www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Where not to find a Sony. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenpam/116004163/

In the hands of a professional.

I would of loved to have been in the boardroom, when the guys at Sony took the decision to make there top lenses in grey. You may not sit in awe of Canon Eccles, but the guys down at Sony obviously do.

Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:Where not to find a Sony. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenpam/116004163/

In the hands of a professional.

I don't read much into such photos. It's merely the herd instinct. After all, 20 million Italians drive Fiats.

I would of loved to have been in the boardroom, when the guys at Sony took the decision to make there top lenses in grey. You may not sit in awe of Canon Eccles, but the guys down at Sony obviously do.
Gruditch

They actually took a conscious decision to make their latest top end lenses look different from the herd, hence the 'silver' appearance. Whether it was a good decision or not, I'm not sure, but if I'd produced a Bentley, I certainly wouldn't want it to look like a Trabant:

From a personal standpoint, whether I buy the 70-400 Sony zoom will depend firstly on its image quality, secondly on its price. Unless it looks as if it might fall apart like my damned Sigmas its appearance will not be paramount. If the 70-300 G is anything to go by then the first priority will be a given.

And if you go down that list a further 3 stops you find the 'convert to sony' filter

Last AGM of Sony Enthusasts Club

And if you go down that list a further 3 stops you find the 'convert to sony' filter

You can always filter out noise but Canon's method of blurring the image with the AA filter to do so is hardly the best way of achieving it.

Last AGM of Sony Enthusasts Club

Precisely. Instead of wasting time and energy attending such meetings, most Sony users would rather spend the time taking pictures.

[quote]Precisely. Instead of wasting time and energy attending such meetings, most Sony users would rather spend the time taking pictures.[quote]

Eccles - have you ever actually met another Sony DSLR owner?
I haven't.

Roger

A friend of mine owns an A900 as a matter of fact, but really Roger, we're above trying to seek each other out in the sort of fearful self reassurance that appears to draw Canon owners together. We revel in our ability to buck the trend and avoid following the herd, buying for the handling, the USEFUL features, and above all, the photos that our kit takes, rather than because Joe Bloggs has one and he says it's good.
Canonista, your days are numbered!

eccles wrote:We revel in our ability to buck the trend and avoid following the herd

Eccles, did you by any chance once own a Beta-max video recorder, or have a Squararial on your house, or even drive around in a Sinclare C5.

In the non to distant future every Canon, Nikon and Sigma lens will have built in IS. Then of course Sony's only selling point will be lost, and they will either desperately start playing catch up, or go back to making telly's.

And it's time you grew out of that imaginary friend stuff

Gruditch

but really Roger, we're above trying to seek each other out in the sort of fearful self reassurance that appears to draw Canon owners together

Ah, you see, we don't actually, actively, seek each other out.
If I happen to see someone using Canon gear, it is perfectly natural to stroll over and compliment them on their good taste. From this sort of encounter firm friendships can ensue.

You, of course, can not have experienced this.

Roger

p.s. See what a nice bunch we Canonista are.
We even allow you to enter our conversations, and buy you beer.
What thanks do we get - just your petty name calling.
Your days are numbered - the Canonista tolerence is not endless!

In the non to distant future every Canon, Nikon and Sigma lens will have built in IS.

Heheh, that's a good one.

they will either desperately start playing catch up, or go back to making telly's.

Adding compact camera gizmos like face detection and camcorder to the so called serious models looks like desperation to me, and it's not Sony that's doing it.

You, of course, can not have experienced this.

Well, that's true. I'd hardly walk over to a Canon user and compliment them on their good taste, since I believe it to be misguided.

p.s. See what a nice bunch we Canonista are.

I don't doubt that, Roger. Having met you, I believe you to be a very nice person, as are Rose, Lisa and Gary, who I also met the same day.

just your petty name calling.

I have called no one names, nor would I. The only naming I made was a general reference to the 'Canonista'. I appreciate that this is a term that was used, perhaps coined, by yourself but it was not intended to refer to you or anyone in particular. If you take personal umbrage I retract the statement and apologise for it.

I think that you, and the other posters appreciate that this thread was intended as a bit of fun.

Seriously, I know I'm the odd one out in supporting a small name in DSLR terms, but Sony appears to be serious about making inroads on Canon's stranglehold on the DSLR market. The A700 is a commendable photographer's tool that handles beautifully, and produces excellent pictures. And even ardent Canon supporter, DPReview, recently described the A900's image quality as 'astonishing' (as in astonishingly good, not bad, I might add).
Even the most dedicated Canon user has to admit that part of the reason why they chose Canon is that loads of others have already done so, thereby perpetuating brand share.

It's OK Eccles we know you are only playing, I was looking at a debate on a dedicated photography site the other day, WOW those guys need to just get out there, take some pics and enjoy it.

Gruditch

Hi everyone,

I'm Eccles imaginary friend... I know he started this thread, but he does have a point

By the way Eccles did I ever mention your impeccable taste in Camera equipment

I get the feeling that there might be a lot of one of those other Camera makers users on here.

Thank God you've all calmed down a little bit - you sounded like a bunch of delinquent seven-year-olds . Who the f*** cares what camera you use - it's the results that count. Judging by the 'Dipper' shot, there's not a lot wrong with the Sony workings - ISO3200 and cropped down - awesome! AND, dare I say it, I also have a Sony, which I'm presently learning to use; I find it does all I could ask of it. The only slight disadvantage is the shortage of compatible accessories, which seems to be being recitified by the day. I do realise that you're all supposed to be having fun , but there was an undercurrent of unpleasantness , which we can do without. Each to his own, eh, guys (and dolls) .

but there was an undercurrent of unpleasantness

Nah, not a bit of it. I wouldn't have started this thread if I hadn't known that Gary and Roger wouldn't take offence, and I thought that Hamearis's repy was hilarious. I really had to work at a response to that one!
The 'Canonista' are very competent photographers; they could take good photos with bottles and pinhole cameras. Everything else is window dressing really.
Having said that, Sony is still best.
And BTW, I AM a delinquent seven year old, in spirit if not in years.

Right - let’s "nail this one down".
Let's look at Real Photographers - the ones who get out there and take stunning images.
Good example must be the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year.
[url]http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/ ... x.jsp/[url]
Last year, there were 85 extraordinary images that either Won their category or were Runner Up or Specially or Highly Commended.

Canon 51
Nikon 29
Fuji 2
Olympus 1
Pentax 1
Linhof 1

None of your Sony "jewellery".

I rest my case.

Roger

but there was an undercurrent of unpleasantness

No there wasn't -
I actually like Mike.
He is a nice bloke, if a little misguided or deluded.

Probably all of the photographers above have worked hard for many years refining their art. As you know, Sony have not been around for that many years, so these people will not have started off using Alpha mount. It's the hardest thing in the world to give up a system that one has got used to, particularly when it includes expensive and cherished lenses. Therefore, there lies a great deal of inertia that tends to be self perpetuating as the herd instinct takes over. Everyone wants to be like Simon King so they go out and buy Canon because he's good, therefore what he uses must be good, right? They put up with the same foibles and flaws that the experts have got used to instead of trying different cameras out before buying and deciding on what suits them best.

Canon sensors are good at high iso (getting to be a one trick pony here), but they aren't the sharpest on the block and you don't have image stabilised macro capability. The latter is why Canon users carry tripods or monopods when shooting butterflies. I get pixel sharp pictures without such encumbrances.

Nikon sensors, particularly their latest ones, are probably the best in their category, and the cameras are well built, but Nikon cameras cost 50% more than the competition, and the menu system is cludgy and unintuitive. There is an image stabilised Nikon macro lens but it costs the earth.

Of the rest, only Sony is expanding its system, and increasing its sales. It is true that Sony sensors are known to suffer more noise than Canikon, but they are sharper and more detailed in good light, and the noise is only equivalent to about half a stop. The A700 and A900 'serious' models are weather sealed, gimmick free, having superb handling and intuitive menu systems.
And, not to be sneezed at, there is a great deal of early Minolta glass around on the s/h market that has colour quality that is unmatched by Canikon or anyone else.

Incidently, Matthew Oates uses Alpha mount.

BTW, who or what is Linhof? It sounds like a subversive German organisation.

Blah Blah Blah Eccles, all stuff you've read in a magazine.

Gruditch

Partially true, but only because I can't afford to field test each and every camera. At the time I bought my first DSLR, the A100, the combination of features, handling and image quality with the kit lens outweighed in my mind its high iso shortcomings. When picking up the camera in the shop I was able to work out intuitively what was where. Conversely, the Canon felt fiddly, and to get a Nikon of decent spec was too expensive. I reasoned that to get going within my budget I was going to have to buy second hand glass, and classic lenses like the 70-210 F4, aka the beercan, were available at decent prices. In a market where you either had to pay through the nose for top quality glass or accept consumer grade plastic this was a big plus. My beercan is still my favourite lens.

Recent comments by Roger and Pete say a lot about Canon vs Sony. Roger said once that the LCD screen shouldn't be used to review image quality. This was cartainly true of the 40D, but it was competing with the A700's superb 1 meg screen which can indeed be used to review image quality, certainly enough to determine whether the butterfly has been 'nailed' or not. Of course Nikon and Canon have adopted similar screens now.
Pete said that when shooting butterflies most people try to get the image framed properly in the camera. Meanwhile, I was purposely leaving a decent border around my shots so that I could take my time cropping for better framing when I got home, simply because I have the resolution to spare and still get decent A4 prints. The shot of the SW Fritillary that several people commented on in the summer is about 1/6 of the original frame. An A4 print of that crop is hanging on the wall behind me, and it is close-up sharp.

Anyway, I know I'm a bit of an old fart, rabbitting on, so I'll shut up now (although I won't claim the last word - feel free to have another go if you want ). But it was a fun thread, and some of the comments had me laughing out loud so it wasn't all bad.