Does a Real Pro Shoot Sony?

WestEndFoto

This is an interesting article. While I obviously don't agree with Bride magazine, I think that there is a point that one should consider, if only to be aware of the issue.

https://fstoppers.com/news/brides-magazine-says-professional-wedding-photographers-only-use-cannon-or-nikon-158506

What does everyone else think?

Rx4Photo

Most people don't know squat about photography and gear and wont even bring this question up. They should look at samples of your work - people work - and at least let the photographer know that this is what's expected on their wedding day, assuming they like what they've already seen. I know an event photographer who shoots Canon, his lenses are old and filthy and most of his pics are slightly out of focus. But, because he shoots Canon he'll make it pass this question with flying colors. : /

I think the article fails. They should have spent more time on teaching the couple how to spot a photographer who incorporates creativity and beauty in their wedding work with whatever gear he or she has. After all that's what the bride tends to want.

I witnessed a beach wedding a couple of years ago. We were on the balcony of a hotel room and the wedding was below us on the sand. 50 or 60 guests and the party. Two photographers there. BOTH were standing side by side shooting photos as the bride and groom came down the aisle between the guests. I thought, what a freaking waste of a second shooter. Both had big gear - and getting relatively the same pictures. So .... were they shooting Nikon or Canon? Yes. Were they utilizing this gear the best to produce a multidimensional view of the event ? My opinion , probably not.

Pistnbroke

Well the photo in the article has the bride and groom the wrong way round so that's was not done by a professional ( unless its America where nothing matters) . So that defines the professional ..what is on the end of your arm does not matter its just a thing to record what you put in front of it . ...that usually involves your mouth and having standards as to what you will take or not .

PeachBlack

Such a stupid article. Sure there is always initial resistance, but eventually price/performance wins out. "Real pros" don't shoot Nikon at sporting events either.

I suspect that Sony is going to eat the high-end camera market eventually. All of the best innovations are coming from Sony. And by all, I mean ALL. What has Nikon come up with lately? Zero. Initially Sony was kind of random and lame about the way they entered into the camera market, but they are learning and getting better.

The reason why I love my D810? The Sony sensor. The camera that most intrigues me? Sony. The new G Master series of lenses are BETTER than anything Nikon is producing. Their 85? Better. Their 24-70? Better. Their 70-200? Better. Sigma is making their Art lenses for them and Phottix is making their Indra compatible with Sony. I'm running out of reasons to stay with Nikon.

I'm not going to let superstition and prejudice decide what cameras I choose.

PB_PM

I doubt Sony will win anything. Why? They never stick with anything long term, they change mounts on a dime, and from all reports their repair network is a nightmare. If you want a toss away camera, be my guest and get Sony.

BVS

PeachBlack said:

The reason why I love my D810? The Sony sensor. The camera that most intrigues me? Sony. The new G Master series of lenses are BETTER than anything Nikon is producing. Their 85? Better. Their 24-70? Better. Their 70-200? Better.

Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals seems to disagree on the Nikon 70-200 vs the Sony, at least in terms of MTF:

Full Article
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

70mm
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dee115f056905e74d9a581d0b741d44de6050bad87a328cb5d1eb6bd5ce68623.png

135mm
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e4e23fcba52b0bee246992d26445571be981d765e76dccb2be4f4e98ac4c262b.png

200mm
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42d95e5a8c871c7fe04782a64172a0fd369cb7cccd15d5335dd2e1d1dd80e88f.png

PeachBlack

PB_PM said:

I doubt Sony will win anything. Why? They never stick with anything long term, they change mounts on a dime, and from all reports their repair network is a nightmare. If you want a toss away camera, be my guest and get Sony.

So you have two reasons why Sony will never win: lack of long-term planning, and poor service. These hardly seem like stumbling blocks since both of these are a function of lack of market share. As I said, Sony seemed to be random, but they have improved greatly and now seem to have a plan. As for service, it too is improving.

But. NEITHER one of these is as important as innovation and product, and Sony is making believers of more and more people every day. Sony keeps innovating and improving while Nikon has given us essentially nothing substantial since 2012, and they owed that mostly to Sony. The D800 was the last time anyone in the camera world stopped and said "wow."

DxO rates the Sony higher and Cicala is just looking at sharpness. Beyond any quibbling about small differences in merit, the point is that there's no compelling reason to stay with Nikon as far as glass goes because you can get as good or better with Sony.

Nikon has a real problem with matching Sony in terms of R&D. I'm really curious as to why the 42mp sensor hasn't found its way into a Nikon camera as well. If Sony stops selling its sensors to Nikon, it could be game over.

NSXTypeR

To be fair, sometimes Nikon service can be fairly horrendous as some of the forum members here will attest to, so Nikon customer service vs. Sony customer service is a toss up.

Also, Nikon definitely massages Sony sensors, even if they don't make them. I'm not sure why Nikon doesn't make their own sensors, but even if Sony makes the sensors, for some odd reason Nikon is able to get great results from them. Nikon definitely has the know how, I think they make medical sensors all the time. Still, depending on Sony has been a good and a bad thing- look at the Nikon DL line- has anyone received one yet? It was such a promising camera... that was announced months ago, but I think it has a Sony sensor so it hasn't shipped yet.

For my graduation photo, the studio that the school hired actually uses Fuji cameras. No, not the mirrorless ones, the S5 pro, which came out in 2006. That's 10 years ago, and positively ancient in terms of camera equipment. This is a fairly large NY based studio, and I don't know if this is a personal equipment choice from the photographer or if the studio issues it and they use whatever that's available. I think the results came out pretty good.

Equipment shouldn't be a make it or break it decision when it comes to wedding photography. With equipment at such a cheap price, relatively speaking, I could also show up at a wedding wielding 2 D750s with a 70-200 and a 24-70 attached and definitely look the part. I might be able to get half decent shots just because of my accumulated experience, I don't think you're going to like the results for such an important event though.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I want a "Full Format" camera

heartyfisher

Sony is good.. by the numbers .. I would reckon if you think the sony gear will work for you .. you should hire a set and try some shoots. Like i said before.. some of my friends regretted the move to sony and are doing the costly task of moving back.. while some love it and are planing to get more gear.

I think we all know mirrorless is the way of the future. Nikon may be a bit slow moving ( technically conservative ? ) but they probably still have time.

Pistnbroke

NSXT why would using two D750 not produce a good enough result? I used 3 D7100 for a couple of years ,my wife still does and they mix in perfectly with the D810 images? So is it you or the camera which makes the picture ?

heartyfisher

PS: Still love my S5pro .. the 18-140 is such a great partner for it. (they dont mind the age gap ! )

paulr

Professional photographers are like everybody else, they use a system that suits them,regardless of manufacture. Perhaps PP are guilty of staying with same manufacture but this can be down to cost.Pro cameras and lenses do not come cheap and PP have to justify their costs in a very competitive market. Clients may like to see PP with a fancy cameras but they don't want to pay for the extra cost that it entails.The industry has changed and sadly quantity{price} has taken over quality in the majority of cases.
In recent years a lot of PP have gone down the training and teaching route and found this easier than actual photography. At the end of the day the bills have to be paid.
My sympathy's are with the new PP coming into the market and trying to earn a living , The colleges keep churning new PP out with loads of certificates but sadly little experience of actually going out there and making a living.

Nikoniser

Sony does not make cameras for the working pro photographer. They make plastic toys for hobbyists.

Let me list the reasons why :

1. Inferior studio flash support. Yes, you can get sony stuff working with HSS studio lights, but its mainly a hack and a pain compared to Canon or Sony. Nikon's TTL and HSS in particular is stellar. Personally for me when getting a high quality studio image, about 80% is lighting, 15% lens, 5% sensor.

2. Lack of lenses - long macro lenses, telephoto etc and some glaring holes in the very wide angle selection, lack of tilt shift lenses. If you like 50mm there are about twenty options though !

3. Lack of dual card slots - this is a huge deal for anyone shooting in a paid environment or wedding or event photography.

4. Ergonomics - very poor compared to a full size DLSR and an complete joke with the Sony G-Master 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. Plus the haptics and feel and menus are all very poor compared to Canon or Sony. And the bodies are not rugged or suited to pro handling.

5. Colour Science is poor compared to Nikon and Canon with a very unflattering greeny/yellow cast. This makes for a lot of work on the backend getting skin tones and product colours right.

6. Stabilisation - Sonys choice of putting the sensor on a 5 axis stabilser works well for short/medium length lenses and badly for long lenses and very wide lenses. Those are the exact lenses Sony are missing in their lineup. Coincidence ?


If you are an amateur photographer, who wants to mess about with adapting vintage lenses, happy to spend a lot of time in post production, and values the ability to shrink the camera package down to very small by putting a pancake prime on then Sony are currently knocking the ball out of the park, innovating hard and really pushing Nikon and Canon. However - a few things should be noted. They are not making money - this innovation is currently a loss leader for them. They are cutting corners in production and engineering to get there.

And for balance, none of the problems I have mentioned are insurmountable for Sony. I fear for Nikon and Canon the day Sony produce a ruggedised, ergonomic body with twin slots and proper flash support and proper colour science, and their lens selection is improving leaps and bounds.

If you are a working pro who spends his day with his camera in hand sony right now is not the best choice.

heartyfisher

Good post @Nikoniser .. makes sense. and I think I these are the point my friends mumbled about (both the ones who liked and the ones who disliked their switch )

PeachBlack

heartyfisher said:

PS: Still love my S5pro .. the 18-140 is such a great partner for it. (they dont mind the age gap ! )

Any DSLR made in the last decade should be able to do a fine job under optimal conditions (good light, simple lighting setups, little subject movement, simple composition that require little or no cropping, smallish prints) for ordinary photography, and that Fuji was well-known for the way it reproduced skin tones.
If you think about it, practically all of the improvements over the last decade fit into one of two categories: increasing convenience or dealing with sub-optimal shooting conditions.
High ISO? Bad lighting.
High MP? Big prints & cropping.
Dynamic Range? Essentially handy for dealing with difficult light.
Fast shutters, fast AF, and high FPS? Moving subjects.
I helped a friend shoot a wedding a couple of years ago where the lighting was really good for parts of the wedding and really bad for others. The friend's father was using an aging D90 shooting mostly at ƒ5.6, while I was using a 70-200/2.8 on a D800. His good lighting photos looked amazing since he is a capable photographer, but his bad lighting photos looked like butt compared to mine.
The more sub-optimal the shooting conditions, the more gear matters.

heartyfisher

"The more sub-optimal the shooting conditions, the more gear matters."

Yup .. Thats where the the costs start increasing.. and the price paid is well worth it for those who need those extra features that give the few extra options and provide possibilities not available otherwise or with great inconvenience. But for most people a D90 and F5.6 lenses does a ton better than a cell phone. heck in good hands it probably does better than a d800 and 70-200 !! (if you have time and the gear)

PeachBlack

Nikoniser said:

Sony does not make cameras for the working pro photographer. They make plastic toys for hobbyists.

Let me list the reasons why :

1. Inferior studio flash support.
-- Inferior native flashes yes, but my Indra HSS/TTL studio flashes work flawlessly with Sony and standard studio flashes are the same for any kind of system.

2. Lack of lenses
--Not a reason why it's a toy, just a reason why it's not for birds and sports. It has all the high quality lenses that the target market wants.

3. Lack of dual card slots
--This is a problem, sure, but it doesn't make it a toy.

4. Ergonomics
--When choosing between ergonomics and being able to compose the photo that I want? I'll choose composing the photo that I want. After all, I switched from Canon to Nikon in 2012 and the truth is that I prefer almost everything about Canon except the image quality.

5. Colour Science
--Meh, I don't shoot JPEG and there are lots of easy presets to fix this. This is an exaggeration. I've worked on Sony RAW files and you get used to them.

6. Stabilisation
--Seriously? This is a downside ONLY to the people who would NEVER choose the camera in the first place (birders and sports togs). For everyone else it's a WIN.

So, in summary, I have to weigh a much improved ability to compose photos the way I want to against ergonomics and lack of an extra card slot. Hmm... I think you just convinced me to switch.

NSXTypeR

Pistnbroke said:

NSXT why would using two D750 not produce a good enough result? I used 3 D7100 for a couple of years ,my wife still does and they mix in perfectly with the D810 images? So is it you or the camera which makes the picture ?

I was just thinking about the newer FX cameras available that an average consumer might have access to or might see an advertisement for.

No specific choice in mind to be honest.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Here is a local photographer that is making a buzz recently. While the photos may look nice I can't help but notice as many point out in the article is the #5 from @Nikoniser
http://petapixel.com/2016/12/19/capturing-gorgeous-portraits-snow-sony-a6500/

WestEndFoto

That lack of a card slot gives me huge pause. A Canon shooter using a 5D Mark 1 had to reshoot my wedding (all of it) because he dropped the card on the ground and couldn't recover.

It is probably the reason that I don't own a DF. But I might consider a DF2 with a single card slot alongside a D820. The DF2 will be a toy and the D820 will be for when I am serious.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@WestEndFoto No regrets with the DF I shoot two bodies and swap memory cards every 2hrs or diffrent location for events. Ceremony, bridal party, dinner.

I had a dual slot camera that the shutter froze during the ceremony. I only had to re-shoot 3 bridesmaids thanfully the camera came back alive for the rest of the day.

PeachBlack

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

Here is a local photographer that is making a buzz recently. While the photos may look nice I can't help but notice as many point out in the article is the #5 from @Nikoniser
http://petapixel.com/2016/12/19/capturing-gorgeous-portraits-snow-sony-a6500/

Ha! Don't blame the camera, blame the really terrible post work. That has nothing to do with anything other than the guy retouched her to look like an oompa-loompa. Her skin is oversaturated and too yellow.... which, in fact, is the OPPOSITE of the general complaint about Sony—that it's too blue. To fix this takes, oh, 5 seconds.

Pistnbroke

Strange how differently we work ...I would never consider changing a card ..I use big ones and if its in the camera I know where it is ....I have a wedding tomorrow new years eve ..all will be inside so that's a thousand pictures all with on camera flash and not a shadow on the wall behind ..whats this about bad light ...create your own.

MegapixelSchnitzel

Well, right off the bat I lost a lot of credence with that article since they mispelled Canon. Seriously, a professional is going to use whatever makes him/her money and fits the needs of the shoot.

MegapixelSchnitzel

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

I want a "Full Format" camera

Understandable. I want a Great Big Format camera.