Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Jewells,

I'm a big Sony fan. Unfortunately, I don't use their DSLRs ( I have a Conon 5D MK II and a 7D for that stuff.). I have a an NEX-7 with most of the lenses along with the NEX-5N (I bought the optional EVF viewfinder because I just can't get used to the LCD screen that I have to hold out in front of me. Having said that, I keep an RX 100 with me at all times just in case I see something worth while.

I also have the RX 1 which I normally use for set shots (landscapes, group shots, etc.). It's OUTRAGESLLY expensive but it takes REALLY good images.

Dog

Jewells

It seems that the general consensus is that while shooting stills the a/f isn't a problem, but when shooting movies is when a/f will or won't work. So that's good to know.

Thanks MCML..I'll look for the book you mentioned!

Photodog...I'm curious why you don't use Sony's DSLR's since you love them?

Thank you everyone for your feedback!

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Jewells,

Unfortunately, I bought into the Canon System early on and have amassed a considerable amount of Canon lenses, flashes, battery grips, etc. Tossing all of that over for a whole new set of bodies, lenses and the rest is somewhat expensive.

I like the NEX line and the RX series because of their small size, light weight, GREAT Zeiss optics, Exmor sensors and Bionz chips.

Having said all that, I can't just turn my back on my Canon 5D MK II & 7D bodies along with all the L glass, Speedlights, filters, etc. I bought to mount on them. When it comes to serious landscape work, portraits or group shots, the big guns come out.

Dog

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Sony is big but they're certainly not stupid! ;)

DogBolter Loc: Michigan

I've owned the A77 for about a year. It's been a great experience. I'm still learning as it is a powerful camera with a lot of options.

the hiker Loc: San Diego

I have the sony A65 an I really like it it has more features then I will ever use.however the one feature I do like on the A77 that the A65 does not have is the fact that it is weatherproff but being from Southern Calif.I did not think it justified spending the extra $200.00 or more for that feature.both are great cameras.I hope you have fun with yours.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Photodog,

I'm not sure about the 5D, but with the 7D you lose so much -- picture quality, color depth, dynamic range, etc., compared with the a77, that it makes me wonder: can overpriced L glass compensate?

Jewells

LOL...true, but big corporations have been known to do stupid before. =) hehe



Hiker, yeah, I can see where weatherproofing isn't really something that you would be interested in. =) I live in Missouri, and have spent my fair share of time this spring shooting in light rain through a Walmart bag, so the weatherproofing would be nice for the few times that I'm either in a light rain or near a waterfall on a breezy day. =)

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

duane13,

Yeah, actually it does. Canon makes some really good glass. Sony has been making the sensors for Nikon for a number of years now and they've been neck in neck for decades now about who makes the better cameras, lenses, flashes, etc.

Personally, I think it's all BS. I grew up with Minolta SLTs where the glass in the lens was ground by hand and there was a sort of craftsmanship associated with the finished product.

Today, with CAD-CAM and laser cutting tools, just about anybody can put out an outstanding product if they use decent materials (fluoride coated, APO, DO coated glass, etc.).

The finished shot can be cleaned up in post processing using Photoshop, Lightroom, Corel, Picasa, Gimp, etc.

Personally, I use Photomatix Essentials or Pro for HDR. I take 5-7 exposures up & down the "metered" reading and then then merge them in Photomatix. I then save this file and import it into Photoshop Elements 10. I adjust for levels, brightness, contrast, color, saturation, etc.

With all the hardware, software and firmware that's out there these days, the only thing that differentiates the camera manufacturers is service.

Being able to speak English to an actual human being to diagnose the problem without going through a bunch of automated phone links or e-mails to get a useful response would be a nice touch.

Dog

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I'd take the opposite view; not about Canon making good glass, but that a good lens cannot compensate for the qualities that Duane13 mentioned. I would say though that these dense high-res sensors positively require the use of good glass or the benefits of using a high-res sensor are soon lost.

But they don't, the market is dominated by price and consumer products built down to that price; the really good glass is still so highly priced as to remain exclusive.

I too grew up with Minolta SLTs (still have an SR1) and my favourite lenses like the 35/2.8 Shift CA, MC 50/1.4 and 58/1.2, now converted to A-mount are still in use.
I don't think that's true any more, Sony are having to be different if they are to have any chance of challenging the big two in the market. That's why the truly excellent RX1 is on the market (I'm a little envious of yours).

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Well yeah, but look at the big picture. Not only do you have Nikon & Canon running neck and neck, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, etc. are all competing in the marketplace. Unless you're a pixel peeper, the quality doesn't drop enough from one manufacturer to another that slight defects can't be fixed in post-processing.

While I think that the Sony RX 1 is a little overrated, I'd grab it in a minute rather than go through my other gear to find my Canon 5D MK II, 7D or Sony NEX-7 and the appropriate lenses. Any shortcomings can usually be cleaned up in post processing.

I know there are a lot of photographers that disdain PP, but it is what it is. Ansel Adams & Bourke White were considered masters of the photographic art form but they did a lot of tricks in the darkroom (dodging, burning, etc.) to produce their finished product. Is using a computer
so much different? You can do everything at your desk without having to set up a darkroom, messing with the chemicals, buying the enlarger and hanging prints up to dry. The added benefit of digital is that you can shoot RAW which is like having a negative that you can re-process over and over.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

By and large I'm in agreement with you. All DSLRs are pretty high quality and unless you print big the extra MPs are overkill to an extent. Having said that, it's pretty clear that Sony have the best Sensor technology (and now own 70% of the sensor market), which isn't to say that Canon may not come up with something better at some point.

RX1 over rated? I don't think so, possibly a bit overpriced, but then, it outperforms the $10,000 Leica M with Summicron alternative. What the RX1 needs is a built in EVF and a 96MP Sensor, then we'd have a very usable 24MP 35-70/2 (with binning and digital zoom of course).

I think PP is essential to get the best from an image, I'd rather do it myself than leave it up to the camera.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Yeah, you're right! I stand corrected; the RX 1 isn't over rated, it's just overpriced (BIG TIME). My problem is that I'm in LOVE with the damn thing. This is coming from a guy who's gone through scores of cameras. It must be an addiction. I swear if I could squeeze the next generation hardware in a syringe, I'd stick it in my arm!

I know these are crappy shots but I ran outside to get a picture of my car (I don't think winter is ever going to end here in Pittsburgh, my space heaters are still going off!!!).

RX 1, f11.0, 1/640", ISO 640, WB set at flash.(Cropped)


RX 1, f11.0, 1/640", ISO 640, WB set at flash.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Sony is moving in some interesting directions these days.