The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The most amazing thing happened today...

pegelli

Well-known member
@ Alajuela, you obviously know it's always dangerous to praise Canon in a Sony forum so I applaud your post above :thumbs:

I also agree, while the a7 (incl. the R&S versions) are great innovations and do attract a lot of attention they're not anybody's mass product camera. There's still some quirks in these bodies that not everybody wants to work around and MF with older lenses will probably remain a niche application, even though it will help incremental sales. So as long as Canon and Nikon produce a nice line of competent camera's in the range from consumer to pro (which they do) they will remain a strong brand in the marketplace. Sony is playing catch-up with these innovations and trying out new things which I like a lot, but for them it's only way forward otherwise they get crushed between the big two.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I remember an interview of some Canon official who stated that photography was at a crossroad and that they had important developing choices to make in the near future, that these choices were critical and shouldn't lead the wrong way, (that was at least two years ago). Canon was answering to questions concerning both the fusion of photo and video and the emerging competition of the mirrorless bodies. My take on this is that they still don't know where to go and that their research department is sleeping. My first digital cam was a Canon G2 and my first DSLR a Canon D60 of 6 MB, back in 2002. At the time yes, they were offering the best sensors, but now, they are sleeping/hesitating. Sony and Olympus are more innovative.
Or they are happily sitting on the healthiest camera sales in the industry, letting everyone else do the leg work and trial and error of an industry in flux and when the dust settles, not having built a single camera yet which went the wrong direction or failed in the modern DSLR world, they see whether the future has been determined to be X or Y and start maxing the industry in that direction. They can afford to do it. I can't fault it as a long term strategy.

Sony is throwing cameras at a dartboard like a drunk old man in a pub, fuji is maxing the retro cool look while trying to do different sensor things, Olympus is trying to make mirrorless work as a pro camera and solution, Panasonic is thinking 4K, Sigma is designing cameras while on acid, etc, etc. I don't see any clear strategy in any of their solutions and their slice of the industries pie reflect that. Why on earth would Canon want to enter the flailing fist fight, better first to see who is going to win and fight them once everyone else is dead and buried. It's not innovative or brave but given the economic climate worldwide, it does make sense if you are big, strong and have that significant a market penetration.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I wouldn't blame them for any hesitation Annna. If you look at the dismal over-all sales of cameras in general, especially the initial consumer reaction to mirror less (which bombed badly in the US), it isn't losing market share they should be worried about, it is the shrinking market (volume of sales).

It is cell phones that gutted the cash base of all these companies. Consumers simply do not see the advantage of P&S cameras anymore … and that situation will only get worse, not better.

IMO, Sony had much less to lose by picking their "all in" SLT/Mirrorless direction, their user base was small compared to Canon and Nikon. Canon can sit back and let Sony/Fuji/Oly test the market by throwing a zillion different cameras against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Meanwhile, both C and N are still the staple for many pro-sumer and pro markets. Wedding/Event/Portrait photographers are still overwhelmingly vested in Canon and Nikon, and if a shooter looks to Sony, etc. it is more as a supplemental camera. I'm the rare bird in shooting weddings with Sony products. When Sony went all EVF, I wished I hadn't … and if I were not moving away from this type paying work, I would have moved back to Canon or Nikon.

Innovation isn't the end all … ease of use, consistency, and good IQ is. My assistant just made a commitment, and evaluated the Sony offerings against Canon (he had no investment in either), and chose the Canon EOS 6D. I process all images from every shoot, and can tell you his files left little to be desired.

All these cameras are venturing out beyond what most needs and abilities are. Pixel peepers and obsessive compulsive attention to minutia represents a drop in the bucket in the ocean of over-all sales of photographic products. Cell Phones prove that.

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
iPhone has been the death of traditional type cameras. It's really that simple. Mostly all imaging is being done for web, social media type work. I have two kids right in the middle of that demographic a 24 and 17 year old. The phone is there lifeblood as is everyone in those age brackets. My daughter is having a baby in October and not even looking for a camera in the traditional way. Her iPhone will take 99 percent of her kids images. 5 years ago they would be asking me to get them a camera. Not in today's world.

That's just one example of a market that went iPhone as our generation went out and bought new cameras when we had had our kids. That seems to be no longer the case.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I wouldn't blame them for any hesitation Annna. If you look at the dismal over-all sales of cameras in general, especially the initial consumer reaction to mirror less (which bombed badly in the US), it isn't losing market share they should be worried about, it is the shrinking market (volume of sales).

It is cell phones that gutted the cash base of all these companies. Consumers simply do not see the advantage of P&S cameras anymore … and that situation will only get worse, not better.

IMO, Sony had much less to lose by picking their "all in" SLT/Mirrorless direction, their user base was small compared to Canon and Nikon. Canon can sit back and let Sony/Fuji/Oly test the market by throwing a zillion different cameras against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Meanwhile, both C and N are still the staple for many pro-sumer and pro markets. Wedding/Event/Portrait photographers are still overwhelmingly vested in Canon and Nikon, and if a shooter looks to Sony, etc. it is more as a supplemental camera. I'm the rare bird in shooting weddings with Sony products. When Sony went all EVF, I wished I hadn't … and if I were not moving away from this type paying work, I would have moved back to Canon or Nikon.

Innovation isn't the end all … ease of use, consistency, and good IQ is. My assistant just made a commitment, and evaluated the Sony offerings against Canon (he had no investment in either), and chose the Canon EOS 6D. I process all images from every shoot, and can tell you his files left little to be desired.

All these cameras are venturing out beyond what most needs and abilities are. Pixel peepers and obsessive compulsive attention to minutia represents a drop in the bucket in the ocean of over-all sales of photographic products. Cell Phones prove that.

- Marc
Marc, all

I took your post to answer Marc, as it reflects so much of my feelings - although I am not a pro or making money from photography.

I am an early adopter of mirror less, started back in 2010 already with Olympus and later Sony and followed most of these models up till Olympus EM1 and currently Fuji XT1. While I am really loving what these cameras have to offer right now, and most of them have really great EVFs meanwhile, a clear view through a good or excellent OVF form any better Canon or Nikon is still lightyears ahead from even most modern and advanced EVFs - at least for my taste.

I had that experience just last weekend when I was shooting (with my current mirror less) my daughter and some of her friends playing - which was not even fastest movement, but I still felt so many times disconnected. When I tried some images with my Nikon D800E this was a big relief and just lightyears ahead from the mirror less speed and accuracy.

We always say that EVFs are almost there - IMHO we are still lightyears away from the accuracy and speed you get with a good OVF. Had I to choose a camera to go on Safari now - it would be anything like Nikon D810, D4s etc or Canon 5D3, 1DX, 6D and not look back. And supplement this FF choice with an APSC model of the same vendor in order to get longer reach.

Blame me for that or praise me, I just found that if I want to make serious and fast photography still nothing tops a good or even great OVF. Does that mean that mirror less is not great? NO, for sure not and usually many mirror less systems are also (much) smaller than their OVF based counterparts. And I will keep shooting mirror less for many casual occasions, but if I want to nail the shot and be almost sure about the result it is still OVF which wins for me.

Having said all that I think I now somehow understand all the strategy from Nikon and Canon and why they are relaxing in their arm chairs and let others do the hard work before chiming in.
 
Last edited:

Lonnie Utah

New member
a clear view through a good or excellent OVF form any better Canon or Nikon is still lightyears ahead from even most modern and advanced EVFs - at least for my taste.
While I don't disagree with that statement (in any way), when you start thinking about the engineering and manufacturing costs associated with building a camera, there is one striking "fact" that can't be avoided. The glass pentaprism and shutter box in a camera can easily represent between 20-30% of the total cost a the camera. When you take that into accout, you have to ultimately come to the conclusion that mirrorless cameras are going to overtake traditional DSLR simply on price point alone.

Case in point.

Nikon D810

Sony A7R

Case in point B.

Canon T3I

Sony A3000

Nikon D3200

While Pro's might, casual consumers are not going to pay a 30% premium simply to look through a traditional viewfinder.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Every time I go back and pick up my Nikon D4 I am reminded what a truly wonderful instrument this is. When the action is fast and I have to get the shot, it never lets me down.

The reason it's so good is that Nikon has evolved the design over 20+ years - the same reason the Porsche 911 is so good. Are there more advanced cars out there (like the Tesla)? Yes, but for pure driving pleasure it's hard to beat a 911.

I won't be selling my D4 any time soon no matter what others introduce. Same thing goes for my Monochrom. Sometimes there are "milestone" products that just stand the test of time.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
While I don't disagree with that statement (in any way), when you start thinking about the engineering and manufacturing costs associated with building a camera, there is one striking "fact" that can't be avoided. The glass pentaprism and shutter box in a camera can easily represent between 20-30% of the total cost a the camera. When you take that into accout, you have to ultimately come to the conclusion that mirrorless cameras are going to overtake traditional DSLR simply on price point alone.

Case in point.

Nikon D810

Sony A7R
I don't think you can begin to compare them. The D810 as a camera (rather than a box holding a sensor) is a world more sophisticated than an A7r. The AF engine alone is worth a huge amount in comparison. That the mirror box/pentaprism is expensive cannot be argued however if you would compare the prices of the two the mirror/pentaprism is almost irrelevant. You're paying for a significantly better shutter, better sensor, world class leading AF, more fps, much better ergonomics, etc, etc. Lets wait to see mirrorless match a DSLR in features and controllability and then we'll see if the prices are still the same difference. Especially as most mirrorless cameras of similar specs and performance are more expensive at present than their DSLR counterparts.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I don't think you can begin to compare them. The D810 as a camera (rather than a box holding a sensor) is a world more sophisticated than an A7r. The AF engine alone is worth a huge amount in comparison. That the mirror box/pentaprism is expensive cannot be argued however if you would compare the prices of the two the mirror/pentaprism is almost irrelevant. You're paying for a significantly better shutter, better sensor, world class leading AF, more fps, much better ergonomics, etc, etc. Lets wait to see mirrorless match a DSLR in features and controllability and then we'll see if the prices are still the same difference. Especially as most mirrorless cameras of similar specs and performance are more expensive at present than their DSLR counterparts.
Case in point the A77II AF alone smokes just about anything out there and Its almost dead perfect in every way feature and function wise and at a cost of 1200 dollars. Sure its a DSLR and it a 24mpx APS sensor but try and beat the feature and price for it in mirror less and its tough to do. The A7 series is very good but it does lack in certain areas that DSLR's excel at. I should add in overall terms as specific things for your individual needs run the gamut of useful and non useful features. Now we are also at the generation of people that do not want to lug a DSLR around either. So you have to accept some of those limitations to get size and weight down.

It really is a interesting time in Photography as the market keeps shrinking the iPhone market keeps enlarging in use so one has to wonder really what does the future hold and I have not even brought up the word video either.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
I don't think you can begin to compare them. The D810 as a camera (rather than a box holding a sensor) is a world more sophisticated than an A7r. The AF engine alone is worth a huge amount in comparison. That the mirror box/pentaprism is expensive cannot be argued however if you would compare the prices of the two the mirror/pentaprism is almost irrelevant. You're paying for a significantly better shutter, better sensor, world class leading AF, more fps, much better ergonomics, etc, etc. Lets wait to see mirrorless match a DSLR in features and controllability and then we'll see if the prices are still the same difference. Especially as most mirrorless cameras of similar specs and performance are more expensive at present than their DSLR counterparts.
Yes I think it's a valid comparison because the two cameras basically share the same 36mp FF Sony sensor. The number of DXOmark are close enough to show that if they aren't identical, the sensors in these two cameras are very, very close.

So if you're a landscape shooter that doesn't care about AF or FPS and ergonomics are a wash because you're shooting on a tripod is all that extra stuff worth $1K? Many folks are starting to say, no. The resolution of of sensors are basically the same, and ultimately that's what making people jump. Folks are looking at the dynamic range and sharpness you can get from this camera and right now, it can't really be topped (equaled, but not topped). (and none of this begins to mention the weight savings for both body's and lenses that a mirrorless can give you. This is important to those of us that carry our cameras long distances into the back country).

I personally know many landscape shooters that are migrating to the A7r and using the metabones to adapt their Canon/Nikon lenses. I have heard nothing but good things from those I've queried about their move.

However, I notice you didn't refute the entry level camera comparisons, which is really where the heart of my original argument lies. This battle isn't about top level cameras, it's about entry level ICL cameras. Given enough time, this battle will trickle upwards and effect the top of the line models.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I just cannot help myself - if it comes to pure performance no other camera (concept) tops a Nikon D4s or D810 for me today.

And I agree that if mirror less cameras become as efficient as D4s/D810 they will at least cost same or even more. I guess - if possible at all - alone an advanced EVF to "equal" a perfect OVF will take another 5 years of development at least. So actually a safe bet for Canon and Nikon not to become nervous already today.
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I personally know many landscape shooters that are migrating to the A7r and using the metabones to adapt their Canon/Nikon lenses. I have heard nothing but good things from those I've queried about their move.
Well, this is exactly true - as long as photographing "static" subjects EVF already has an advantage today, as you get WYSIWYG. Only if it comes to more dynamic and movement conventional DSLRs with their advanced AF systems and high frame rates are still leading. Which also results from the excellent EVFs which high end DSLRs offer.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Yes I think it's a valid comparison because the two cameras basically share the same 36mp FF Sony sensor. The number of DXOmark are close enough to show that if they aren't identical, the sensors in these two cameras are very, very close.

So if you're a landscape shooter that doesn't care about AF or FPS and ergonomics are a wash because you're shooting on a tripod is all that extra stuff worth $1K? Many folks are starting to say, no. The resolution of of sensors are basically the same, and ultimately that's what making people jump. Folks are looking at the dynamic range and sharpness you can get from this camera and right now, it can't really be topped (equaled, but not topped). (and none of this begins to mention the weight savings for both body's and lenses that a mirrorless can give you. This is important to those of us that carry our cameras long distances into the back country).

I personally know many landscape shooters that are migrating to the A7r and using the metabones to adapt their Canon/Nikon lenses. I have heard nothing but good things from those I've queried about their move.

However, I notice you didn't refute the entry level camera comparisons, which is really where the heart of my original argument lies. This battle isn't about top level cameras, it's about entry level ICL cameras. Given enough time, this battle will trickle upwards and effect the top of the line models.
So because there is one, one niche where the A7r can perhaps match the D810 (it can't, it's not weather sealed and battery life sucks) that means that you can compare the cameras prices? Cummon. The D810 is a monster that can max almost every task you throw at it. The A7r is very much not. I'm saying that as an A7r owner. The build and electronics and know how that makes the D810 so versatile, such a workhorse camera, I'd say fully justifies the price difference. A camera is so much more than just it's sensor.

I'd be interested to see a match at entry level. Feature and performance. Methinks you have to spend rather a lot to price match to entry level DSLR's. Unless it's changed without me noticing. Specifically AF speed, viewfinder even close to an OVF, etc.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Peter not sure I would use the word performance as the IQ is the same or better and I actually favor the Sony in that regard of IQ but for conversation lets call it the same. But if you look at Lonnies post above yours he has a very good point. There are folks that could care less about AF, 6FPS, bigger body and full size lenses but more interested in size , weight and more important the ability to slap just about any lens you have or any 3rd party lens your dying to use on it that does not come in a Nikon/Canon mount. Now if you use the word performance here than for some the Sony performance wise is better. The term performance is really the wrong word here because we look at our own set of criteria on what performance is.
 

jonoslack

Active member
For 35mm stuff, I've been in the Sony camp since 2009-10 beginning with the A900 (a good start). In those 4 to 5 years their new products have earned zero loyalty from me. I'd bail in a New York heartbeat for something simpler in a smallish FF camera …. doesn't even need to be the size of the A7 series, just simpler and more elegant with some free follow up improvements.

- Marc
It's called an M240 Marc :facesmack::p
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well, this is exactly true - as long as photographing "static" subjects EVF already has an advantage today, as you get WYSIWYG. Only if it comes to more dynamic and movement conventional DSLRs with their advanced AF systems and high frame rates are still leading. Which also results from the excellent EVFs which high end DSLRs offer.
Really go pick up a A77II. I can't smell, taste or see the difference in the slightest between a OVF and a EVF. The live view is just so much better as well and the AF on the A77II NOTHING I MEAN NOTHING can match. I just shot 15 thousand images with it and NO Nikon can touch it or Canon for that matter on AF lock and follow focus. Im not freaking kidding here, I could be half dead shooting the thing and it would still track and nail everything in sight. Remember its 1200 dollars not 6k too.
 

dandrewk

New member
Personally, the A7/r/s has it all over their Nikon/Canon counterparts in terms of ergonomics. Once accustomed to the button/know layout, it's a snap to use. Easy to hold, manipulate and get around.

I suppose if you have huge hands AND are a body builder who doesn't mind the extra tonnage, you'd prefer the bulkier, heavier DSLR's. :)

I picked up my D600 the other day. I thought, wow, how did I ever manage lugging this huge thing around.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Case in point the A77II AF alone smokes just about anything out there and Its almost dead perfect in every way feature and function wise and at a cost of 1200 dollars. Sure its a DSLR and it a 24mpx APS sensor but try and beat the feature and price for it in mirror less and its tough to do. The A7 series is very good but it does lack in certain areas that DSLR's excel at. I should add in overall terms as specific things for your individual needs run the gamut of useful and non useful features. Now we are also at the generation of people that do not want to lug a DSLR around either. So you have to accept some of those limitations to get size and weight down.

It really is a interesting time in Photography as the market keeps shrinking the iPhone market keeps enlarging in use so one has to wonder really what does the future hold and I have not even brought up the word video either.
I'm right with you here Guy - I'm tempted by the A77II every day. But I don't have the A mount glass, so it's an expensive choice right now. I can easily live with a good EVF, as long as there's little lag, I'd rather be able to see the exposure and the WB.

As for Sony strategy - when they've sorted what's really what, then hopefully they'll put it in an A9, which will last for a few years (like the A900 and A99).

If Canon and Nikon are sitting back and watching, it seems to me it'll be too late by the time they actually start acting (presumably when all the sports and wedding pros suddenly start to bail out).
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Jono thats my worry as well with a shrinking market going faster and faster at the diminishing returns waiting it out on Nikons/Canon bench could prove to be fatal as the user base keeps moving over to Sony not many would jump back. I maybe the exception here but I am a rare bird and my decisions are based on being a Pro which even that market is shrinking terribly. Point is no one will be left to jump on for Nikon/canon if they wait too long. Frankly the thing is NONE of us want to see anyone going into the dumpster. Thats bad for user base.
 
Top