# Switched to Sony...



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

Well I took the bait and I am hooked on mirrorless. I got a Sony Alpha 7r III which I hated at first and was going to return in favor of my 1DX Mark II. Then I realized I liked both cameras and decided to keep both. After a few weeks of not even touching the Canon, not only I am keeping the Sony, but I am selling my 1DX II. 

The quality is just too impressive compared to the 1DX II. Not only the MP but the Dynamic Range is just astonishing. The focus is flawless. It never misses.. The EVF takes time to get used to and it needs some tweaking and the ergonomics are horrible but after using it for a month and being able to customize ALL buttons and dials to my preference, even the G button on the Lens itself for "playback", I am sold. I love the swivel screen, I wish it swiveled 90 degrees downwards as well but it is a lot more sturdy than the flimsy one on a 6D Mark II, for example. 

One very important thing that makes a lot of sense, specially for long exposures, is the lack of mirror slap and shutter action that prevents the camera shake. I never seen steadier and sharper photos in muy life. In fact, I Never seen this quality before, ever... In 17 years using Canon, I switched to Sony because technology moves a lot faster than Canon seems to think. 

I hope to see something amazing from Canon Mirrorless after Photokina.
I hope they don't stick with EF mount. It's time for something new. People cling to the old stuff they own, because it's already paid for and it would mean buying new but, isn't that what new is supposed to be? All new? Why have a 2018 Mirrorless camera with a 2010 lens? Dumb in my opinion. I agree with Nikon's new Z cameras and the new Mount. If u are gonna get the very best, u need to have the best combo.
I am extremely happy with my A7R III. It has changed a lot of things for me and it has improved the way I shoot. I was too comfortable with the 1DX II but also limited by it. The Sony opened up a completely new world for me. Just knowing -exactly- what you are shooting through the EVF is a game changer, and then the Dynamic Range. It is almost as close to the human eye as -I- have seen. 
I am not gonna stop loving Canon. It is in my heart forever but times change and the world doesn't slow down.

DOn't be afraid of mirrorless or of a complete change in system. Sometimes, change is exactly what you need to wake up your numb senses.
Cheers
Patrick


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2018)

And what is different from your last rant? 

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...urned-a-sony-alpha-7r-iii-after-a-week.35534/

For some the Sony will work, for others, not so much.

Your opinions don't match with some others but for you the Sony works, well done, so what?

The DR difference between the Sony and the 1DX MkII is not, generally, consequential, especially when you take real life iso usage into account.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Sony ILCE-7RM3


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> And what is different from your last rant?
> 
> https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...urned-a-sony-alpha-7r-iii-after-a-week.35534/
> 
> ...


U know what? I am tired of people reading numbers and charts to compare stuff. It's all about real world samples. I know what the Canon can do and if I was blown away by the Sony right after taking a few photos is because the difference IS noticeable. I am a real Pro. 17 years doing this s**t so I have plenty of expertise to know the freaking difference. Besides its what works for ME... Me. Me. Not you or anyone else. I don't really care what others say but Sony taking the crown on the best camera in the world and outselling everybody else should give you an idea that thousands of people disagree with you.
An it's not a rant. Like before, it is a simple evaluation of the facts. Coming from someone that shoots for a living and actually has the 2 cameras side by side to compare. Unlike you or anyone else that wants to challenge my assessment.
GO pick up a Sony and u will see the difference right on the LCD screen. Not even processing the RAW.
And no, I don't take advice or valid opinions for a Cartoon stuffed toy, thank you!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> U know what? I am tired of people reading numbers and charts to compare stuff. It's all about real world samples. I know what the Canon can do and if I was blown away by the Sony right after taking a few photos is because the difference IS noticeable. I am a real Pro. 17 years doing this s**t so I have plenty of expertise to know the freaking difference. Besides its what works for ME... Me. Me. Not you or anyone else. I don't really care what others say but Sony taking the crown on the best camera in the world and outselling everybody else should give you an idea that thousands of people disagree with you.
> An it's not a rant. Like before, it is a simple evaluation of the facts. Coming from someone that shoots for a living and actually has the 2 cameras side by side to compare. Unlike you or anyone else that wants to challenge my assessment.
> GO pick up a Sony and u will see the difference right on the LCD screen. Not even processing the RAW.
> And no, I don't take advice or valid opinions for a Cartoon stuffed toy, thank you!


So post some RAW files that actually back up what you are saying.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> I am a real Pro.


Is having a "sexy" camera a big selling point in your business?

If so, having A7R III is understandable, but you shouldn't hurry to sell your 1DX Mark II.



clicstudio said:


> GO pick up a Sony and u will see the difference right on the LCD screen. Not even processing the RAW.


How? It's an EVF. It only tells you what camera thinks you want to get, not what you really want to get from what you are shooting.

However, if A7R IV comes with built-in Lightroom...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> An it's not a rant. Like before, it is a simple evaluation of the facts. Coming from someone that shoots for a living and actually has the 2 cameras side by side to compare.



Ultimately, it comes down to how you work, what you are doing, and what you like. If this is what works for you, then that’s what works for you.... if there was only one “right” answer, then there would only be one camera on the market. 

Personally, when looking at the whole package, I like Canon best for my needs, but there are a lot of features from Sony and Olympus that I wish my Canons had.... but those are my needs and wants, not yours.

Enjoy your new camera. Perhaps we shall see you back when Canon releases their mirrorless model(s)


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> So post some RAW files that actually back up what you are saying.


why do I need to prove anything. If I switched, it means the difference is big. I am not going to throw away 17 years of Canon use over a little difference. It is what works for ME. I squeezed everything out the Canon to get results, the Sony gives you those results effortlessly. People talk about skin tones being better on the Canon, for example, because they probably don't know how to use Lightroom or Photoshop to fix them.
Having a great photo today is based on how good you are tweaking a photo and knowing how much a raw file can be pushed. The camera that gives you that freedom is going to be the one to use. I found the Sony to be that camera. For now, of course.


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Ultimately, it comes down to how you work, what you are doing, and what you like. If this is what works for you, then that’s what works for you.... if there was only one “right” answer, then there would only be one camera on the market.
> 
> Personally, when looking at the whole package, I like Canon best for my needs, but there are a lot of features from Sony and Olympus that I wish my Canons had.... but those are my needs and wants, not yours.
> 
> Enjoy your new camera. Perhaps we shall see you back when Canon releases their mirrorless model(s)


Thanx Don. Technology moves really fast now, things might change in the near future. For now, this is my choice. 
Like u said, there is not ONE perfect camera but this is the closest in my opinion in August 2018...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Thanx Don. Technology moves really fast now, things might change in the near future. For now, this is my choice.
> Like u said, there is not ONE perfect camera but this is the closest in my opinion in August 2018...


Some of us are fanatics who think that our choice is the only one, yet I can’t even come up with a single choice for me.....

kayaking..... Olympus TG-5 is the best...
General use and night time..... 6D2 is my best choice....
Birding..... The 7D2 is tops.....
Hiking.... Panasonic......

For me, I like the Sony specs, but it is superbly awkward in my hands.... yet for some weird reason, the Panasonic feels great! ? ! ? I am sure that someone with different size hands will come to a different conclusion


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Some of us are fanatics who think that our choice is the only one, yet I can’t even come up with a single choice for me.....
> 
> kayaking..... Olympus TG-4 is the best...
> General use and night time..... 6D2 is my best choice....
> ...


The ergonomics are horrible on the Sony


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> The ergonomics are horrible on the Sony


But in the end. It doesn't matter. It's all about the final photo. Nobody knows what camera brand was used when they look at a great shot. Nobody cares. A better camera doesn't make u a better photographer either.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> The ergonomics are horrible on the Sony


Ha!

If you want terrible ergonomics, try a GoPro.... Absolutely horrendous! But on the other hand, you can attach it to a truck battery, a couple solar panels, and let it rip outside for a month doing a time lapse for the client.... The right tool for the job


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Some of us are fanatics who think that our choice is the only one, yet I can’t even come up with a single choice for me.....
> 
> kayaking..... Olympus TG-4 is the best...
> General use and night time..... 6D2 is my best choice....
> ...


Kayaking TG-5 is the best...
General use, 5DIV
Birding 5DSR
Hiking Sony RX10 IV
My choices.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Kayaking TG-5 is the best...
> General use, 5DIV
> Birding 5DSR
> Hiking Sony RX10 IV
> My choices.



I meant to say TG-5 

Interesting.... three people and 9 different "best" cameras.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> why do I need to prove anything. If I switched, it means the difference is big. I am not going to throw away 17 years of Canon use over a little difference. It is what works for ME. I squeezed everything out the Canon to get results, the Sony gives you those results effortlessly. People talk about skin tones being better on the Canon, for example, because they probably don't know how to use Lightroom or Photoshop to fix them.
> Having a great photo today is based on how good you are tweaking a photo and knowing how much a raw file can be pushed. The camera that gives you that freedom is going to be the one to use. I found the Sony to be that camera. For now, of course.



I didn't say you have to prove anything, I said your points would have a lot more weight and relevance to them (they wouldn't sound like a rant) if you posted some illustrative images that demonstrate the 'obvious' differences you see. Talk is cheap, images are difficult to deny.

I have seen differences in well exposed low iso images, indeed I moved from 1DS MkIII's to 1DX MkII's after comparing shadow detail at 100 iso when shot in the same place and time. The Sony has a small advantage when shot at 100 iso but it certainly isn't big enough enough of the time to make me switch, I can understand it being more important for other users. Certainly the real estate I have done wouldn't benefit from a single stop of base DR difference, all interior shots where I want to also illustrate the exterior nearly always require multiple exposures and simple blending techniques to get the quality results my customers expect, a simple single exposure and compress virtually never cuts it even with a D850.

Your comments on AF are interesting, most reviewers still feel phase detect gives faster and more accurate results, contrast detect hasn't quite got to the same level yet, even in the A9 (which Sony put phase detect into to try to get the AF performance). Of course it depends on what you shoot, anything can do real estate and architecture and models in good light with deep dof, and how good you are at customizing the three functions within the Canon AF system. Looking at your sites I don't see anything that would push even basic levels of manual focus.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Having a great photo today is based on how good you are tweaking a photo and knowing how much a raw file can be pushed.



I’m going to disagree with that one. The work one does before pressing the shutter release is often far more impactful than the work one does afterwards.


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m going to disagree with that one. The work one does before pressing the shutter release is often far more impactful than the work one does afterwards.


Agreed but knowing what a camera can do in terms of exposure and what kind of recovery it will get you is important. Nothing can recover over exposed images. Underexposed photos have a higher success in recovery even if noise will surface. It can be cleaned later. The Sony has such an amazingly DR that it almost doesn't need bracketing. I have never used bracketing in my life. I never needed it, but understand the purpose. Someday cameras won't even have that option because they will "see" what the human eye can. I look forward to that moment. 
I said it many times on these forums and other places: some company needs to start R&D on a camera with 3 layered sensors. One for shadows, one for mid tones and one for highlights. That will be the day th game will change. It's not impossible.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Some of us are fanatics who think that our choice is the only one, yet I can’t even come up with a single choice for me.....
> 
> kayaking..... Olympus TG-5 is the best...
> General use and night time..... 6D2 is my best choice....
> ...





Don Haines said:


> I meant to say TG-5
> 
> Interesting.... three people and 9 different "best" cameras.....



It all goes to prove that we have an embarras de richesse - aren't we so lucky with so many choices, and it leads to much discussion!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 27, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> But in the end. It doesn't matter. It's all about the final photo. Nobody knows what camera brand was used when they look at a great shot. Nobody cares. A better camera doesn't make u a better photographer either.




That's where I disagree.
I am an enthusiast amateur whose purchases on gear way exceeds my abilities - but at the end of the day if I don't like using the gear I will not use it, so why buy it! I can understand a pro will make a judgement on cost-benefit and may put up with poor ergonomics if they think it will increase their hit rate and get them more jobs. But for me life is too short to put up with little irritating things that result in me missing shots - and having shot with Panasonic/Olympus for the last 5 years as a second system, I am aware of the little niggles of mirrorless. I am equally aware that many are saying the Sony mkiii cameras have overcome many of those issues but there are still enough remaining for me to be cautious about even trying them.

I think a vast proportion of high end gear is amateurs with the money to buy the gear and I am probably far from alone in how I think about ergonomics.


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 27, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That's where I disagree.
> I am an enthusiast amateur whose purchases on gear way exceeds my abilities - but at the end of the day if I don't like using the gear I will not use it, so why buy it! I can understand a pro will make a judgement on cost-benefit and may put up with poor ergonomics if they think it will increase their hit rate and get them more jobs. But for me life is too short to put up with little irritating things that result in me missing shots - and having shot with Panasonic/Olympus for the last 5 years as a second system, I am aware of the little niggles of mirrorless. I am equally aware that many are saying the Sony mkiii cameras have overcome many of those issues but there are still enough remaining for me to be cautious about even trying them.
> 
> I think a vast proportion of high end gear is amateurs with the money to buy the gear and I am probably far from alone in how I think about ergonomics.


Trust me, at first, bad ergonomics might slow you down but it doesn't mean you will have a percentage of bad photos because of it.
The only thing that gets you bad photos is lack of experience. Try this: Gather a few of your friends with Smart phones and ask them to shoot, for example, a car. Some of them will shoot the photo vertically, chopping off some of the car and leaving way too much space on the top or bottom of the image. 
Others will shoot it landscape and get the wrong angle or perspective, some others will frame it nicely. 
The camera or the ergonomics don't count for a good photo. Only the eye and talent of the photographer. 
Now everybody is an amateur photographer. A 3 year old kid can take a good photo... Even that infamous Monkey who took its own Selfie.
Practice to become a better photographer, not an operator.

Cheers

P


----------



## mppix (Aug 28, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Agreed but knowing what a camera can do in terms of exposure and what kind of recovery it will get you is important. Nothing can recover over exposed images. Underexposed photos have a higher success in recovery even if noise will surface. It can be cleaned later. The Sony has such an amazingly DR that it almost doesn't need bracketing. I have never used bracketing in my life. I never needed it, but understand the purpose. Someday cameras won't even have that option because they will "see" what the human eye can. I look forward to that moment.
> I said it many times on these forums and other places: some company needs to start R&D on a camera with 3 layered sensors. One for shadows, one for mid tones and one for highlights. That will be the day th game will change. It's not impossible.



Congrats on the new cam!

Really not sure whether there is an appreciable DR difference between a A7III and say a 5DIV anymore. I tested this with a friend owning the A7III. Neither of us would want to push more than 3stops (locally, e.g corners) for professional work.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Trust me, at first, bad ergonomics might slow you down but it doesn't mean you will have a percentage of bad photos because of it.
> The only thing that gets you bad photos is lack of experience. Try this: Gather a few of your friends with Smart phones and ask them to shoot, for example, a car. Some of them will shoot the photo vertically, chopping off some of the car and leaving way too much space on the top or bottom of the image.
> Others will shoot it landscape and get the wrong angle or perspective, some others will frame it nicely.
> The camera or the ergonomics don't count for a good photo. Only the eye and talent of the photographer.
> ...




How to miss the point. 
If you read my post it was nothing to do with image quality or photographic ability - it was that if I do not like the ergonomics it will not be the camera I pick up as a reflex action. I take the MFT gear with me as a 'just in case' camera because the size savings are significant and the payoff worthwhile for the occasions I do not even know I will take any pictures. But if I am off to specifically take pictures, the Canon is what I reach for because I find it nicer to use and more responsive.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2018)

*snnnniif!* Ahhh! The scent of psychotic fanboyism. Seems some things really never change... 

I'll tell ya. The best thing I ever did was *leave *this nutsy forum and just DO photography. With whatever cameras I wished. It's fun having a diversified kit with many brands. You never lack for the best tool for the job, and that's a wonderful thing.

@clistudio: Give up while you still can, man. Just enjoy the cameras you prefer. If that is Sony, awesome. It it is Canon, awesome. There is literally no point in trying to convince anyone on these forums of anything. It will only sap your soul of it's essence and leave you a desiccated husk.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 1, 2018)

jrista said:


> *snnnniif!* Ahhh! The scent of psychotic fanboyism. Seems some things really never change...
> 
> I'll tell ya. The best thing I ever did was *leave *this nutsy forum and just DO photography. With whatever cameras I wished. It's fun having a diversified kit with many brands. You never lack for the best tool for the job, and that's a wonderful thing.
> 
> @clistudio: Give up while you still can, man. Just enjoy the cameras you prefer. If that is Sony, awesome. It it is Canon, awesome. There is literally no point in trying to convince anyone on these forums of anything. It will only sap your soul of it's essence and leave you a desiccated husk.


Right on, man!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2018)

jrista said:


> Just enjoy the cameras you prefer. If that is Sony, awesome. I



Woah, there's a blast from the past. Welcome back John!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Trust me, at first, bad ergonomics might slow you down but it doesn't mean you will have a percentage of bad photos because of it.
> The only thing that gets you bad photos is lack of experience. Try this: Gather a few of your friends with Smart phones and ask them to shoot, for example, a car. Some of them will shoot the photo vertically, chopping off some of the car and leaving way too much space on the top or bottom of the image.
> Others will shoot it landscape and get the wrong angle or perspective, some others will frame it nicely.
> The camera or the ergonomics don't count for a good photo. Only the eye and talent of the photographer.
> ...


Your having your equipment at the bottom of each post as a double-spaced list is a waste of space akin to the vertical shot you deride.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Your having your equipment at the bottom of each post as a double-spaced list is a waste of space akin to the vertical shot you deride.


Pro tip:


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2018)

Everyone else has their equipment listed along a continuous line, which I like to see, not as a double-spaced list of single items that takes up an unnecessary huge amount of space.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2018)

jrista said:


> *snnnniif!* Ahhh! The scent of psychotic fanboyism. Seems some things really never change...
> 
> I'll tell ya. The best thing I ever did was *leave *this nutsy forum and just DO photography. With whatever cameras I wished. It's fun having a diversified kit with many brands. You never lack for the best tool for the job, and that's a wonderful thing.
> 
> @clistudio: Give up while you still can, man. Just enjoy the cameras you prefer. If that is Sony, awesome. It it is Canon, awesome. There is literally no point in trying to convince anyone on these forums of anything. It will only sap your soul of it's essence and leave you a desiccated husk.


 Nutsy forum, and yet you keep coming back. SMH.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Trust me, at first, bad ergonomics might slow you down but it doesn't mean you will have a percentage of bad photos because of it.
> The only thing that gets you bad photos is lack of experience. Try this: Gather a few of your friends with Smart phones and ask them to shoot, for example, a car. Some of them will shoot the photo vertically, chopping off some of the car and leaving way too much space on the top or bottom of the image.
> Others will shoot it landscape and get the wrong angle or perspective, some others will frame it nicely.
> The camera or the ergonomics don't count for a good photo. Only the eye and talent of the photographer.
> ...



Thanks for admitting the camera doesn't count for a good photo and that Sony ergonomics are terrible. Very true, so I'll stick to Canon and be comfortable then. SMH. Why did you post? Yes, technology moves fast, but like you said... the camera doesn't make a photo good. Then why the fanboyism? Nobody really cares you switched. The problem is with the obnoxious post.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 3, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Thanks for admitting the camera doesn't count for a good photo and that Sony ergonomics are terrible. Very true, so I'll stick to Canon and be comfortable then. SMH. Why did you post? Yes, technology moves fast, but like you said... the camera doesn't make a photo good. Then why the fanboyism? Nobody really cares you switched. The problem is with the obnoxious post.





CanonFanBoy said:


> Thanks for admitting the camera doesn't count for a good photo and that Sony ergonomics are terrible. Very true, so I'll stick to Canon and be comfortable then. SMH. Why did you post? Yes, technology moves fast, but like you said... the camera doesn't make a photo good. Then why the fanboyism? Nobody really cares you switched. The problem is with the obnoxious post.


I care that I switched and I am sharing my opinions as to why. What's so obnoxious about it?
And the only fanboy here is you... Your name says it... and also your bipolarity... So why don't u go ask your other self something and come back to the forum when u have something interesting to say...


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 3, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Your having your equipment at the bottom of each post as a double-spaced list is a waste of space akin to the vertical shot you deride.


I didn't see a setting or a rule that says I can't list my equipment any way I want. Right? I thought we were talking about cameras and photography here. So to make it clear, your comment is also a waste of resources, text, space and time... Why don't u ask nicely next time?


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nutsy forum, and yet you keep coming back. SMH.



Well, username checks out... *SMH*


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 7, 2018)

I switched from Sharp to Sony.
My 5Ds R pics are awesome on the 75”.
Sony builds great TV’s


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I switched from Sharp to Sony.
> My 5Ds R pics are awesome on the 75”.
> Sony builds great TV’s


 LOL!


----------



## Act444 (Sep 7, 2018)

I've generally been a fan of Sony electronics over the years. I swore by their camcorders, stereo equipment and speakers. I considered one of their still cameras when I was first looking to get into digital (I ended up choosing the Canon G1). However, my biggest investment in them was with the MiniDisc (remember those?), and my experience with that did not leave me with a positive impression of them as a company. Still love the technology though, still find a way to make use of it to this day.

As a result, I don't think I could ever consider investing in another system built by them. JMO. A fool me once/twice kinda thing. But I definitely acknowledge their presence and (newfound) influence in the camera market.


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 7, 2018)

I am so glad you bought a Sony and you're selling your 1dx.
Now you can bugger off and continue your whinging on the Sony forum.

I've been forced to use Sonys a few times in my career, and found that not only did my fingers and hand hurt, but it took me ages to colour correct the thousands of images I took with them, because they made people look green.
If you need a camera that you need to push the files to ridiculous levels, then the exposure meter in the camera is faulty, or you're a poor photographer because you expose incorrectly.
Simple.
Spec sheets are wonderful, but I prefer a camera that is comfortable for me and has great colour out of the box, and takes nice photos.

I don't put a list of my gear at the bottom of every post because if I did, it would take up the whole page!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2018)

jrista said:


> Well, username checks out... *SMH*



And yet, I am honest. You, on the other hand, come back to disparage the forum and accuse the forum members of being nuts. Wow. Seems you are the nut. SMH. A sane person doesn't go where he doesn't like. Why did you come back? Must like it here after all.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> I care that I switched and I am sharing my opinions as to why. What's so obnoxious about it?
> And the only fanboy here is you... Your name says it... and also your bipolarity... So why don't u go ask your other self something and come back to the forum when u have something interesting to say...



Just shows even more how ignorant you are. Bipolar does not mean multiple personalities. Nobody but you cares that you switched. BTW: Nothing in your post is interesting. Just more Sony trolling. That's what is obnoxious. Just shoot. Happy with your camera? Great! Then just use it. SMH

Long exposures? Ever hear of "mirror up"? And the timed shutter release?

You want to pick on somebody's disability? Go ahead.


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And yet, I am honest. You, on the other hand, come back to disparage the forum and accuse the forum members of being nuts. Wow. Seems you are the nut. SMH. A sane person doesn't go where he doesn't like. Why did you come back? Must like it here after all.



Just keep talkin. You are making my case for me.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 7, 2018)

jrista said:


> Just keep talkin. You are making my case for me.


+1 these forums are less about photography and more about fighting...


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 7, 2018)

What is it about product launches that brings out all of the drama queens?


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 7, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> +1 these forums are less about photography and more about fighting...


no sir you have it all wrong your zeal on bringing the so called truth is mind boggling remember sony dat tec? or Betamax and the list is so long of failed items its scary.and digital cameras I got a box point and shoots plus the majic memory sticks don't even say sony is best its not.

I want the use of something that I can have serviced years later plus a proven file compatibly so you won the war go back the sony forums and stop trolling this one


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2018)

jrista said:


> I'll tell ya. The best thing I ever did was *leave *this nutsy forum and just DO photography. .



So feel free to continue staying away.

Oh - and the best thing you could ever have done was learn how to convert and post-process your files properly: because all I ever saw, when you posted up images to "prove" this problem or that failing, was someone who had no idea what to do with his files once they were off the camera.

Presumably you'll have found the time to do that, now you're not distracted by CR?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> I care that I switched and I am sharing my opinions as to why. What's so obnoxious about it?.


Nobody else cares.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2018)

jrista said:


> Just keep talkin. You are making my case for me.



Interesting that your website is still full of 7D wildlife images then, don't you think? Where are all the superlative Sony shots that blow Canon out of the water?

I suppose we'll be waiting a while for them, eh?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Nobody else cares.


Actually..... some of us do care.....

It helps to know the strengths and weaknesses of whatever tool you choose....


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> So feel free to continue staying away.
> 
> Oh - and the best thing you could ever have done was learn how to convert and post-process your files properly



Perhaps you should look at some of the Astrophotography threads.....


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Interesting that your website is still full of 7D wildlife images then, don't you think? Where are all the superlative Sony shots that blow Canon out of the water?
> 
> I suppose we'll be waiting a while for them, eh?



Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*

I have been doing astrophotography for years now, and it dominates what I do. I work with quite a few different kinds of cameras, and have processed data from dozens of different kinds of cameras, including DSLRs as well as scientific CCDs, astronomy CCD and CMOS cameras, etc. Sensors from Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Kodak, OnSemi, Aptina, and others. I routinely work with signals orders of magnitude fainter than anyone doing terrestrial photography works with (fainter than starlight, and starlight is darn faint!!).

I know how to process just fine. I am intimately familiar with faint signals and how to extract the most from them, and how different cameras compare in terms of noise and signal quality.

Here is one of my latest works, in this case with a Sony IMX183 sensor, 2.4 micron pixels, at about 1.9e- read noise and gain of 1e-/ADU:







This is some of the most beautiful raw data I've ever worked with, and acquired with a relatively modest aperture...and with very tiny pixels. Canon data doesn't come close to this kind of quality. I've processed very faint signals from every major Canon DSLR on the market (I now understand that Canon's sensors suffer from relatively high FPN, which is more of a problem for them than other noise terms, and even with dark calibration, their FPN is often unstable and does not always correct properly). I also use a Panasonic sensor regularly, and it performs very well as well...and in some respects, is actually superior to most of the Sony sensors I use. The only thing that can top the Sony IMX183 and Panasonic M IQ is data from a KAF-16803 (originally Kodak, now an OnSemi CCD sensor with very large pixels and immense dynamic range) when paired with large telescopes...however the camera alone costs at a minimum ten grand, and telescopes that can deliver comparable results with this KAF camera tend to cost eight to twenty grand or more. The KAF-16803 also requires some fairly extensive total exposure time with long individual exposures when operated at similar image scales (here, ~0.82"/px for the image above).


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2018)

Jon, beautiful!


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Jon, beautiful!



Thanks, Don! AP has really consumed my imaging, just about entirely. I am actually trying to get back into some terrestrial photography, as I haven't actually done much of any the last couple of years (some floral and fungal stuff mostly). While I am not a huge fan of Canon sensors, I'm a big fan of their glass, and it is well past time for me to upgrade some of my EF lenses (which thankfully, due to their decent backfocus, work on pretty much every camera I own regardless of brand. ;P)


----------



## AlanF (Oct 24, 2018)

Jon, great shot! Is the Sony sensor much different from the one they use in the latest RX100 and RX10 series?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2018)

jrista said:


> Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*
> I have been doing astrophotography for years now, and it dominates what I do. ... Here is one of my latest works...


Hi Jon!

Great picture, compliments



> ... I work with quite a few different kinds of cameras,
> ... Sony IMX183 sensor ... some of the most beautiful raw data I've ever worked with
> ... I now understand that Canon's sensors suffer from relatively high FPN ...


Thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge. I sometimes really missed that.
I think it is clear to all (even the Canon fans) that Sony sensors are better than Canon sensors, esp. when it comes to low light and/or low ISO.
Some are not willing to state that and that's sad.

I did a quick search for that IMX183 and only found some dedicated astro cams and some rumors from 2017 that it could be in RX cameras.
Can you tell me if it is used in any "consumer" camera?


If not I suppose that you can also admit, that this is a dedicated tool for a really special purpose. Isn't it?
And before you think I want to start that "... more than just the sensor ..." debate, no I won't.
Of course it stands as example for other Sony sensors that are built in "consumer" cameras and I want to understand your input in a better way.

I would be also interested in how you use it. I suppose you you do quite long exposures and read out the raw/base data.
Just in general: How do you read out and proceed that data?
As I am not into astro that much I don't want to get too much into detail.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## JBSF (Oct 24, 2018)

jrista said:


> Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*
> 
> I have been doing astrophotography for years now, and it dominates what I do. I work with quite a few different kinds of cameras, and have processed data from dozens of different kinds of cameras, including DSLRs as well as scientific CCDs, astronomy CCD and CMOS cameras, etc. Sensors from Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Kodak, OnSemi, Aptina, and others. I routinely work with signals orders of magnitude fainter than anyone doing terrestrial photography works with (fainter than starlight, and starlight is darn faint!!).
> 
> ...




Very beautiful, and quite accomplished.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 24, 2018)

jrista said:


> Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*



It is...trolls and passionate people do not mix well. This site still supplies me with valuable insight, though, and on occasion, superlative images, such as the one you just posted. Thank you!


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2018)

The IMX183 is actually a different sensor than the one used in the RX100. The RX100 uses an Exmor RS sensor, which is actually arguably BETTER than the IMX183 sensor I am using right now. The IMX183 is a machine vision sensor, and it has some amp glow, a kind you would never see in a mirrorless photography sensor. There are some astro cameras built on Sony Exmor sensors, including the IMX128 and IMX094, which are used in familiar cameras like the D810 and D750. Sony Exmor sensors are, IMO, the best there is. The IMX183 is a good sensor, with significantly lower noise, vanishingly low FPN, and overall a much cleaner noise profile in general than any Canon sensor, but it is still not quite as good as an Exmor sensor.

The key issue with amp glow is, you really cannot use the data without calibrating it properly. Calibration requires subtraction of a master dark frame. For normal photography, which is usually composed of a single frame, calibration is never done and usually not an option with the commonly used raw processing software. When calibrated, the IMX183 has amazing characteristics, but that glow does put it a step behind the Exmor sensors when it comes to cutting edge strait out of camera IQ. The read noise of the IMX183 is very low, and in fact may even be lower than a lot of the Exmor sensors, and it has ultra low dark current (around 0.002e-/s), and its noise profile is just wonderful. For the tiny 2.4 micron pixels, it actually has a rather larger 15,000e- full well capacity, which is a bit of a technical feat in and of itself. The IMX183 also comes in monochrome versions which work better with astrophotography imaging filters. 

If I had the funds, I'd get an astro camera with an IMX128 or IMX094 in it. These are the full frame sensors used in the D810, D750, A7r, etc. They are amazing sensors. Sadly they also only come in color versions, there are no mono versions, which limits their versatility for astrophotography. Still...two of the best sensors on the planet at the moment.


----------



## Click (Oct 24, 2018)

Awesome. Great shot, Jon.


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2018)

Regarding usage, there is actually a lot of flexibility with it. I use moderately long exposures of 10 minutes with narrow band imaging (narrow band filters cut out all but about (actually less than) 1% of the visible spectrum, which GREATLY reduces the photon flux levels to far below even normal starlight levels...the image above is actually a multi-channel narrow band image). However the camera has variable gain, and can be used at pretty high gain settings. At higher gains I can use 2-3 minute narrow band exposures, which are actually very short in the grand scheme of astrophotography exposures.. Higher gains have less dynamic range though...so, it is often a balancing act. Most CCD cameras require exposures at least 20-30 minutes for narrow band, and in some cases exposures of 60-90 minutes are required for CCDs with read noise in the range of 8-11e-. I know of some CCD users who push their individual sub exposures to 2 hours... (FTR, the Canon 5D III, which I've used extensively for both birds, wildlife and astrophotography, has 6-8e- read noise when used at viable ISO settings...and it, too, requires pretty long exposuers. Canon FPN is horrible, though...)

For LRGB imaging (luminance and RGB), exposures are usually in the range of 30-90 seconds. This can actually present a bit of a challenge, as with astrophotography we work with signals so faint that and yet objects with such immense dynamic range that a single exposure is insufficient to capture enough of the faint signal without clipping too much of the bright signals (i.e. stars, galaxy cores, etc.) We have to compensate for that by stacking lots of individual sub exposure frames together. When exposures are only 30-60 seconds, but we need several hours of data in total to produce an image with good SNR (again, we are working with signals many orders of magnitude fainter than starlight, and orders of magnitude fainter still than the darkest shadows anyone might pull out of a terrestrial photo), which can mean stacking hundreds of frames. That can get a bit tedious once you get beyond about 200 frames, as disk space, cpu and memory requirements start to skyrocket when you need to handle 300, 500, 1000 frames.

With narrow band, where signals are again orders of magnitude fainter STILL, we sometimes get an object photon once every minute or so! It can take several minutes to pick up enough photons to produce a usable photoelectric object signal in each sub in the faintest areas of the object. So even with 10 minute subs, we may only have a few electrons worth of signal. I usually stack around 60 10m subs, which is 10 hours of exposure. Such an integrated exposure may, finally, have a signal reminiscent of the shadows in a normal terrestrial photo. 

The value of calibration then becomes significant here, as dark signal introduces FPN, and FPN can actually be a fairly significant noise term in each individual exposure. In fact, having a lot more experience with a wide range of cameras and sensors these days, I think one of Canon's bigger issues is high FPN...the 7D was a good example of this. Even with strong signals, the 7D images could still look noisy...and this was because of FPN, not read noise. Subtracting a master dark calibration frame removes most of the FPN, producing a cleaner signal. The IMX183 has one of the cleanest dark signals and lowest FPN of any sensor I have used so far, save some of the Exmor sensors (which are about as low) and a couple of the Sony ICX CCD sensors (there are two ICX sensors on the market that are definitely better than the IMX sensors I use...however Sony has sadly ended production of CCDs and these amazing sensors, the ICX814 and ICX834, will no longer be an option once existing supplies run out...plus, cameras built on these sensors tend to cost about $4500 base, and with all necessary accessories for astrophotography, usually closer to $6-7k.)


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2018)

I do not, and never will, understand brand fanaticism. If you are threatened by someone else’s choice, you are the one with the problem.....

Personally, I have been getting into astrophography as well. My understanding is that the most important gear is a good tracking mount and astroguider, and knowing how to process images and what type of images to take is far more important than camera choice. Once I get better at that, I intend to revisit camera bodies, and if Sony is the answer, so be it! My choice of an astrophotography camera has zero impact on what I choose to use in the rest of my life....

Jon has been an inspiration to me. His images show what is possible and he is generous with advice. I am glad to see him back on the forum and look forward to see what the future brings.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I have been getting into astrophography as well. My understanding is that the most important gear is a good tracking mount and astroguider, and knowing how to process images and what type of images to take is far more important than camera choice.



I have not tried taking any pictures through my telescope since I used slide film over 15 years ago. I imagine that the old Canon mount for the telescope might work with my current digital bodies, but I haven't tried. Light pollution around here is too great to photograph much of anything. Even back then, I don't think the clock mechanism was that accurate. I got some decent shots of Jupiter, but didn't try Saturn, though it was relatively close at the time and looked good through the telescope. An exposure long enough was too likely to be a blur, so not worth wasting film on. Also eyeballing the angle to Polaris with my equipment that is rather primitive by modern standards would have given even more of a tracking error.

So I would be interested to know what you come up with in method, equipment, subject matter, even though I'm not gung ho enough to travel to dark places and try my hand.


----------



## jrista (Oct 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I have not tried taking any pictures through my telescope since I used slide film over 15 years ago. I imagine that the old Canon mount for the telescope might work with my current digital bodies, but I haven't tried. Light pollution around here is too great to photograph much of anything. Even back then, I don't think the clock mechanism was that accurate. I got some decent shots of Jupiter, but didn't try Saturn, though it was relatively close at the time and looked good through the telescope. An exposure long enough was too likely to be a blur, so not worth wasting film on. Also eyeballing the angle to Polaris with my equipment that is rather primitive by modern standards would have given even more of a tracking error.
> 
> So I would be interested to know what you come up with in method, equipment, subject matter, even though I'm not gung ho enough to travel to dark places and try my hand.



These days, you want a German equatorial tracking mount, or GEM. You can pick a lower end one up for around $1500...I started with an Orion Atlas myself, but I used my Canon 600mm f/4 L II lens which is relatively large. An Orion Sirius is cheaper, just under a grand, and could handle smaller scopes easily. You can start with camera lenses and a DSLR if you want. 

If you use a short enough lens, such as a Samyang 135mm f/2 (an excellent lens for wide field AP), you could also use a tracker on a tripod, rather than a full GEM. I also use the Star Adventurer, which is a small GEM mount head that can be put on any standard photography tripod. It works great with DSLRs and smaller lenses. The 135mm is about as long as you can use on a tracker like this, and you need to get a better polar alignment (although that is not too difficult with something like the Star Adventurer). You can easily use shorter focal lengths, 85mm, 24mm, or 14mm (again, you can get all of these from Rokinon/Samyang and their corner star performance is, well, stellar! Better than just about any other camera lens, from Canon, Sigma, Zeiss, etc.) A 135mm focal length, though, can get you some great views.

Now, if you cannot get out to a dark site, then my recommendation is to try to get a monochrome camera and use narrow band filters. The image I shared above was done with a mono camera and three 3nm narrow band filters: Ha, OIII and SII. Narrow band filters block out the vast majority of light pollution, and pass only the key emissions from emission nebula. Narrow band is not all that great for galaxies, nor is it good for dark dust nebula, reflection nebula, or star clusters...but you can image a LOT of emission nebula that are in our galaxy.

There are two good mono options on the market now. The Panasonic M sensor and the Sony IMX183 sensor have been used in cooled, CMOS astro cameras from QHY and ZWO for a few years now. I jumped on this bandwagon when it first started in April 2016, and have been having a blast with both cameras. The IMX183 cameras cost a little under a grand, the Panasonic M cameras (slightly larger sensor) cost around $1200. You will need filters, but...you can just start with a single Ha filter and do monochrome imaging to start if you need to stay on a budget. (Eventually you will want to add at least an OIII filter and a filter wheel, along with some control software, to get the most out of the system.) You can pair either of these cameras with a Samyang 135mm lens...the ZWOs are a better option here as their backfocus is just 6.5mm, which makes it easier to fit both a filter wheel and an EF adapter in the mere 44mm from the lens mount to the sensor.

As a quick side note...I mentioned I use 3nm filters. With very wide angles like with the 135mm or wider (or even at 200mm), you are probably better off with wider bandpass narrow band filters. Something in the 6-8.5nm range, which are available (and also cheaper) will ensure that the whole sensor gets good, even illumination (there are specific reasons why this is necessary, but it is more technical and a discussion for those who get farther along in the hobby.)


----------



## Berowne (Nov 3, 2018)

Great AP, Jon! Thanks for showing. 
Greetings Andy


----------

