Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I agree with you here, Haydon. If I could get every shot exposed just right in-camera, I wouldn't need a Sony sensor. But I don't. And I have a good friend who shoots Canon (5d3) who is a talented photographer, but I see many of his photos with washed out highlights. That goes back to the photographer, I know, but with my a7R in many scenes I simply expose for the sky then back off a stop or two knowing I can pull all I need to out of the shadows.

A sensor isn't all it's about, but having a good sensor really helps. Personally, for me it's not a contest and I'd love to see Canon cameras with Sony-quality sensors.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Sorry, the actual history does not support your comments. Let's go find some additional references, but Sony is not the great pioneer that it is being described as. A significant contributor for sure, but only one of many.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

No, it takes more than one look, the article includes Sony, but not as a pioneer or the leader. Go do some real research, and cite your own references.

I'm trying to take a balanced perspective, here's another that points to Sony's contribution among many others: http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/history-of-digital-photography-consumer-digitals.html

Bottom line is that Sony is a contributor, but not the driving force, nor the original pioneer. One could quite reasonably position Sony as an opportunistic vendor with a good technology division bolstered by a few decent acquisitions.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

I've heard that Nikon and Canon planned to concentrate on the high end pro and rich enthusiast market. What could go wrong?

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Nikon and Canon probably aren't in the mirrorless market in a significant way for the same reason Kodak didn't pursue the digital camera market: The people with power in those companies don't want to give up significant budget to some other organization within the company. When faced with game-changing technology, most long-established companies are to rigid to respond quickly and with significant resources. Don't assume that Nikon and Canon are capable of responding. The resources they would have to invest to catch up with Sony in mirrorless would kill off further development of their DSLR products. And it would take years to assemble a mirrorless development team. First to market is a tremendous advantage. So if you are late to the game, you have to have a significantly better product.

thomasm650 Loc: SF Bay Area

Wow! 5 pages to this point and no one has used the camera. Great information, and dubious predictions. Can't wait for the outcome. Love this site.

Haydon

You might look into image blending and most popular luminosity masks. There are plenty situations that the God-like properties of Sony sensors simply can't take the entire scene. Look into Jimmy McIntyre's Raya Pro. Guess what...he blends images with his Nikon 810 all the time because he quickly realized there are major shortcomings in any camera and requires software intervention. SOOC is good enough for some. Trained professionals also use a digital darkroom. Again it's not the sensor, it's the talented photographer that makes the image. Ansel spent hours in the darkroom dodging and burning because he realized a camera is just a tool and he was the one MAKING the image.

Here's one of my blown out skies shooting directly into the sun in the early morning created with a single image with no HDR ;)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/haydonlhall/20598561416/in/dateposted-public/

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I don't think you are paying attention to what Canon is actually doing. Have you spoken to any of their executives? Have you seen any of their strategy pitches and had the opportunity to ask questions? Some people do have that opportunity.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

With an adapter that slows them down and decreases the IQ. Besides that they would be very hard to handle because of the smallnest of the body, not to mention they would be extremely front heavy and would not focus as fast. You really want that?

Haydon

I have a friend with a Sony A7RII and up until last year he used Canon lenses with a metabones adapter. Shorter lenses seemed to fair fine with still outstanding image quality but still required a little work with AF. Late last year he sold off all his Canon glass and just uses Sony glass now. He tells me he'll never go back using the metabones adapter now with native glass.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Have you actually ever tried a Sony A7 II or A7R II camera with adapted Canon lenses!? Based on your comment I suspect you've never touched a Sony A7 camera?

My Canon lenses on the A7R II and A7 II are actually faster than on my Canon bodies and the IQ is superior! It case you don't know, there is no glass in a Canon EOS to E-mount adapter, i.e.: nothing to reduce IQ and 42 megapixel in the A7R II to give great resolution. Also better dynamic range than most Canon bodies.

Give one a try, you'll love it!

bwa

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

None taken. I'm guilty of not reading the quote within your reply. You are correct about the D810, D5, & D500.

Expressoman1 Loc: Jupiter, Fl. USA

Remember: It is never the Camera, it is the person behind the Camera. If you do not see the shot, a $4500 Camera is not going to help you. The sky is the limit in what you can spend for new equipment, but in 90 % of the cases the camera is not going to help you, it is only a tool. I prefer to buy equipment produce by companies that have a lifetime experience with PHOTOGRAPHY equipment, rather than TV's and audio equipment. But then, that is me that made a GOOD living with my Photography skills for over 40 years. This morning I went to the Post Office to mail a package, and I saw a line of cars in the opposite direction behind a very shinny FERRARI, being push by 3 people to get into the Post Office parking. I am sure he paid a lot of money for it but that did not help him much.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

But Sony does have a life time with Minolta and Olympus from film and their own Sony for digital. And don't forget Zeiss.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Good advice, Haydon. I like what I've seen McIntyre do, but I'm not sure whether I need his suite. I've downloaded several tutes off of YouTube to learn blending, both for exposure and for effects such as sky replacement, but I've barely started to watch them.

I think I may have given the wrong impression by exaggerating a bit. In casual situations I don't worry about nailing exposure because of the latitude my Sony sensor affords me. I never shoot to the right, as seems to be the consensus of how to expose. If I miss, I know I can't recover a blown highlight -- but I can recover shadows, even deep ones if I'm willing to tolerate some noise. But with my a7R, that's usually not a problem. I recently shot a scene with a vehicle in some hills, its people setting up camp around sunset. A full moon was rising over the background mountains. I exposed for the sky then dropped 2EV to make sure I got the moon properly. The RAW file was pure black below the sky, but after Lightroom it was perfectly exposed and didn't even need any noise reduction. I didn't need a grad filter in front of my camera as I might have with a different sensor.

Your shot reminds me of a single-file HDR I made last month. I was in Badwater, Death Valley, under a gray, textureless sky at mid-day, so what was I to do? Shoot directly into the sun with an ultra-wide and interesting composition, then HDR it in post, of course!