7 ms·

I agree with 90% of your points: competition is healthy and sad to see a company go. The market today is a duopoly, with Canon and Nikon as two pillars of high-

by ptero 6y ago

I agree with 90% of your points: competition is healthy and sad to see a company go. The market today is a duopoly, with Canon and Nikon as two pillars of high-end DSLR world. This, sadly, is unlikely to change because high quality lenses are very hard to make. Development takes years and the market is relatively small. And as glass, even for a serious hobbyist, ends up being much more expensive than the camera body, the reason to pick a third party body is just not there. The 10% I disagree with is the stigma part. I have never noticed it. Unless you are shooting pro sports from a dedicated area filled with fellow photographers you are unlikely to see people who would know or care what you are shooting with. "A really big camera, much bigger than my cell phone; must be really good" is probably all they think. The reason almost everyone in the Canon world uses L glass is because it is so frigging good. My 2c.

jagger27 6y ago
They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high quality lenses there too. I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.
- auxym 6y ago
  Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  > I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
  - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
    Why not go all Sony ? You can share the lenses between your apsc and your full frame.
    - csharptwdec19 6y ago
      The problem you still run into with Sony (especially if you're on a budget) is that if you go Nikon or Canon there's decades of used lenses you can pop right on your body and go to town (to at least some level). This impacts both what choices you have, as well as what you can expect to pay for a given set/quality of glass. To Wit: A Canon 10-18 is ONE THIRD the cost of the Sony E-mount 10-18. Yes, the Sony has a constant F4 aperture and the Canon doesn't. And yeah, on the other end Canon has the 11-24 f4 L, and yeah it's at least double the price of the Sony. tl;dr - Sony's issue is you usually just have midrange options for everything, even if you really want a lower end lens that just hits the right range.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        If you want a low-end Sony lens you have the option of third party glass. If you want a high end lens you can go with the GM line up that is generally even better than Canon L. Also, you can just adapt lenses from Canon to Sony.
      - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
        True, but if you want to have both full frame and apsc you only need to have 1 set of lenses that natively fits both of your cameras and in the last couple of years Sigma and Tamron has put out so many budget lenses with pretty impressive performance of price is a concern.
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    > I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise) I don't follow that stuff, but does Metabones make a Nikon F -> Sony E speed booster? > Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds. They did make smaller lenses, but for the Nikon 1 system, which was an underrated system. I became a 4/3rds shooter when Nikon cancelled the Nikon 1 line, but I still use my J5 (which is what the first gen Nikon 1s should have been like). IIRC, adapted Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon 1 focus fairly quickly because of the on-sensor PDAF, but you're limited to center AF only.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  It's all moving to mirrorless and in this space no one can beat Sony when it comes to lens selection, autofocus and price. Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic and Cannon have switched to new mounts for their mirrorless lines so obviously there isn't allot of native lenses yet.
- ptero 6y ago
  > They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. Agreed, but mirrorless is not a full replacement for DSLR, at least not yet. For static scenes in good light my phone camera is already all I need. For static scenes (or slow motion) in lower light mirrorless seems now just as good as DSLR (so they eat some of DSLR market). But for fast motion or long ranges DSLRs still excel. I tried mirrorless but did not like it -- if I am carrying something that does not fit in my pocket I might as well take a bigger DSLR (and enjoy better autofocus and optical viewfinder that does not kill my night vision). But that's just me.
  - bobsil1 6y ago
    I can jog while holding mirrorless in my hand. Exercise + wildlife. Obviously not great for fast motion or shade.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Have you seen videos of the Sony a9 Ii? It can autofocus moving subjects and take a picture in a twentieth of a second (!) So no, I don't think DSLRs have better autofocus than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras can also do things like eye AF, video tracking AF, and so on.
    - PostThisTooFast 6y ago
      Canon film cameras had eye tracking in the ‘90s.
mauvehaus 6y ago
If you don’t need autofocus, mirrorless and adaptors for old glass are a killer and cost-effective combo. I bought an a7ii and PK and M42 adaptors, and I couldn’t be happier. The body is full-frame, and the flange distance is so small, you can probably adapt any mount to it, with the possible exception of some of the old rangefinder mounts. I picked up a 50 mm f/4 Macro Takumar for under $100 on eBay. I already had a couple nice Takumars and SMC-M primes that I can keep using. It’s awesome. Granted, I’m shooting furniture under continuous light. It’s not a super demanding application. If I were a pro photographer, I’d probably be shooting the same kit as everyone else for the same reasons.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Absolutely! I did the exact same - got myself an MD 50 1.4, Vibitar Series 1 70-210, and a Tokina 35-70 2.8, all for under a hundred dollars (!) To note, you don't have to isolate yourself to manual focus - there are to manual to autofocus adapter for the Sony E mount. Indeed, there's the original Techart LM-EA7, as well the much cheaper knockoff that is the Fotodiox Pronto. As far as I know, this is one of the few instances of an American knockoff of an innovative, expensive Chinese product :). The knockoff is so egregious that it actually can use firmware updates from the original. If you do decide to go with the knockoff, it's only about 170$ to make your manual lenses autofocus, though it's slightly slower than native and doesn't work in video. It can't completely autofocus lenses longer than 135mm, so if you're shooting telephoto you will need to focus very roughly and then it will correct it.

by ptero 6y ago

jagger27 6y ago

They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high quality lenses there too. I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.

auxym 6y ago
Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.
geerlingguy 6y ago
> I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  Why not go all Sony ? You can share the lenses between your apsc and your full frame.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    The problem you still run into with Sony (especially if you're on a budget) is that if you go Nikon or Canon there's decades of used lenses you can pop right on your body and go to town (to at least some level). This impacts both what choices you have, as well as what you can expect to pay for a given set/quality of glass. To Wit: A Canon 10-18 is ONE THIRD the cost of the Sony E-mount 10-18. Yes, the Sony has a constant F4 aperture and the Canon doesn't. And yeah, on the other end Canon has the 11-24 f4 L, and yeah it's at least double the price of the Sony. tl;dr - Sony's issue is you usually just have midrange options for everything, even if you really want a lower end lens that just hits the right range.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you want a low-end Sony lens you have the option of third party glass. If you want a high end lens you can go with the GM line up that is generally even better than Canon L. Also, you can just adapt lenses from Canon to Sony.
    - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
      True, but if you want to have both full frame and apsc you only need to have 1 set of lenses that natively fits both of your cameras and in the last couple of years Sigma and Tamron has put out so many budget lenses with pretty impressive performance of price is a concern.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  > I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise) I don't follow that stuff, but does Metabones make a Nikon F -> Sony E speed booster? > Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds. They did make smaller lenses, but for the Nikon 1 system, which was an underrated system. I became a 4/3rds shooter when Nikon cancelled the Nikon 1 line, but I still use my J5 (which is what the first gen Nikon 1s should have been like). IIRC, adapted Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon 1 focus fairly quickly because of the on-sensor PDAF, but you're limited to center AF only.
Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
It's all moving to mirrorless and in this space no one can beat Sony when it comes to lens selection, autofocus and price. Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic and Cannon have switched to new mounts for their mirrorless lines so obviously there isn't allot of native lenses yet.
ptero 6y ago
> They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. Agreed, but mirrorless is not a full replacement for DSLR, at least not yet. For static scenes in good light my phone camera is already all I need. For static scenes (or slow motion) in lower light mirrorless seems now just as good as DSLR (so they eat some of DSLR market). But for fast motion or long ranges DSLRs still excel. I tried mirrorless but did not like it -- if I am carrying something that does not fit in my pocket I might as well take a bigger DSLR (and enjoy better autofocus and optical viewfinder that does not kill my night vision). But that's just me.
- bobsil1 6y ago
  I can jog while holding mirrorless in my hand. Exercise + wildlife. Obviously not great for fast motion or shade.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Have you seen videos of the Sony a9 Ii? It can autofocus moving subjects and take a picture in a twentieth of a second (!) So no, I don't think DSLRs have better autofocus than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras can also do things like eye AF, video tracking AF, and so on.
  - PostThisTooFast 6y ago
    Canon film cameras had eye tracking in the ‘90s.

mauvehaus 6y ago

If you don’t need autofocus, mirrorless and adaptors for old glass are a killer and cost-effective combo. I bought an a7ii and PK and M42 adaptors, and I couldn’t be happier. The body is full-frame, and the flange distance is so small, you can probably adapt any mount to it, with the possible exception of some of the old rangefinder mounts. I picked up a 50 mm f/4 Macro Takumar for under $100 on eBay. I already had a couple nice Takumars and SMC-M primes that I can keep using. It’s awesome. Granted, I’m shooting furniture under continuous light. It’s not a super demanding application. If I were a pro photographer, I’d probably be shooting the same kit as everyone else for the same reasons.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Absolutely! I did the exact same - got myself an MD 50 1.4, Vibitar Series 1 70-210, and a Tokina 35-70 2.8, all for under a hundred dollars (!) To note, you don't have to isolate yourself to manual focus - there are to manual to autofocus adapter for the Sony E mount. Indeed, there's the original Techart LM-EA7, as well the much cheaper knockoff that is the Fotodiox Pronto. As far as I know, this is one of the few instances of an American knockoff of an innovative, expensive Chinese product :). The knockoff is so egregious that it actually can use firmware updates from the original. If you do decide to go with the knockoff, it's only about 170$ to make your manual lenses autofocus, though it's slightly slower than native and doesn't work in video. It can't completely autofocus lenses longer than 135mm, so if you're shooting telephoto you will need to focus very roughly and then it will correct it.