# Interesting link. Many serious pros are now using Sony FF cameras.



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2015)

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/07/the-white-house-is-shooting-with-a-sony-a7r-ii-now/

I found this interesting.

I wonder when and if, Canon think they will have to reply to the ever increasing number of genuine full time high profile pros now shooting with systems other than DSLR's? The position I have always taken, and still do, is that I use lenses that only Canon make (and I am sure Sony never will) so personally the conversation is moot, but the majority of general shooting can be done with the modest selection of lenses now available for the Sony and this is obviously compelling enough for some people to change.

I actually shot with an A7R II the other day for a few hours, not long enough for sure, but I was totally unimpressed with the viewfinder/EVF, the lag and blackout was shockingly bad to me, it seems phone screens have better refresh rates etc than the >$3,000 Sony combo, and the menus were painful. But the IQ was excellent and for generalist use where I am not looking for ultimate narrow dof control f4 zooms work with the iso capabilities it has.

Certainly I am nowhere near convinced with this iteration, but many pros are, what are your thoughts?

And no, this is not a troll post, everybody that knows me here knows that. I just read the linked article and having used one myself on Monday I was interested in others thoughts.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 8, 2015)

An individual pro will use what ever equipment he or she can afford, is comfortable using, and provides what the photographer needs for their individual type of photography. 

It is up to the individual to choose which camera system he or she prefers to use.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 8, 2015)

I think they should be a little more cautious. Using "White House" and "Shooting" so close together will get you on the NSA watch list.

Then again, so will reading this thread


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 8, 2015)

What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers. 

Jarrod


----------



## Perio (Oct 8, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> 
> Jarrod



I think many people are attracted by possibilities of using a wide variety of lenses from other manufacturers...


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 8, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> 
> Jarrod



+1. It can't compete with the Nikon/Canon ecosystem. Love the RT system -- reliable and easy to use. What can compete with the 24-70 II and the 70-200 IS II? 1st party systems work they way they should. Adapting lenses does not - you get what you get and who knows if the next version will maintain the same level of compatibility for all lenses. The lenses are just as large/heavy as Canon/Nikon counterparts and the battery life is much worse...

For hobbyists, it provides a way of using vintage lenses. But many of those combinations don't perform as well as 1st party systems. Sony native lenses are also expensive, so no savings there. And the most ardent Sony mirrorless users have to upgrade every year to try and approach DSLR performance (i.e. tracking focus or low light focus). So which system costs more at the end of the day?

Mirrorless may get "there" in a few years, but until it does, I'll still use the DSLR.

BTW, I think that Sony has thrown its best shots, and the pace of advancement will slow considerably. Sony has refreshed camera sensors with the technologies used for cell-phone cameras first. IBIS, layered BSI sensors. What else? Can Sony survive in an environment where its users update every 3-5 years instead of every year?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> 
> Jarrod


 For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> and the menus were painful.



They are, fortunately the camera itself is customizable enough that I rarely need to access the menus. Basically, if I'm not formatting a memory card, tethering, or wirelessly transferring photos to my phone, I don't access the menu.

That being said, the controls themselves, to me, leave a lot to be desired. But they're better than the menu (and better than the A7R, which collected copious dust in my closet, as opposed to the A7R2 which I use ~daily).


----------



## dak723 (Oct 8, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> 
> Jarrod



I have had a Canon 6D for two years as well as a Canon SL1. I was intrigued by the Sony A7 mainly because of its size and weight. I hate carrying around the 6D and 24-105 lens for any sort of distance. If I'm going to take a hike and bring my camera, it will be the SL1. So the Sony really appealed to me. Alas, I also found the EVF really distracting and it did not give me a very accurate WYSIWYG when it came to exposure. I used to own the Olympus EM-1 and it had a far superior EVF and the WYSIWYG was much more accurate to set the exposure. Unfortunately, I bought the Sony withe the Sony kit lens - which was probably the worst lens I have ever owned. Very soft away from the center. I returned the camera and - just to make sure I didn't have a bad copy - bought the original A7 and kit lens (same sensor and cheaper). Found it to be the same story. Kit lens very soft away from the center. Now, if the sensor proved to be as great as all the hype one reads about on the internet, then I may still have kept the Sony, but compared to the 6D, I was not impressed. The greater DR was never noticeable in the shots I took. Overall contrast and color were not as pleasing to my eye. I'm hoping that the next generation of 6D will be smaller. That is my only complaint with the 6D and the main appeal of the Sony FF offerings to me.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.



I would imagine that if your job is taking pictures of Muckety Mucks doing business that a silent shutter would be a big factor. 

I could imagine that yacking on the phone while a mirror slaps could be distracting.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 8, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > For his specific use the totally silent shutter would be a hugely strong point. It is totally soundless.
> ...



Actually, a fair portion of my work consists of just that. I find the near-silent shutter on the 5DIII to be very useful. Generally, I don't need complete silence in these meetings and presentations, but being as unobtrusive as possible is helpful. (Although frankly, without some sort of invisibility cloak, you are still going to be noticeable, especially as you move around to get the appropriate shot.)

I would find an even quieter shutter interesting, but honestly, the low light and cropping capacity of the camera is at least as important. So, as with most things, it still is the whole ecosystem that matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> ...



A 1D X would work just fine, if worn with appropriate clothing...a Kevlar suit, for example.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 8, 2015)

Let's return in six months and see what the situation in the White House is then. Mirrorless will always require power to view and currently isn't real time; may be one day. I still think a hybrid OVF / EVF system will win the day.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Oct 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Let's return in six months and see what the situation in the White House is then. Mirrorless will always require power to view and currently isn't real time; may be one day. I still think a hybrid OVF / EVF system will win the day.



I've been hoping for a hybrid system for quite some time.... Best of both worlds and you can keep it small too like a SL1 with a full frame sensor. The central part of the viewfinder is optical but other parts can be Electronic. 
With the weight/size/cost of fast mirrorless glass, this is Canikon's best shot at saving their future I think


----------



## TeT (Oct 9, 2015)

... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.

looking at it that way the sony might make a little more sense.

just a thought


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2015)

TeT said:


> ... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.
> 
> looking at it that way the sony might make a little more sense.
> 
> just a thought



Except Pete Souza is 61 and was Ronald Reagan's White House photographer.


----------



## retroreflection (Oct 9, 2015)

Mirrorless with a wide prime is where "smaller than dslr" is true. Also, less intimidating. Most who find their way into the Oval Office can handle a huge camera jammed into their faces, but I'm sure they can still be put more at ease. I really think wide is where it's at for most presidential photography.
I can also see a photographer with three or more cameras around his neck, if they are smaller than a 5DIII. Going for the gonzo 5 Leicas look- late 60's nostalgia sells, baby.
Add the aforementioned truly silent shutter, and you've got something intriguing for an official photographer. But, everything else needs to be there as well.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 9, 2015)

A wedding photographer, Jason Lanier, recently put out a series of youtube videos about why he moved to Sony from a Nikon DSLR. Several other photographers have release similar videos. The general gist is that the areas where DSLRs outperform (faster autofocus, better autofocus tracking, better battery life) are less important to them than the areas where mirrorless cameras outperform such as having an EVF (and there are a lot of people who love the benefits of EVFs), more accurate autofocus, silent operation and form factor. Obviously other photographers feel differently about the pros and cons of mirrorless. And then there are the costs and learning curve in changing systems.

Using Pete Souza as an example probably isn't the best choice. He's known for using a variety of cameras. When we start seeing sports and wildlife shooters favouring Sony mirrorless cameras, then we'll know the days of DSLRs are numbered.


----------



## TeT (Oct 9, 2015)

unfocused said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > ... alot of 20 somethings (and 30 somethings) of today didn't pick up dads 35mm minolta when they first were exposed to cameras. Many of then were exposed first to the point & shoots that were available.
> ...




I was speaking to some reasons for a possible trend...


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 9, 2015)

So what I got from that article is that a Pro add a Sony to his bag. I am not shocked about that your surprised. If i could afford it, I would love to pick one. Doesn't mean I will leave canon. It looks like a fun toy.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 9, 2015)

can only speak for myself but, considering all the different gear I have and use (and some not so much), Sony is _not_ in my inventory for a variety of reasons. 
But I _am_ keeping an eye on it.
Meanwhile, my Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samyang, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc., all get a regular workout. I did buy some Sony action-cams .. but they don't count.


----------



## drob (Oct 9, 2015)

Sony and Nikon are making innovative cameras in leaps and bounds with features that people want. Seems like Canon is always playing catch up with the rest and MAYBE gives one additional feature that no one else has, but the refresh rate is to slow for some. I get it, I love my Canon 6D but get a little gadget envy for the newer Nikon and Sony models. 4 to 5 years between each camera update is getting ridiculous. Don't think iphones would be around if you had 4 years in between models.


----------



## sanj (Oct 9, 2015)

The only reason I can think of is photographers seeking the slight edge in IQ at base ISO and small form.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 9, 2015)

I think if you are serious photographer for a long time you are used to big size and weight.
If you are young coming into it and you've been using small light cameras a 5DIII or a 1DX is massive and very heavy.
I think Sony is exploiting small and light to the hilt.
Alot of people want this and can afford to pay for it.

They don't want something big and clunky because they may not be serious photographer using tripods etc.
Sony are good for bringing out new versions quite quickly and that appeals to alot of consumers too that want the latest. I'm not surprised more pro's are using the Sony cameras because they suit alot of needs especially if you want to travel light.

Where Canon continue to be successful is that their lens are excellent and work very well with the Canon bodies.
Menu system and layout has been perfected. There is very little learning curve when you upgrade.
You could not complain as a Canon user about the lens they produce (except the price).
If Sony want to progress they need to produce lens that are better than Canons. 
I'm surprised that they don't look at taking over Sigma as Sigma has made great progress in this area.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 9, 2015)

drob said:


> Sony and Nikon are making innovative cameras in leaps and bounds with features that people want. Seems like Canon is always playing catch up with the rest


Why does Canon outsell those other brands? Why do Canon pro bodies retain value better? People always want to pick features from different brands and combine them into a single product, but at some point they have to lay down their money and buy a product that's available. That decision still favors Canon.

Just to be clear, I hope Sony and Nikon become more competitive to put pressure on Canon. So far they haven't figured out how to do that.


----------



## JClark (Oct 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> The only reason I can think of is photographers seeking the slight edge in IQ at base ISO and small form.



Exactly this. Why haul my 1dx around to do landscape work when I can get better IQ in a smaller, lighter package? The 1Dx has it's place, but the overhead compartment of a plane, or in a hiking pack, isn't it.


----------



## tiltshift (Oct 9, 2015)

I wouldn't say I have switched from my 5dIII to Sony but i find myself using the Sony a7rII 90%. for me I just like using the camera more. I like the EVF (I way prefer an evf than optical now), the tiltscreen (this actually surprised me... dont judge until you have one), I like the steadyshot, and I like the IQ (Dr, resolution, iso), lastly I like to bust out old manual lenses and see how they render.

for "serious" work I still use all my Canon lenses and I can say there is NO weight or size savings but for me it isn't about that. 

is it perfect no. but is the canon 5dsR perfect? no, or any camera for that matter? I think the bottom line is for some people the benefits of Sony (even with adapted lenses) out weights the cons when compared to Canon's current offerings. I am guessing many people, myself certainly included, are waiting for the 5D4 to see what Canon comes up with.


----------



## benperrin (Oct 9, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> A wedding photographer, Jason Lanier, recently put out a series of youtube videos about why he moved to Sony from a Nikon DSLR. Several other photographers have release similar videos. The general gist is that the areas where DSLRs outperform (faster autofocus, better autofocus tracking, better battery life) are less important to them than the areas where mirrorless cameras outperform such as having an EVF (and there are a lot of people who love the benefits of EVFs), more accurate autofocus, silent operation and form factor. Obviously other photographers feel differently about the pros and cons of mirrorless. And then there are the costs and learning curve in changing systems.



I really wouldn't use Jason Lanier as a good example of someone switching. His work is hardly great compared to some of the amazing wedding pros out there.

In terms of the mirrorless vs dslr debate I used my a7r2 and 5d2 at a wedding on Saturday and I can tell you that the 5d2 was far more reliable than the a7r2 (yes a 7 year old camera is more reliable than a brand new one). I was using the metabones and Canon lenses though which I know is a disadvantage for the Sony. The only area that I really preferred the a7r2 over the 5d2 was for video where the IBIS really makes a difference. A dslr just feels reliable and makes getting the shot much easier. I would prefer the a7r2 for landscape work though. Getting an estimation of what you will see speeds up the process and allows instant feedback which enables you to be more creative in my opinion.


----------



## Sunnystate (Oct 9, 2015)

Just love it... Its exactly how predicted, it shows how posters here are detached from reality.

And how real photographers making non bias decisions based on logic not some bizarre brand patriotism!

Love it!

Waiting for more.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 9, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > A wedding photographer, Jason Lanier, recently put out a series of youtube videos about why he moved to Sony from a Nikon DSLR. Several other photographers have release similar videos. The general gist is that the areas where DSLRs outperform (faster autofocus, better autofocus tracking, better battery life) are less important to them than the areas where mirrorless cameras outperform such as having an EVF (and there are a lot of people who love the benefits of EVFs), more accurate autofocus, silent operation and form factor. Obviously other photographers feel differently about the pros and cons of mirrorless. And then there are the costs and learning curve in changing systems.
> ...



Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet. 
Thing 2: For me it's about half and half which makes getting the shot easier. If I'm trying to track a bird across the sky with long lenses, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. Also if I'm in a situation where I am almost continuously moving the AF point around, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. If I'm manually focusing, the A7R2 is easier to use. If I'm shooting portraiture, the A7R2 with native lenses is easier to use due to eye AF.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > What is the advantage of using a Sony mirrorless camera? You could say sensor but Nikon uses the same one. I wouldn't think size and weight would make much difference for most photographers.
> ...



Absolutely! The Whitehouse photographer needs to be as unobtrusive as possible. A silent shutter would be a huge factor. So would a increased resolution. These photos are going to be passed down infuture generations when 42 mp will be low resolution.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2015)

TeT said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm just messing with you.


----------



## benperrin (Oct 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet.
> Thing 2: For me it's about half and half which makes getting the shot easier. If I'm trying to track a bird across the sky with long lenses, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. Also if I'm in a situation where I am almost continuously moving the AF point around, my 5D3 is significantly easier to use. If I'm manually focusing, the A7R2 is easier to use. If I'm shooting portraiture, the A7R2 with native lenses is easier to use due to eye AF.



I was actually referring to speed of autofocus, viewfinder blackout time and general lag when waking up. The a7r2 just seemed slower in so many ways that I felt like I was going to miss moments. I don't think I had any "aperture 0" moments so that wasn't a major issue. I still found the af of the 5d2 to be more reliable than focus peaking and focus magnification wasn't really an option during dancing and such moments. Someone talked before about silent shutter and I have to say that it's something that I loved as well.

Really I think it all depends on the situation. The a7r2 excels in many areas and dslrs also excel in many areas. My opinion is that a switch is not on the cards for me. I'll continue to use both side by side.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 9, 2015)

If I were a wedding photographer, a really good electronic viewfinder might be a serious asset in dark churches. Also, there may be some things about the video on Sony cameras that are favorable, compared with the Canikons. I don't do video, so I don't keep up with it, but wedding photographers frequently do video. 

I think that different types of pros would gravitate toward Sony vs. Canikon. Sports, wildlife, PJ photographers wouldn't touch Sony with a 10 ft. pole. (3 meter pole?) Agencies wouldn't use Sony, because the support is insufficient, compared with the repair and loaner support from the Canikons. On the other hand, studio product photographers with Arca or other view camera adapters for FF and a suite of Rodenstock digital lenses might go for the Sony A7Rii in a big way. Hybrid stills / video users might go for Sony A7S rather than a mostly stills-oriented Canikon. Landscapers are all over the A7Rii.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 9, 2015)

NancyP said:


> If I were a wedding photographer, a really good electronic viewfinder might be a serious asset in dark churches.



Or a serious hindrance - they don't work well in very low light


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 9, 2015)

benperrin said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Thing 1: yes, using an electronic adapter affects stability. It's talking to third party electronics through a 4th party adapter. The latest firmware (yesterday or the day before) seems to be pretty stable. I haven't had any of those "aperture 0" moments yet.
> ...



Yah, AF is significantly peppier with the canon body and canon lenses (though if you're in single point, with recent firmware, PDAF on adapted lenses is quite fast). But native glass is a different ballgame. I'm not sure what I'd choose if I could bring only one rig to a wedding. I lean towards a 5D3, but more for battery life than anything else.

Oh, and I have yet to find a situation where focus peeking even seems reliable, let alone useful.

[quote author=benperrin]
Really I think it all depends on the situation. The a7r2 excels in many areas and dslrs also excel in many areas. My opinion is that a switch is not on the cards for me. I'll continue to use both side by side.
[/quote]

Exactly.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2015)

I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.

New gear :
1. A7r II use most with FE 25mm f2 and FE 16-35mm f4
2. A7s use most with FE 35mm f2.8, FE 85mm f1.8, FE 70-200mm f4
3. 1Dx + EF 200f2 all time

As others mentioned, I enjoy using eye and face focus from A7 series.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.
> 
> New gear :
> 1. A7r II use most with FE 25mm f2 and FE 16-35mm f4
> ...



by the 25 f2 you mean the Batis? I still haven't managed to get my hands on one.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 10, 2015)

Ineed. Long gone are the days when a photographer who worked for a journal or a news outlet could pull the right tools for an assignment from a pool of company purchased gear.

How we consume images has changed radically in recent years, so I'm not sure we'll see vast numbers of pros along the sidelines of sporting events pointing their $12,000 white L-glass toward the scene of action. I don't know of many pros who can afford such luxuries.



AcutancePhotography said:


> An individual pro will use what ever equipment he or she can afford, is comfortable using, and provides what the photographer needs for their individual type of photography.
> 
> It is up to the individual to choose which camera system he or she prefers to use.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 10, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I've reduced my Canon DSLR last couple months.
> ...



Yes, both Batis 25 & 85mm are wonderful. My 2cents, these should be considered as "must have" lenses for A7 shooters. The contrast, clarity, and color are just too wonderful. Prior to Batis 85mm, I used to shoot Canon 85mm f1.2 for portrait(still wonderful lens). I just sold my Canon 85mm after few hundred shots with Batis 85mm. I could not say enough about face and eye focus features in A7 series.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I'm curious about the 85, but I have little use for that FL. The 25 will be mine certainly!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 10, 2015)

Hi Scott,

This is my take. At this moment, I do not see how wildlife and sports shooters jump into mirrorless world. There is no lenses. AF tracking is not up to DSLR. Battery life is still bad. The small body style and structure is not solid as DSLR. Mirrorless bodies couldn't take the real world beating as 1dx, 5d or similar in Nikon lines.

As many already mentioned and I agreed, landscape and studio shooters might add a7 series to their kit.

Have a great weekend,
Dylan


----------



## distant.star (Oct 10, 2015)

.
Oldest trick in the marketing book -- trot out pro photographers who are using your stuff. Even better if they've kicked a competitor to the curb.


----------



## dolina (Oct 11, 2015)

Buy a Sony if you want a Sony.

Buy a Canon if you want to buy a Canon.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 12, 2015)

dolina said:


> Buy a Sony if you want a Sony.
> 
> Buy a Canon if you want to buy a Canon.



My thoughts exactly. Not everything has to be a competition.


----------

