Wedding photographers using Sony

[nandbytes]

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!

Metal isn't always better or more durable. No thanks to simply making things heavier for nothing but perception and no actual practical value.

Canon RF lenses are built much the same way. I wouldn't say they are of less build quality than EF glasses simply because it's not made overly heavy with metal.

 

[f/2.8]

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!

I haven't found Sony glass to be expensive in most cases it is generally cheaper than the Canon, Nikon or Panasonic equivalent full frame mirrorless lenses. I have had the 70-200 f/4 for over a year and it hasn't snapped in half yet nor have I seen anyone else report this problem.

I have these Sony lenses and have found them all to be excellent both in terms of performance and build quality. I switched too Sony from Nikon and all of the Sony lenses I have tried so far have been much better performers than the Nikon equivalent as you would expect I guess as the Nikon's where all older and designed for DSLR's.

24 G.M
35 f/1.8
55 f/1.8
85 G.M
85 f/1.8
90 f/2.8
135 G.M
70-200 f/4

I haven't used every other camera system but most people seem to agree that the Sony 24 G.M and the 135 G.M are the best lenses you can currently buy for any full frame mirrorless or DSLR system in those focal lengths. The 90mm Macro is the best macro lens I have ever used and I have had a few.

The only Sony lens that seems to be not great is the ZEISS 35 f/1.4 which has a few well known issues.

When I shot Nikon I had quite a few of the Sigma Art lenses I still have one Sigma lens the 35 Art f/1.4. I wouldn't say these where great in terms of build quality, yeah they are unnecessarily heavy because they are DSLR lenses with a built in adaptor. The finish on them means that they seem to pick up wear and tear marks quite quickly if you are regularly using them, much more so than any of the Nikon or Sony lenses I have owned.

 

[nandbytes]

I haven't found Sony glass to be expensive in most cases it is generally cheaper than the Canon, Nikon or Panasonic equivalent full frame mirrorless lenses. I have had the 70-200 f/4 for over a year and it hasn't snapped in half yet nor have I seen anyone else report this problem.

I have these Sony lenses and have found them all to be excellent both in terms of performance and build quality. I switched too Sony from Nikon and all of the Sony lenses I have tried so far have been much better performers than the Nikon equivalent as you would expect I guess as the Nikon's where all older and designed for DSLR's.

24 G.M
35 f/1.8
55 f/1.8
85 G.M
85 f/1.8
90 f/2.8
135 G.M
70-200 f/4

I haven't used every other camera system but most people seem to agree that the Sony 24 G.M and the 135 G.M are the best lenses you can currently buy for any full frame mirrorless or DSLR system in those focal lengths. The 90mm Macro is the best macro lens I have ever used and I have had a few.

The only Sony lens that seems to be not great is the ZEISS 35 f/1.4 which has a few well known issues.

When I shot Nikon I had quite a few of the Sigma Art lenses I still have one Sigma lens the 35 Art f/1.4. I wouldn't say these where great in terms of build quality, yeah they are unnecessarily heavy because they are DSLR lenses with a built in adaptor. The finish on them means that they seem to pick up wear and tear marks quite quickly if you are regularly using them, much more so than any of the Nikon or Sony lenses I have owned.

I believe a while back there was someone who dropped the 70-200/4 or something like that and it snapped in half. I don't remember the exact details.

But this whole build thing is a non-issue with internet hyperbole attached. Remember the whole farce about plastic mounts? People went out and bought 3rd party metal replacement mounts. There are no reports of the mounts breaking and I know some who shoots in my local park with the old Sony A58 and the heaviest Minolta lens i.e 600mm f4. Still hasn't ripped out

 

[JJ!]

I believe a while back there was someone who dropped the 70-200/4 or something like that and it snapped in half. I don't remember the exact details.

But this whole build thing is a non-issue with internet hyperbole attached. Remember the whole farce about plastic mounts? People went out and bought 3rd party metal replacement mounts. There are no reports of the mounts breaking and I know some who shoots in my local park with the old Sony A58 and the heaviest Minolta lens i.e 600mm f4. Still hasn't ripped out

I remember there being a Sony 70-200 2.8 G that seemed to have broken in to 2 parts.

A lot of my early Nikon stuff has plastic mounts, no issues until the Internet came along and told us all how terrible they were.

As for weddings, I know a few people using Sony and a few sticking with DSLRs. No Z or R ones that I know of mainly due to card slots I think.