Japanese) pronunciation is "knee-kon".. which when spoken quickly is pretty much "ni-kon".

What's all this about not being able to choose Kelvin on £1500 bodies? I could do that on my D80, and my D7000.

A camera is a camera.. it's the photographer that matters.


...but electronic viewfinders suck... sorry, they just do.
 
Pookeyhead said:
...but electronic viewfinders suck... sorry, they just do.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of opinion.

I can't see myself ever going back to an OVF DSLR setup and even less a RF. The advantages of a good EVF are clear to me and I'd be disappointed to lose them, that would both suck and blow and neither in a good way.
 
Yes an interesting point of view from a Pro but he has not once mentioned the lenses he used with his A6000 and A7R. Don't think he is using the 'kit lens' lol.
 
Alphahoho said:
Yes an interesting point of view from a Pro but he has not once mentioned the lenses he used with his A6000 and A7R. Don't think he is using the 'kit lens' lol.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

I have the 28-70mm Sony FE kit lens and I think it's actually quite good, certainly better than the Canon EF-S 17-85mm I once owned or the Nikon "kit lens" I had in my 35mm film days. The new FE primes seem to be very good but I'm using old manual primes on my A7.
 
The first thing I looked at after watching the enjoyable video was the price, range, size and weight of available Sony lens, especially at the long end for nature, the IS, (VR), seems to be camera based, the longer, 500mm etc., lens are as expensive as Nikon/Canon, but the 70 400mm looks good value
 
I owned a Sony A700 DSLR many years ago and must say it was terrific. At the time was lusting over the Zeiss lenses but could never afford any. Used a Sigma 17-70mm and enjoyed the results. Later on waited and waited for Sony to upgrade this model but never it never came so bought a Nikon D7000 after reading all the rave reviews. So disappointed with it never liked the experience compared to the Sony. I don't know it just felt so 'old fashion' so traditional?
 
Alphahoho said:
I owned a Sony A700 DSLR many years ago and must say it was terrific. At the time was lusting over the Zeiss lenses but could never afford any. Used a Sigma 17-70mm and enjoyed the results. Later on waited and waited for Sony to upgrade this model but never it never came so bought a Nikon D7000 after reading all the rave reviews. So disappointed with it never liked the experience compared to the Sony. I don't know it just felt so 'old fashion' so traditional?
Click to expand...

Still using my A700s, still happy with them.
 
I've been very tempted by the a7 range but i want small primes and Sony never give them to us! If Sigma release something like there dn range for the fe mount i would be tempted.

voigtlander hurry up and releasing this 40mm f2
D3S_5683-600.jpg
 
Alphahoho said:
I owned a Sony A700 DSLR many years ago and must say it was terrific. At the time was lusting over the Zeiss lenses but could never afford any. Used a Sigma 17-70mm and enjoyed the results. Later on waited and waited for Sony to upgrade this model but never it never came so bought a Nikon D7000 after reading all the rave reviews. So disappointed with it never liked the experience compared to the Sony. I don't know it just felt so 'old fashion' so traditional?
Click to expand...

The A700 was replaced by the A77, and now the A77mk2, Sony's current top end APSC A-mount camera. The corresponding full frame is the A99, rumoured soon to be updated to the A99mk2.

The Sony cameras so enthused over in the video are the mirrorless E-mount cameras. The A77 & A99 are SLTs which have a stationary partly reflective mirror. That lets them keep some of the advantages of the DSLR (fast focus, fast focus tracking, etc.) plus mirrorless features such as EVF with camera jpeg preview, focus peaking, etc.. They look like DSLRs and are bigger and heavier than the small E-mount mirrorless cameras in the video.

All these technological innovations are called disruptive technology changes because they throw the traditional marketing strategies up in the air. The same kind of thing happened in the computer industry when silicon chips were invented, and in the camera industry when silicon sensors were invented. Once the dust has settled it's often the case that at least one of the old industry leaders has died or severely dwindled, and at least one of the new market leaders is an unexpected newcomer.

Remember IBM? Remember Kodak? Which of Canon & Nikon is the safer bet to survive?
 
rjbell said:
I've been very tempted by the a7 range but i want small primes and Sony never give them to us! If Sigma release something like there dn range for the fe mount i would be tempted.
Click to expand...

Are the new manual Loxia lenses small enough for you?

I don't think that the Sony AF FE primes look excessively massive though.
 
chris malcolm said:
The A700 was replaced by the A77, and now the A77mk2, Sony's current top end APSC A-mount camera. The corresponding full frame is the A99, rumoured soon to be updated to the A99mk2.

The Sony cameras so enthused over in the video are the mirrorless E-mount cameras. The A77 & A99 are SLTs which have a stationary partly reflective mirror. That lets them keep some of the advantages of the DSLR (fast focus, fast focus tracking, etc.) plus mirrorless features such as EVF with camera jpeg preview, focus peaking, etc.. They look like DSLRs and are bigger and heavier than the small E-mount mirrorless cameras in the video.

All these technological innovations are called disruptive technology changes because they throw the traditional marketing strategies up in the air. The same kind of thing happened in the computer industry when silicon chips were invented, and in the camera industry when silicon sensors were invented. Once the dust has settled it's often the case that at least one of the old industry leaders has died or severely dwindled, and at least one of the new market leaders is an unexpected newcomer.

Remember IBM? Remember Kodak? Which of Canon & Nikon is the safer bet to survive?
Click to expand...
The other thing with the A77 Mkii is when on burst tracking you maintain phase detection as the sensor sees all the time.

I really like mine i had the Canon 40D 7D 5Dmkii and 5D mkiii i admit when i bought in i did sony so i never got addicted to the L lens again but the EVF zebra and focus peaking are ideal and if you are a bit older so is the rear swivel LCD

Not saying it suits everyone bit i really find mine simple to use but accessories can be tricky to locate
 
sk66 said:
The A7 line is nice, but the lenses just aren't there for what I do.
Click to expand...

What do you do and what do you need?

I almost always use a prime lens and at the mo it'll be an old manual prime but I may well look at AF primes when they are available and they seem to be coming along nicely. The zooms seem to be coming along too and as with the primes they seem to be mostly aimed at the higher end of the market.

IMVHO it's shaping into a nice and very high quality system.
 
I've got the Nikon 400 f/2.8 VR and the 200 f/2 VR, can you get a Sony equivalent of them?
 
sk66 said:
Long lens wildlife/sports/action... They don't have anything in the FE mount that's particularly suited.
Click to expand...

The FE mount is not particularly suited to wildlife/sports/action because the cameras don't have the AF speed and tracking ability that kind of photography usually wants. Whereas the SLTs do. Perhaps not surprisingly, they do have the lenses too. Which incidentally you can mount via an adaptor on the FE mount cameras.
 
sk66 said:
Long lens wildlife/sports/action... They don't have anything in the FE mount that's particularly suited.
Click to expand...

Maybe not in native FE mount now... but they will take just about any lens via a suitable adapter, Canon EF for instance.

chris malcolm said:
The FE mount is not particularly suited to wildlife/sports/action because the cameras don't have the AF speed and tracking ability that kind of photography usually wants. Whereas the SLTs do. Perhaps not surprisingly, they do have the lenses too. Which incidentally you can mount via an adaptor on the FE mount cameras.
Click to expand...

A bit of a sweeping generalisation IMVHO. Not having a pop but not all wildlife/sports/action is at Sony A7 defeating speeds. If you're talking birds or golf balls in flight then probably/maybe I honestly don't know as that's not my thing at all but I'm sure that an A7 family camera could well be more than capable for many wildlife and even sports or action applications. Horses for courses etc :D
 
Last edited:
There isn't a camera on the market that is everything to everyone. I was a committed Sony user for years, having lots of Sony and Minolta glass. When I got the A77 there was a mix of delight at its features, and frustration with the EVF. The delay when bringing the camera to the eye before the EVF turned on began to lose me in-flight shots, and shooting against sunlight for someone wearing glasses was difficult to almost impossible. Finally I was out shooting herons taking off from a nesting site and I was missing more shots than I was getting. This was something that my older A700 with OVF had little trouble managing. Very reluctantly, I part exchanged my A77 and all that lovely Sony and Minolta glass for Nikon D7100, 300mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR, 18-105mm VR, 105mm VR macro and two teleconverters.
My findings, which are in no particular order and entirely subjective:
The D7100 sensor is better than that in the A77 with much less noise. It's fair to say that the sensor in a friend's new A77-II catches up somewhat but IMO the lack of AA filter in the D7100 still gives it the edge.
Raw images from the Nikon are a delight to work with - you can sharpen them in ACR like the clappers and bring out incredible levels of detail that still looks sharp at 100%.
The 18-105mm is far better than one should hope for a kit lens. For the small amount of landscape photography that I do, I have no desire for any other wide-angle glass.
The Nikon version 3 TCs are better than those by Sony. They're later designs and it shows, particularly the 2x.
The 300mm F2.8 is a revelation. It trounces the older Minolta high-speed equivalent, especially wide open. Whether it's better than the Sony 300mm is open to conjecture but I wouldn't mind put money on it being so. It works well with the Nikon 2x TC version 3 whereas the Sony 300mm is reputed to be not so good with the Sony 2x TC. However, this could be due to limitations with the Sony's older 2x TC design.
The new Nikon 80-400mm is pretty good but the new 70-400mm G-II is a superb lens wide open and probably still has the edge over the Nikon.
The 105mm VR Micro's AF is much faster than the Sony which still uses screw drive. I was able to catch a dragonfly in flight with the Nikon, which would have been difficult with the Sony. Both are very sharp lenses though.
The rear screen is fixed on the Nikon. The flip up screen on the Sony was great.
I miss focus peaking and WYSIWYG from the EVF but I prefer by far the immediacy of OVF
I miss my old Minolta 200mm F2.8 and 400mm F4.5. They were superb lenses.
The Sony 500mm AF Reflex was handy to have in the bag as it wasn't too heavy, was surprisingly sharp and had a lot of reach in good light. There's nothing like that for Nikon, or any other manufacturer for that matter.

I've since added the 70-200mm F4 VR, which with 1.4x and 2x TCs, and an extension tube, is a nice light combo for wildlife that can be carried all day.

As you can see, it's not all one way, there are things I miss from the Sony kit, but its drawbacks were bigger for me than might be for someone else. They're still both excellent photographic tools.
 
Last edited:
Well. He makes a strong and convincing argument.
Regarding features/cost, features are cheap. Once they've been designed the manufacturers just program them in (I know I'm hugely over simplifying things here :)). That's why so many cameras have a video feature when so many photographers say they don't want it!
Build quality is what costs, because someone has to physically do something, and, you know, make something...out of stuff. That costs a lot of money.
 
eccles said:
There isn't a camera on the market that is everything to everyone. I was a committed Sony user for years, having lots of Sony and Minolta glass. When I got the A77 there was a mix of delight at its features, and frustration with the EVF. The delay when bringing the camera to the eye before the EVF turned on began to lose me in-flight shots, and shooting against sunlight for someone wearing glasses was difficult to almost impossible. Finally I was out shooting herons taking off from a nesting site and I was missing more shots than I was getting. This was something that my older A700 with OVF had little trouble managing. Very reluctantly, I part exchanged my A77 and all that lovely Sony and Minolta glass for Nikon D7100, 300mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR, 18-105mm VR, 105mm VR macro and two teleconverters.
My findings, which are in no particular order and entirely subjective:
The D7100 sensor is better than that in the A77 with much less noise. It's fair to say that the sensor in a friend's new A77-II catches up somewhat but IMO the lack of AA filter in the D7100 still gives it the edge.
Raw images from the Nikon are a delight to work with - you can sharpen them in ACR like the clappers and bring out incredible levels of detail that still looks sharp at 100%.
The 18-105mm is far better than one should hope for a kit lens. For the small amount of landscape photography that I do, I have no desire for any other wide-angle glass.
The Nikon version 3 TCs are better than those by Sony. They're later designs and it shows, particularly the 2x.
The 300mm F2.8 is a revelation. It trounces the older Minolta high-speed equivalent, especially wide open. Whether it's better than the Sony 300mm is open to conjecture but I wouldn't mind put money on it being so. It works well with the Nikon 2x TC version 3 whereas the Sony 300mm is reputed to be not so good with the Sony 2x TC. However, this could be due to limitations with the Sony's older 2x TC design.
The new Nikon 80-400mm is pretty good but the new 70-400mm G-II is a superb lens wide open and probably still has the edge over the Nikon.
The 105mm VR Micro's AF is much faster than the Sony which still uses screw drive. I was able to catch a dragonfly in flight with the Nikon, which would have been difficult with the Sony. Both are very sharp lenses though.
The rear screen is fixed on the Nikon. The flip up screen on the Sony was great.
I miss focus peaking and WYSIWYG from the EVF but I prefer by far the immediacy of OVF
I miss my old Minolta 200mm F2.8 and 400mm F4.5. They were superb lenses.
The Sony 500mm AF Reflex was handy to have in the bag as it wasn't too heavy, was surprisingly sharp and had a lot of reach in good light. There's nothing like that for Nikon, or any other manufacturer for that matter.

I've since added the 70-200mm F4 VR, which with 1.4x and 2x TCs, and an extension tube, is a nice light combo for wildlife that can be carried all day.

As you can see, it's not all one way, there are things I miss from the Sony kit, but its drawbacks were bigger for me than might be for someone else. They're still both excellent photographic tools.
Click to expand...

annoyingly the evf issues are fixable with a decent eyecup, and you can switch the eye sensor to manual, atleast on a55 and a77, but yeah for sports the ovf and wider lens selection makes a nikon or canon a better choice, for more general stuff the evf has really good advantages
 
chris malcolm said:
The FE mount is not particularly suited to wildlife/sports/action because the cameras don't have the AF speed and tracking ability that kind of photography usually wants. Whereas the SLTs do. Perhaps not surprisingly, they do have the lenses too. Which incidentally you can mount via an adaptor on the FE mount cameras.
Click to expand...
Then you're down to the A99/A77 which have few of the benefits of the A7 line. They don't have many options in the long lenses and what they do have is either slower or more expensive (usually both) than the C/N versions. And good luck finding a steal on a used Sony 500 f/4.

I'm surprised Sony's not pushing the on-sensor PDAF technology harder. If one of the manufacturers can develop that to a high level it will be a pretty significant break-thru.
 
tbh i think sony have stumbled across gold with the a7 and nex line, more so the fe stuff as alot of people are jumping on that as it fits their needs well (while a normal dslr form factor doesnt), and for the pro's it does make more sense than swapping to another similer system
 
woof woof said:
Are the new manual Loxia lenses small enough for you?

I don't think that the Sony AF FE primes look excessively massive though.
Click to expand...
Wow that loxia makes things even more tempting! So is the 7r worth the extra?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top