Sony A6000 follow up
Mar 29, 2015 19:18:58 #
The more I use my A6000 the less I like it for pro-work. They just don't have the lens choices that my DSLR has. I'm not interested in putting an adapter on it to fit my Canon lenses. That would be like defeating the purpose of the smaller footprint. It's ok for casual shooting, or street shooting, not for weddings and the like.
Mar 29, 2015 19:20:56 #
gemlenz wrote:
The more I use my A6000 the less I like it for pro-work. They just don't have the lens choices that my DSLR has. I'm not interested in putting an adapter on it to fit my Canon lenses. That would be like defeating the purpose of the smaller footprint. It's ok for casual shooting, or street shooting, not for weddings and the like.
I'm going to upgrade to full frame in the near future and the only concern I have about Sony is the lack of a robust lineup of great glass.
Mar 29, 2015 19:22:35 #
If I decided to go full frame I think I'd consider the Fuji XT-1 or the new Sony
doduce wrote:
I'm going to upgrade to full frame in the near future and the only concern I have about Sony is the lack of a robust lineup of great glass.
Mar 29, 2015 19:31:15 #
gemlenz wrote:
If I decided to go full frame I think I'd consider the Fuji XT-1 or the new Sony
The Fuj X-T1 is APS-C.
I recently got to play with a Sony A6000 and was really taken with how compact it was- and it still felt good in my hands.
No idea how it performs.
Thanks for your take on it.
Mar 29, 2015 19:44:04 #
gemlenz wrote:
If I decided to go full frame I think I'd consider the Fuji XT-1 or the new Sony
I'm considering the A7ii, but regardless of the Sony FF model, the same problem with the limited selection of FE mount lenses is still a consideration. At least for me.
Mar 29, 2015 20:23:35 #
how many lenses does one really need, can afford to buy. I would think that a wedding photographer can make it on 4-5 lenses and I think the FE line pretty much has those covered, or soon will.
Mar 29, 2015 21:35:09 #
Soon being the operative word. Fuji has much better choices equivalent to pro-DSLRs like: 70-200 2.8 equivalent, 85 1.2 equivalent, 50 1.4 equivalent, 24-70 2.8 equivalent, 15-35 f/4 equivalent, 35 1.4 equivalent. Those types would be key for weddings particularly the 24-70 and the 70-200 both 2.8s
kwbybee wrote:
how many lenses does one really need, can afford to buy. I would think that a wedding photographer can make it on 4-5 lenses and I think the FE line pretty much has those covered, or soon will.
Mar 29, 2015 22:06:08 #
gemlenz wrote:
The more I use my A6000 the less I like it for pro-work. They just don't have the lens choices that my DSLR has. I'm not interested in putting an adapter on it to fit my Canon lenses. That would be like defeating the purpose of the smaller footprint. It's ok for casual shooting, or street shooting, not for weddings and the like.
Sony products are great, but the thought of that tiny little body with a big lens on it makes me laugh.
I prefer a big camera to stabilize or balance out a big lens.
Mar 29, 2015 22:19:09 #
gemlenz wrote:
Soon being the operative word.
How many lenses you NEED--as opposed to WANT--is always a great question, isn't it?
I use primarily zooms since Im not a pro and prefer to go light when I travel or move about. That's the attraction of the Sony Alpha bodies. So while there are some very nice Sony fixed focal length FE lenses, Im looking at zooms. The Sony Vario-Tessar 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS and Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS both look like nice lenses. Theyd look nicer if they were 2.8, but with the low light performance of the Alpha series bodies, I think I could get by with f4 if I bumped the ISO a bit. The Sony Vario-Tessar FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS comes close to the wide angle, but Id like something in the 10-24mm range and I dont see it. Sigma has a 12-24, but its a f 4.5-6.3. Not what Im looking for.
And since Sony announced 5 new lenses in the past 6 months or so, I don't see anything newer that would better fit my needs on the near horizon.
Mar 29, 2015 22:23:58 #
xxredbeardxx wrote:
Sony products are great, but the thought of that tiny little body with a big lens on it makes me laugh.
I prefer a big camera to stabilize or balance out a big lens.
I prefer a big camera to stabilize or balance out a big lens.
The adapters are a work around for a missing capability, so I'd prefer not to go down that road. And several folks have addressed the very issue you mention, specifically the poor balance using lens designed for a DSLR on a mirrorless body. The ergonomic design criteria and considerations are different for both, so I suspect things get all fonky (a highly technical and very specific term, of course) when they are paired.
Mar 29, 2015 22:32:35 #
doduce wrote:
The adapters are a work around for a missing capability, so I'd prefer not to go down that road. And several folks have addressed the very issue you mention, specifically the poor balance using lens designed for a DSLR on a mirrorless body. The ergonomic design criteria and considerations are different for both, so I suspect things get all fonky (a highly technical and very specific term, of course) when they are paired.
I agree completely. I had a Sony many years ago
that had a built in zoom. It was great, but used a floppy disc for film.
I am using a 7100 and love it.
I'm moving to a d750 soon because I will be shooting
on a more professional level. I want the extra pop
that full frame light gives.
Mar 29, 2015 22:48:59 #
xxredbeardxx wrote:
I agree completely. I had a Sony many years ago
that had a built in zoom. It was great, but used a floppy disc for film.
I am using a 7100 and love it.
I'm moving to a d750 soon because I will be shooting
on a more professional level. I want the extra pop
that full frame light gives.
that had a built in zoom. It was great, but used a floppy disc for film.
I am using a 7100 and love it.
I'm moving to a d750 soon because I will be shooting
on a more professional level. I want the extra pop
that full frame light gives.
I shoot with a D7100 as well and the alternative to a Sony set up is the D750. I'm in no real hurry, so I'll hang tight for a while.
BTW, what is the roadster in your avatar?
Mar 29, 2015 22:54:06 #
doduce wrote:
I shoot with a D7100 as well and the alternative to a Sony set up is the D750. I'm in no real hurry, so I'll hang tight for a while.
BTW, what is the roadster in your avatar?
BTW, what is the roadster in your avatar?
Shelby Cobra.. Kit car. carbon fiber body
only weights 60 pounds. It's a screamer.
I really hate to move up the 7100 is so good.
I will still use it for birds and as my back up.
Mar 29, 2015 23:11:13 #
xxredbeardxx wrote:
Shelby Cobra.. Kit car. carbon fiber body
only weights 60 pounds. It's a screamer.
I really hate to move up the 7100 is so good.
I will still use it for birds and as my back up.
only weights 60 pounds. It's a screamer.
I really hate to move up the 7100 is so good.
I will still use it for birds and as my back up.
Thought it was a Cobra--and figured it was a kit, not an original. Although that would be SOOOOOO sweet, right?
Mar 30, 2015 01:11:17 #
doduce wrote:
Thought it was a Cobra--and figured it was a kit, not an original. Although that would be SOOOOOO sweet, right?
An original is worth well over a million dollars
and wouldn't handle as well. Go figure.
If you see one on the street it's a kit car.
No one in their right mind would drive a million
dollar car... unless your Bill Gates.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.