Wedding photographers using Sony

Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#42
That is not necessarily true. Higher canon sensors mean lower ISO ability ;)
But canon has gotten over this too to some extent. 90D is as good as 80D but with more resolution.
Sony A7RIII and A7III are about the same (there is a slight advantage to A7III but not much at all)
Sony A7RIV isn't as good as A7RIII at higher ISO but I say that is down to Sony re-using the old processor. I am willing to bet a penny or two the A7RV will have the same sensor with a newer processor to increase its dynamic range and ISO performance.

I think canon rushed out with the 5DSR to win the megapixel competition. That they did but with terrible performance for the most other parts.
I am hoping their next product out will be more refined and not as big a trade-off between resolution and dynamic range/ISO performance.
5dsr was full frame 7d2 sensor... Or close... Not the best one out there even back in the day basically....
They will likely do full frame 90d with tweaks this time. As you said these perform better. I've never seen this camera so have no real idea. It better be good and come with 2x SD slots
 
Messages
2,290
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
#43
The reason he asked was because he didn’t want to book someone who uses Canon equipment as a friend who is a “photographer” had advised him against booking someone who shoots Canon.
Dude that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. His friend must be a f*****g idiot lol
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#44
5dsr was full frame 7d2 sensor... Or close... Not the best one out there even back in the day basically....
They will likely do full frame 90d with tweaks this time. As you said these perform better. I've never seen this camera so have no real idea. It better be good and come with 2x SD slots
Its not simply linear scaling up to FF. More data mean more processing and add DPAF overhead on top. You will lose some dynamic range and ISO performance there.

I am tempted to say I personally don't care for dual card slots as I don't shoot professionally but having been burnt couple times by this I kinda like the feeling of being covered lol.

For me the major disadvantage of canon is lack of glass I can afford :-/
 
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#46
Its not simply linear scaling up to FF. More data mean more processing and add DPAF overhead on top. You will lose some dynamic range and ISO performance there.

I am tempted to say I personally don't care for dual card slots as I don't shoot professionally but having been burnt couple times by this I kinda like the feeling of being covered lol.

For me the major disadvantage of canon is lack of glass I can afford :-/
They will do f/4 L line once the "pros" have paid through the roof for expensive versions... That's maybe a couple of years down the line now that the major ones are out, and only big white teles are due...

For now you can use current EF zooms through adapter. That's what I'll do for the start with either Sony or this new Canon till I feel happy to invest further, or else change brands.
 
Messages
3,156
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#48
LMAO Anyone that suggests not booking someone based on the camera brand they shoot with is an IDIOT lol
Yip, we booked that wedding too, am sure the Canon hating guy will be there. :)
Maybe I will get some Canon gear for that one just for the giggles.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#49
They will do f/4 L line once the "pros" have paid through the roof for expensive versions... That's maybe a couple of years down the line now that the major ones are out, and only big white teles are due...

For now you can use current EF zooms through adapter. That's what I'll do for the start with either Sony or this new Canon till I feel happy to invest further, or else change brands.
Well I am looking for primes to start with. I have 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 that'd need replacing (former doesn't exist and replacing later will cost me 3 times more).

Not keen on adapters, having been there done that as an early mirrorless adopter. It was great fun but too fiddly and not going back to it (would be a step back for me now).

I am just hoping Canon will also release sub-£1.5K fast primes and not just twice as expensive f1.2 primes as I will never be able to afford those.
 
Messages
23,398
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#51
I often see that? Nope. Not very often. If you are a pro you stay up with the crowd kit wise. Otherwise what does your client think when you show up with your 'brownie' for a shoot? No. The vast majority of the pro's. keep up with the latest equipment. No matter whether it means to switch or stay with a single manufacturer. A pro's kit is his livelihood. It pays to have the best.
You really should be aware that just guessing about something you have no knowledge of risks making you look ridiculous.

Pro's will use the most appropriate tool for the job - and in establishing most appropriate, budget will be part of that decision.

I've spent the last 2 days with an eye on the photographers who are media accredited for the WRC - and whilst there's a couple of 200-400L lenses (which cost a mint) the vast majority of shots were on a 70-200 2.8, but surprisingly 2nd most popular was the f4 version (probably due to weight - cheap but appropriate).

And just to put the top hat on it - despite the fact the internet will tell you how much better Sony cameras are - almost all of them shoot Canon.
 
Messages
185
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
Well I am looking for primes to start with. I have 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 that'd need replacing (former doesn't exist and replacing later will cost me 3 times more).

Not keen on adapters, having been there done that as an early mirrorless adopter. It was great fun but too fiddly and not going back to it (would be a step back for me now).

I am just hoping Canon will also release sub-£1.5K fast primes and not just twice as expensive f1.2 primes as I will never be able to afford those.
The adapter sits on my R permanently and I just change the lens in front of that like changing any other lens, just pull the button back on the adapter rather than the camera body. Your 24mm and 85mm would sit on there and function 100% meaning you have not got a huge financial investment changing to mirrorless.

Whatever anyones opinion about Canon is, they cannot say that this is not a thought about design feature that really does ease the entry to mirrorless. If this adapter did not exist I would probably have gone for a 5D mk4.

T
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
The adapter sits on my R permanently and I just change the lens in front of that like changing any other lens, just pull the button back on the adapter rather than the camera body. Your 24mm and 85mm would sit on there and function 100% meaning you have not got a huge financial investment changing to mirrorless.

Whatever anyones opinion about Canon is, they cannot say that this is not a thought about design feature that really does ease the entry to mirrorless. If this adapter did not exist I would probably have gone for a 5D mk4.

T
My lenses are on Sony not canon :)
I'd have to buy RF 24-105 to replace my current 24-105mm. Once I have done that it become fiddly changing between native lenses and adapted lenses.
buying EF 24mm f1.4 is a step backwards and doesn't achieve anything.

I would really need equivalent "affordable" lenses for me to switch to canon. And I feel many are the same, I don't think people will be lining up for £2K+ primes. its not like my lenses are cheap, but canon RF ones makes them look cheap lol :D
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#54
The adapter sits on my R permanently and I just change the lens in front of that like changing any other lens, just pull the button back on the adapter rather than the camera body. Your 24mm and 85mm would sit on there and function 100% meaning you have not got a huge financial investment changing to mirrorless.

Whatever anyones opinion about Canon is, they cannot say that this is not a thought about design feature that really does ease the entry to mirrorless. If this adapter did not exist I would probably have gone for a 5D mk4.

T
I had the 5D4 and at the time I saw no IQ or even performance advantage going for the R, I didn't need to buy any lenses as I had all the ones that I wanted.

The point for me to get into mirrorless was the better AF and better lenses. Apart from the Canon 35Lmk2 that i miss, I think every lens I have now on the Sony is an improvement over my Canon EF mount (and lack the 1.2 in the 85).
But that's it.

It would be a bit of a side step getting into the R and not upgrade the lenses, I felt there wasn't any improvements to be made, and perhaps some lost going from 5D4 into the EOS R. And the longer i kept the EF lenses, the more it will cost in the long run to transition over as their value slowly drops. Yes, I can hold onto the EF lenses and use them like native but I know they are not forever.

With the high price of the R lenses, I can see that people will buy them with much more consideration beforehand and making the 2nd hand market much longer to mature. So as the Sony also adapt Canon lenses, (I actually bought the A73 before the R came out), I went to Sony, adapted Canon lenses for a bit, but the transition was only a few months, it wasn't long before I got all the main primes that I shoot with, actually got them less than I paid for the same lenses on the Canon EF.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,345
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
#55
You really should be aware that just guessing about something you have no knowledge of risks making you look ridiculous.

Pro's will use the most appropriate tool for the job - and in establishing most appropriate, budget will be part of that decision.

I've spent the last 2 days with an eye on the photographers who are media accredited for the WRC - and whilst there's a couple of 200-400L lenses (which cost a mint) the vast majority of shots were on a 70-200 2.8, but surprisingly 2nd most popular was the f4 version (probably due to weight - cheap but appropriate).

And just to put the top hat on it - despite the fact the internet will tell you how much better Sony cameras are - almost all of them shoot Canon.
Although the reason for them shooting Canon may not be the camera, but the fact Canon offer on-site CPS support at major sporting events :)

Something you would definitely take into account as a pro sports photographer.
 
Messages
185
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
My lenses are on Sony not canon :)
I'd have to buy RF 24-105 to replace my current 24-105mm. Once I have done that it become fiddly changing between native lenses and adapted lenses.
buying EF 24mm f1.4 is a step backwards and doesn't achieve anything.

I would really need equivalent "affordable" lenses for me to switch to canon. And I feel many are the same, I don't think people will be lining up for £2K+ primes. its not like my lenses are cheap, but canon RF ones makes them look cheap lol :D
Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you had ef lenses.


I had the 5D4 and at the time I saw no IQ or even performance advantage going for the R, I didn't need to buy any lenses as I had all the ones that I wanted.

The point for me to get into mirrorless was the better AF and better lenses. Apart from the Canon 35Lmk2 that i miss, I think every lens I have now on the Sony is an improvement over my Canon EF mount (and lack the 1.2 in the 85).
But that's it.

It would be a bit of a side step getting into the R and not upgrade the lenses, I felt there wasn't any improvements to be made, and perhaps some lost going from 5D4 into the EOS R. And the longer i kept the EF lenses, the more it will cost in the long run to transition over as their value slowly drops. Yes, I can hold onto the EF lenses and use them like native but I know they are not forever.

With the high price of the R lenses, I can see that people will buy them with much more consideration beforehand and making the 2nd hand market much longer to mature. So as the Sony also adapt Canon lenses, (I actually bought the A73 before the R came out), I went to Sony, adapted Canon lenses for a bit, but the transition was only a few months, it wasn't long before I got all the main primes that I shoot with, actually got them less than I paid for the same lenses on the Canon EF.
I disagree with you, using the R with ef lenses is not a side step, it is a definite step forward. The af benefits of mirrorless really help in some types of photography as you well know.

My point was if you have ef lenses which you are happy with and want to go to mirrorless then the R is an easier choice than completely moving systems. If you are not happy with your ef lenses, as you were, then the change in system would be the same if you were moving from ef to sony as it is from ef to rf.

I just upgraded the body, for me it was not a system change.
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#57
Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you had ef lenses.




I disagree with you, using the R with ef lenses is not a side step, it is a definite step forward. The af benefits of mirrorless really help in some types of photography as you well know.

My point was if you have ef lenses which you are happy with and want to go to mirrorless then the R is an easier choice than completely moving systems. If you are not happy with your ef lenses, as you were, then the change in system would be the same if you were moving from ef to sony as it is from ef to rf.

I just upgraded the body, for me it was not a system change.
It's a side step as I am using the same lenses, it is the same sensor, IQ is the same, the image is the same, the resolution is the same, the colours are the same. The AF in mirrorless helped, but the FPS is lower, and it cannot do continous AF the way the Sony can, at least at the time. You got to remember this was like 16months ago.

It is a total side step, in fact, a lot of ways it was backwards. No dual cards etc.

Now let's say I have the R, even if I am happy with the EF lenses, which I was mostly, but knowing it is not the future, if it is...I wouldn't have bought the R body, I am not going to lie to myself that I will be shooting with an adaptor for the life of the R, that's just not true. So the longer I wait to change the whole system over, the more it will cost as the EF lenses value is going 1 way.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#58
Well I am looking for primes to start with. I have 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 that'd need replacing (former doesn't exist and replacing later will cost me 3 times more).

Not keen on adapters, having been there done that as an early mirrorless adopter. It was great fun but too fiddly and not going back to it (would be a step back for me now).

I am just hoping Canon will also release sub-£1.5K fast primes and not just twice as expensive f1.2 primes as I will never be able to afford those.
Well there are always excellent Sigma f/1.4 primes. They are not cheap but clearly cheaper. I have 35mm EF version and may be add 85mm... Just a bit concerned of getting the "wrong" mount.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#59
Well there are always excellent Sigma f/1.4 primes. They are not cheap but clearly cheaper. I have 35mm EF version and may be add 85mm... Just a bit concerned of getting the "wrong" mount.
The 24 ART is the worst of the ART primes and not as good as my 24GM. And while 85 ART is slightly better than my 85GM its a beast and half. Not to mention needing adapters again.
I see buying EF glass (canon, sigma or otherwise) to be a backward step.
And if we are taking sigma into consideration they do native versions of all the DSLR primes for L-mount and e-mount. Now they also have some pretty cool fully native mirrorless glass like 35mm f1.2 and 14-24mm/2.8 on L-mount and e-mount. I am hoping they'll sooner or later come out with 85mm/1.2 that's affordable.
 
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#60
The 24 ART is the worst of the ART primes and not as good as my 24GM. And while 85 ART is slightly better than my 85GM its a beast and half. Not to mention needing adapters again.
I see buying EF glass (canon, sigma or otherwise) to be a backward step.
And if we are taking sigma into consideration they do native versions of all the DSLR primes for L-mount and e-mount. Now they also have some pretty cool fully native mirrorless glass like 35mm f1.2 and 14-24mm/2.8 on L-mount and e-mount. I am hoping they'll sooner or later come out with 85mm/1.2 that's affordable.
Interesting. I though Sigma had all the native versions out by now for Sony. I guess adapted EF is more versatile than botched E version.

If by any slim chance I get one contract I may be buying just about any decent 85mm and Canon 135mm come what may. With Sony they would be stabilised, right? From memory without IS these 2 can have a fair bit more shake than is ideal. The latter at it's current price is probably a very "safe" purchase for a long time to come.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#61
Interesting. I though Sigma had all the native versions out by now for Sony. I guess adapted EF is more versatile than botched E version.

If by any slim chance I get one contract I may be buying just about any decent 85mm and Canon 135mm come what may. With Sony they would be stabilised, right? From memory without IS these 2 can have a fair bit more shake than is ideal. The latter at it's current price is probably a very "safe" purchase for a long time to come.
They have native versions of DSLR ART primes for l-mount and e-mount.

The botched Sigma is definitely better than adapter EF. But sigma have also started making fully native FF glass with new mirrorless design for L-mount and e-mount. Currently there are 3 of them available - 35mm/1.2, 14-24/2.8 and 45mm/2.8. hopefully they'll make a 85mm/1.2 which I'd be first in line for if it's priced the same as their 35mm/1.2.

On Sony everything is stabilized yes. Including the adapted canon lenses.

You need to work out if you are willing to dish out £2800 on the only RF option for 85mm. As mentioned above you'll eventually want native glass and adapters become fiddly as soon as you add a native glass to the line up.

3rd party support may well come to RF and Z but at the moment only e-mount has any decent level of 3rd party options.
 
Messages
818
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
#62
I had the 5D4 and at the time I saw no IQ or even performance advantage going for the R, I didn't need to buy any lenses as I had all the ones that I wanted.

The point for me to get into mirrorless was the better AF and better lenses. Apart from the Canon 35Lmk2 that i miss, I think every lens I have now on the Sony is an improvement over my Canon EF mount (and lack the 1.2 in the 85).
But that's it.

It would be a bit of a side step getting into the R and not upgrade the lenses, I felt there wasn't any improvements to be made, and perhaps some lost going from 5D4 into the EOS R. And the longer i kept the EF lenses, the more it will cost in the long run to transition over as their value slowly drops. Yes, I can hold onto the EF lenses and use them like native but I know they are not forever.

With the high price of the R lenses, I can see that people will buy them with much more consideration beforehand and making the 2nd hand market much longer to mature. So as the Sony also adapt Canon lenses, (I actually bought the A73 before the R came out), I went to Sony, adapted Canon lenses for a bit, but the transition was only a few months, it wasn't long before I got all the main primes that I shoot with, actually got them less than I paid for the same lenses on the Canon EF.
Strange that you didn't see any advantage (theoretically) from 5D4 to the EOS-R. The R is already shown to be equivalent to the A7III in terms of AF performance with V1.4 firmware - some might argue better. Lens wise, I have used both 24-105 f/4 lenses (A7III and EOS-R) and find the Canon better.

There's no way the 5D4 could keep up with either mirrorless in terms of keeper rate at least. The EOS-R makes the D750 seem like a manual focus camera in terms of speed and ease of focusing.

Price wise - (one of the reasons I choose canon) the sony lenses are very high priced including the 24-105 f/4
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#63
Strange that you didn't see any advantage (theoretically) from 5D4 to the EOS-R. The R is already shown to be equivalent to the A7III in terms of AF performance with V1.4 firmware - some might argue better. Lens wise, I have used both 24-105 f/4 lenses (A7III and EOS-R) and find the Canon better.

There's no way the 5D4 could keep up with either mirrorless in terms of keeper rate at least. The EOS-R makes the D750 seem like a manual focus camera in terms of speed and ease of focusing.

Price wise - (one of the reasons I choose canon) the sony lenses are very high priced including the 24-105 f/4
I think you missed the bit where I made those calls 15 months ago, at firmware 1.0.

Sure they are on par now in some cases but I don't think the R is same as the A73 in focusing, i.e. tracking subject at 10fps. I don't think the R does it at that speed even now.

And as for price of lens, I think you need to look again, the R is MUCH higher.
 
Messages
3,156
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#64
I think you missed the bit where I made those calls 15 months ago, at firmware 1.0.

Sure they are on par now in some cases but I don't think the R is same as the A73 in focusing, i.e. tracking subject at 10fps. I don't think the R does it at that speed even now.

And as for price of lens, I think you need to look again, the R is MUCH higher.
:LOL:

Mate of mine has an R and was giving it he big one about how good the a.f is since the update when he called in the other day. I let him have a play with an A7III, while he was here. The R is now up for sale on Facebook and he is waiting on an A7III landing from e-infin.

New firmware or not it’s still not as good in terms of a.f, the eye a.f is better than it was but still not as good as Sony’s.

Their sensors stills suck as well.
 
Messages
818
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
#65
I think you missed the bit where I made those calls 15 months ago, at firmware 1.0.

Sure they are on par now in some cases but I don't think the R is same as the A73 in focusing, i.e. tracking subject at 10fps. I don't think the R does it at that speed even now.

And as for price of lens, I think you need to look again, the R is MUCH higher.
Really? WEX (not import) seems to disagree with you... maybe you want to check?
 
Messages
818
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
#66
:LOL:

Mate of mine has an R and was giving it he big one about how good the a.f is since the update when he called in the other day. I let him have a play with an A7III, while he was here. The R is now up for sale on Facebook and he is waiting on an A7III landing from e-infin.

New firmware or not it’s still not as good in terms of a.f, the eye a.f is better than it was but still not as good as Sony’s.

Their sensors stills suck as well.
Lol - I have yet to find a single client who has said they can tell the difference between one camera and another... so, for me, it's good enough
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#67
Really? WEX (not import) seems to disagree with you... maybe you want to check?
Yes, REALLY, did you even look?

I am going to ignore the lenses that isn't out yet like the 135mm, 24mm, 35mm etc, only for lenses that are out, to be fair. And yes, I am going to get 1.2 vs 1.4 because I don't see them as different, I see them as the best on offer on that system, and that would be the lens I go for.

So.

EOS R £2149

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-r-digital-camera-with-ef-adapter-1674433/

50L 2349

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-lens-1674438/

24-70 £2329

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-24-70mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1713195/

15-35 £2329

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-15-35mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1713197/

85L £2799

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-85mm-f1-2-l-usm-lens-1701421/

Sony A7 £1755 (I am going to say £1999 as that was the launch price)

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-a7-iii-digital-camera-body-1655930/

50 Zeiss £1399

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-50mm-f14-za-planar-t-lens-1602454/

Sony 24-70 GM £1799

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-24-70mm-f28-g-master-lens-1591663/

Sony 16-35 GM £2099

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-g-master-lens-1627919/

Sony 85 GM £1649

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-85mm-f14-g-master-lens-1591665/

I don't even need to add it up to see that the Canon cost more but if you are still not convinced…the difference is

Canon £11955
Sony £8945

£3010 more for the same set up. A 25% more expensive, it's not even close.

How did you figure that the R cost LESS?
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#69
Just as you did people like to compare things from their point of view.

Canon vs. Sony
24-105 - £1030 vs. £1140
35mm f1.8 - £500 vs. £630
£100 difference when it go Canon's favour vs £1000 when it does not…big difference.

Not to mention those 2 are not the lenses I'd buy so that's why I didn't list them in my previous post, but people do feel free to add it to the list and see if the numbers can swing £3k…

Not to mention, this thread is about Wedding photographers so we could be looking at F/2.8 zooms, Fast primes. Not so much the "consumer" range.

And lastly, I would replacing my lenses so as close to like for like as possible. 2.8 zooms is all I had so 2.8 zooms is all I will get.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#70
Since when did "tracking subjects at 10fps" really matter to a wedding photographer?? Are we afraid to miss a blink?? [I know Ray has me blocked but just saying in general]

HDEW for your Canon R deals people, there you'll see a difference in pricing. Grey, sure, but UK grey at least
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#71
£100 difference when it go Canon's favour vs £1000 when it does not…big difference.

Not to mention those 2 are not the lenses I'd buy so that's why I didn't list them in my previous post, but people do feel free to add it to the list and see if the numbers can swing £3k…

Not to mention, this thread is about Wedding photographers so we could be looking at F/2.8 zooms, Fast primes. Not so much the "consumer" range.

And lastly, I would replacing my lenses so as close to like for like as possible. 2.8 zooms is all I had so 2.8 zooms is all I will get.
If we are talking only weddings then there is no point going as far as lenses when the body only has a single slot.
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#72
If we are talking only weddings then there is no point going as far as lenses when the body only has a single slot.
I said that in my first reply too.

It's a side step as I am using the same lenses, it is the same sensor, IQ is the same, the image is the same, the resolution is the same, the colours are the same. The AF in mirrorless helped, but the FPS is lower, and it cannot do continous AF the way the Sony can, at least at the time. You got to remember this was like 16months ago.

It is a total side step, in fact, a lot of ways it was backwards. No dual cards etc.

Now let's say I have the R, even if I am happy with the EF lenses, which I was mostly, but knowing it is not the future, if it is...I wouldn't have bought the R body, I am not going to lie to myself that I will be shooting with an adaptor for the life of the R, that's just not true. So the longer I wait to change the whole system over, the more it will cost as the EF lenses value is going 1 way.
 
Messages
818
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
#73
"And as for price of lens, I think you need to look again, the R is MUCH higher. "

I think you are messing your mind with different arguments. You were talking about lenses. That's all I was responding to.

Price of complete system - one is new the other has been out sometime. If the newer released item is more expensive, it's not really a surprise.
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#74
"And as for price of lens, I think you need to look again, the R is MUCH higher. "

I think you are messing your mind with different arguments. You were talking about lenses. That's all I was responding to.

Price of complete system - one is new the other has been out sometime. If the newer released item is more expensive, it's not really a surprise.
Okay…take away the body, leave the lenses….It's not going to swing £3k.

Seriously, did you even check? Been "out a while" has nothing to do with it, it is the price when I buy it, it is not the price 20 years from now when it's all cheap, that isn't any good to me. I mean I even UPPED the A73 price £250 from it's current price. If you want to talk about current price then the difference was more like £3300.

There is nothing wrong with my mind, nothing messing with it, WEX links (as you suggested) is what it is. I didn't even go import to get the difference even larger, I am playing by YOUR rules…even though you KEEP moving the goal posts, now it's about age of system. If we are going to do that, I can even argue it is even cheaper because the Sony you can get used gear relatively easily compared to the R, but I didn't.

No matter how you twist things, what I said from the start is true, R mount lenses COST MORE than Sony E-Mount.

As I have said first and PROVED.
 
Last edited:
Messages
818
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
#77
Okay…take away the body, leave the lenses….It's not going to swing £3k.

Seriously, did you even check? Been "out a while" has nothing to do with it, it is the price when I buy it, it is not the price 20 years from now when it's all cheap, that isn't any good to me. I mean I even UPPED the A73 price £250 from it's current price. If you want to talk about current price then the difference was more like £3300.

There is nothing wrong with my mind, nothing messing with it, WEX links (as you suggested) is what it is. I didn't even go import to get the difference even larger, I am playing by YOUR rules…even though you KEEP moving the goal posts, now it's about age of system. If we are going to do that, I can even argue it is even cheaper because the Sony you can get used gear relatively easily compared to the R, but I didn't.

No matter how you twist things, what I said from the start is true, R mount lenses COST MORE than Sony E-Mount.

As I have said first and PROVED.
I have read some of your posts and am beginning see what people say. Twist!. You said very clearly and I quoted for your sake that the lens cost was way cheaper for the sony system. In response, I quoted that even from a UK seller (WEX) the Sony lens is dearer than the Canon equivalent.

This is not and was never a cost about buying a whole system - if you want to justify why you purchased Sony, feel free. But, don't lecture about twisting when it's all you seem to do!
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#79
yes, twisting.

that is like £100 difference...have you missed what else I said and linked to with the 24-70/2.8? A lens that every wedding photographer has and uses. A 24-105? Bah, I put that in the bin when it comes to wedding, it’s a great walk about lens but this is not a wedding photographer’s lens. Last I checked, the title of this thread is wedding photographer?

also I have said, the lenses that is cheaper in the R, it’s by £100, when it is more expensive, it is like £1000!

do you not see that?!?

should I take screen shots this time since you clearly didn’t see my links to WEX, like 10 of them.

I mean is your entire argument that the R lens is cheaper because of a single 24-105 by like £100 but you ignore lenses like the 24-70/2.8, or the 15-35/2.8 vs 16-35/2.8 or the 50mm or the 85mm when those add together the R costs THOUSANDS more?

is this the small hill you are willing to die on? Lol
 
Last edited:
Messages
943
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
I'm by no means a professional photographer in any sense. I just got back into photography a few months back after being out for a few years.

When I did, the eos r was just out and price wise, much the same as the a7iii I ended up with.

The features of the more mature a7iii swung it for me at the time. I'm happy with my decision and my keeper rate with fast primes is far higher than I ever had with dslrs. I imagine Canon will have lenses that directly compete with the Sony equivalent as the system matures. And seeing as the trend seems to be going towards even faster lenses, I'm sure Sony will be aiming to compete there too.

The key thing for me though was the support Sony had from sigma and tamron. I'm using the sigma 85 art and its around half the price of the Sony. Its big but built like a tank and its sharp and fast. I'm also using the brilliant mc11 with Canon glass and its phenomenal for photo only.

And that leads me to one of my biggest criticisms of Sony - the first party glass. Its expensive and having handled the 24-70gm and seen reports on the 70-200 f4 snapping in half, it seems the build quality of their first party lenses isn't as strong as I like. Now I know there's a balance of weight and convenience but I like an expensive lens to feel that way.

Canon L glass always felt rugged and ready to go through anything. The sigma art series is where my money is now for the a7iii. If I need a zoom though I'm sticking to adapted Canon glass. Now I use the adapted glass to shoot my young kids. It's great and would easily handle a wedding in terms of focus ability. I rarely shoot at night though but dull indoor conditions are fine too.

Like what's been mentioned already, go with what're suits you. I think I'm terms of body, the Sony still beats all other mirorless cameras but that might not always be the case. I just wish sigma would bring out their zoom lenses for mirorless. We've got enough primes already!
 
Top