Switch from Nikon to Sony? (Page 2): How many lenses make sense to carry and how big a bag do you want to tote around?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Nightski wrote:

.... I have heard that Sony doesn't have anywhere near the lens selection that Nikon and Canon do. That is a really important factor to consider when picking a camera.

How many lenses make sense to carry and how big a bag do you want to tote around?

Nightski

SharpShooter wrote:

Nightski, yes , I've seen that video before.
I could easily come up with ten reason why I would switch to Nikon, then 10 reasons why I was switching back.
I could also come up with ten reasons why I won't switch to Sony.

The idea is to have 10 reasons why you shoot the camera that you shoot.
If it's because you just always have, then there's a good chance you're shooting the wrong camera. ;-)
SS

LOL ... I should have known you had already seen it, SS. So ... would you consider getting it as a second camera for street type photography?

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Nightski wrote:

So you don't know? You are just stuck to Nikon for emotional reasons? I really was looking for some feedback from people that have used these cameras. Nothing is perfect, though this man makes the Sony sound perfect. He makes 10 points. Can anyone disagree with any of those points because they have had a different experience? Or could you disagree because you have used Nikon and you have a disagreement with his points about Nikon cameras?

Well, Sweetheart, I have owned many brands over the decades I've been dabbling in digital.
Casio, Sony, Olympus, Canon, ad nausium. I was shooting digital when it was a baby and film scoffers were yammering that digital couldn't ever compare.
But hey, If you are wanting to switch, or looking for people to make up your mind for you, Please count me out.
My time is worth more than to help you decide or bolster your case.
You have a fun ride.
Unwatch. :-D

Nightski

SonnyE wrote:

Well, Sweetheart, I have owned many brands over the decades I've been dabbling in digital.
Casio, Sony, Olympus, Canon, ad nausium. I was shooting digital when it was a baby and film scoffers were yammering that digital couldn't ever compare.
But hey, If you are wanting to switch, or looking for people to make up your mind for you, Please count me out.
My time is worth more than to help you decide or bolster your case.
You have a fun ride.
Unwatch. :-D

I am not thinking of switching .. I just wanted to hear what people like you think and why? I didn't want to be given a pacifier. I am interested in hearing details about the pros and cons of this technology.

I adore my 6D. I wouldn't switch for anything. But I am curious after seeing this video.

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

Nightski wrote:

Watch the video and tell me what you think. Is this guy for real, or is Sony paying him a big bunch of money? I truly don't know ... I would love to hear thoughts on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=7wM_5nROeaw

Check out Gary Fong's comments and video in the Sony emount forum on Dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3780347#forum-post-55056229

I "think" this could be my next camera. This is just one of many threads in that forum.

Nightski

Elliern wrote:

Check out Gary Fong's comments and video in the Sony emount forum on Dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3780347#forum-post-55056229

I "think" this could be my next camera. This is just one of many threads in that forum.

What is all that paraphanalia that's attached to the top of the Sony camera? Do both cameras have a Canon lens attached?
I wonder why they put a hood on the sony and not the Canon? Aside frome seeing the benefit of 11 fps in constrast to Canon's 10 FPS, it was very hard to see the focus. It was very pixelated in the video and they didn't really give time for the images to finish loading. I am not sure they made a case for either of those cameras.

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

Well here goes my $.02, I have and love a Nikon D7100 with what I believe are a good assortment of lenses. However, I have been wanting a good second camera to carry most of the time for "catch" shots...street photography and the like. Been mostly disappointed with a variety of P & S, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic Lumix cameras over the years. They are all okay in certain situations but not great.

After considerable time and research I started looking at the Sony line up. My neighbor and another friend both got the Sony A6000 and like them a lot...even with the kit lens. I have handled and taken a few photos with them and was quite impressed. So, long story short, I have taken the plunge and ordered the Sony A6000 with the kit lens...we'll see...

Nightski

jederick wrote:

Well here goes my $.02, I have and love a Nikon D... (show quote)

Please let us know how you like it and feel free to post some images here. Maybe you could even do a few side by side comparisons with your Nikon camera.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Nightski wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the ability to look down that lens. How is it different from how you view what you are about to capture with the Sony. I'm not sure I get that.

I pulled these explanations from a detailed explanation on another site.

DSLR cameras have an optical viewfinder (OVF) that allows a photographer to compose a shot while seeing exactly what the lens sees by looking through the lens (TTL). This optical viewfinder works by using a system of mirrors and prisms, like a periscope, to bounce the image up to the viewfinder and the eye. This is the preferred viewfinder for many pro-photographers.

Remove parts like the mirror and prism and a cameras body can be made much more compact. Those parts are replaced by a video feed from the sensor that is displayed on either a screen on the back of the camera, or on a screen inside a viewfinderthe electronic viewfinder (EVF).

I know many do, but I have no aversion to the size of a camera, or its weight. Sure, put a big chunk of glass on the body and the hand can get tired, but it's relatively easy to rest for a few minutes. :-)

Nightski

brucewells wrote:

I pulled these explanations from a detailed explan... (show quote)

Yes, for me the camera's weight is not an issue. Sometimes my tripod's weight is an issue after hiking all day. :lol: It would be fun to look through an electronic viewfinder. It would be much like looking in the viewfinder and seeing what you see on your live view screen I would imagine. I do use my live view in 5X and 10X to get things tack sharp in low light and when using manual focus on a tripod.

I wonder if you can get things that sharp with the electronic viewfinder? My live view does not support auto focus. I wonder what is different about the live view in the view finder?

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Nightski wrote:

I wonder if you can get things that sharp with the electronic viewfinder? My live view does not support auto focus. I wonder what is different about the live view in the view finder?

All good questions, that I can't address. That's an indication of how un-ready I am to migrate to mirrorless today. :-) There are at least a couple of staunch mirrorless advocates on UHH. Perhaps if they'd chime in, they could give you some good answers.

Nightski

bsprague wrote:

How many lenses make sense to carry and how big a bag do you want to tote around?

I carry four lenses on me all the time.
Canon 50mm F1.8
Canon 16-35mm F2.8L
Canon 100mm F/2.8L IS
Sigma 150-500mm F5.0-6.3

I used all four last Sunday when I spent the day in a state park. I got a pretty cool shot of a pileated woodpecker that I never would have gotten if I hadn't had that long lens with. Plus I was packing my Lee filters, my remotes, and my tripod and an extra pair of gloves to use for switching out when the pair I was wearing got cold.

rolf Loc: Kenora Ont.Canada

Don't know anything about Sony cameras decided to reply so I could follow this topic. Have a Nikon D3200 that I'm happy with.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Nightski wrote:

I carry four lenses on me all the time.
Canon 50mm F1.8
Canon 16-35mm F2.8L
Canon 100mm F/2.8L IS
Sigma 150-500mm F5.0-6.3

I used all four last Sunday when I spent the day in a state park. I got a pretty cool shot of a pileated woodpecker that I never would have gotten if I hadn't had that long lens with. Plus I was packing my Lee filters, my remotes, and my tripod and an extra pair of gloves to use for switching out when the pair I was wearing got cold.

I have been carrying two for my 14 ounce Panasonic (mirroless) GX7. One is 14-140 the other is 100-300. For you big camera people that is 28-280 and 200-300.

I'm about to change. When I'm in the serious photo mode, the one pound 100-300 will stay on the GX7 in a belt bag at about 2 pounds total. A new 14 oz Panasonic LX100 will cover the 24-75 range. A 3 pound carbon fiber tripod can support them when needed. And a light monopod works too.

Light weight and no need to change lenses. Most or all of the Sony tricks in the video are there. What may not be in my system is the sensor to support 30x40 prints.

Your perfect shots with the Big Sigma will be better for enlargement than mine with the Panasonic 100-300. Mine cost less, is lighter and "good enough".

May I post a picture on your topic?

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

I've looked at switching to mirrorless/CSC and found the following links interesting. Essentially a British professional photographer "arguing with himself" about which he should use and why. Provides an interesting contrast.

http://www.diyphotography.net/5-reasons-dslrs-obsolete-todays-world-martin-gillman/

http://www.diyphotography.net/love-breaks-sold-mirrorless-camera/