Alpha Bravo?

[lenrek]

I am not a pro, but I fully agree to Bro Kit. Pro is about $$$ and workflow. Sony has still very limited range of lenses and accessories to compete with C and N. Can't really consider Minolta stuff as they are consideed obsolete and lacking in support.

Minolta stuff are considered as obsolete? Gees... Maybe this mean, I should throw away my 80-200 F2.8 APO or any of my Minolta lenses... :bigeyes:

AFAIK, Sony still provide services to Minolta "stuff", since they bought it over.

 

[rawshooter]

Minolta stuff are considered as obsolete? Gees... Maybe this mean, I should throw away my 80-200 F2.8 APO or any of my Minolta lenses... :bigeyes:

AFAIK, Sony still provide services to Minolta "stuff", since they bought it over.

Sorry, maybe i wasnt clear. Obsolete = no selling new anymore. You cannot expect a pro to camp in the BNS section all day to wait for the lense he required right?

 

[Agetan]

Well, I am not defending Sony, but what lenses does Sony lack of except those 600mm f4?

A CZ 24-70 f2.8 and a Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM is enough to cover most range?

I think most people who think their work is limited by their equipment simply need to do a serious rethinking.

I think Sony range is sufficient for a working pro in most area except in wildlife and sport which demand high FPS and long lenses. Other than that, I think Sony has covered most bases.

Hart

 

[reaper3075]

Well, I am not defending Sony, but what lenses does Sony lack of except those 600mm f4?

A CZ 24-70 f2.8 and a Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM is enough to cover most range?

I think most people who think their work is limited by their equipment simply need to do a serious rethinking.

I think Sony range is sufficient for a working pro in most area except in wildlife and sport which demand high FPS and long lenses. Other than that, I think Sony has covered most bases.

Hart

tend to agree strongly on this point.

other systems, may boast an impressive list of lenses.. but if you observe carefully, many are of the same range, only different versions for eg. Non IS, IS, USM, VR, what have u.

i mean, look at how many versions of 70-200 Canon has. i counted 4.

 

[Kit]

Well, I am not defending Sony, but what lenses does Sony lack of except those 600mm f4?

A CZ 24-70 f2.8 and a Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM is enough to cover most range?

I think most people who think their work is limited by their equipment simply need to do a serious rethinking.

I think Sony range is sufficient for a working pro in most area except in wildlife and sport which demand high FPS and long lenses. Other than that, I think Sony has covered most bases.

Hart

I have tried the A900 and would have gotten it if not for that absence of T/S lenses, which I use for about 60% of the time.

 

[Agetan]

I have tried the A900 and would have gotten it if not for that absence of T/S lenses, which I use for about 60% of the time.

Ah... T/S lens...

Personally, I feel the T/S lens is never wide enough and it is pretty expensive. I would prefer to do precise control on Photoshop in all honesty.

But obviously, you prefer the T/S lens for your work.

Hart

 

[Kit]

Ah... T/S lens...
Personally, I feel the T/S lens is never wide enough and it is pretty expensive.

Not when you'd be getting a TS-E 17mm f4.

Expensive? Maybe.

 

[Kit]

Ah... T/S lens...
I would prefer to do precise control on Photoshop in all honesty.

And you are able to do precise control on the field as well. Mileage varies I suppose.

 

[pipo999]

I am not a pro, but I fully agree to Bro Kit. Pro is about $$$ and workflow. Sony has still very limited range of lenses and accessories to compete with C and N. Can't really consider Minolta stuff as they are consideed obsolete and lacking in support.

Not entirely true. Nikon and Canon have ranges where they provide three lenses, the 'el cheapo' one, the 'pro-sumer' and the 'pro'. Part of the strategy is they first urge you to buy the low range and then in the end you end up with the high priced stuff anyway. The truth is, if you don't count all the 'double' or 'triple' availability in the same range, their number of lenses is not that big either. But, do you care?

For Sony, very simple. Get a few G glasses covering the range and add another prime here and there and a TC for your convenience. That's all you need anyway.

 

[Agetan]

Not when you'd be getting a TS-E 17mm f4.

Expensive? Maybe.

Yes, the benefit is when you can do it straight right out of camera. Used to love those T/S lenses when I was in Sydney doing a lot of architectural photography, but guess when I slim-down the gear I used especially the flashes and turn to time spend in Photoshop, I left the T/S lens and do the control on photoshop afterwards.

Used to shoot up to 3 properties a day with I use studio flashes + T/S lens and the numbers up to 10 properties a day when I use 12mm lens with bunch of wireless strobe and fix any distortion and keystoning effect on photoshop. My choice is simply a business one.

17mm sometime just isn't wide enough for some of my application before, hence resort to 12mm for extra wide lens... but that just me.

Hart

 

[rawshooter]

I think most people who think their work is limited by their equipment simply need to do a serious rethinking.

I think Sony range is sufficient for a working pro in most area except in wildlife and sport which demand high FPS and long lenses. Other than that, I think Sony has covered most bases.

Hart

This is exactly what I am talking about. I believe the professionals we(and the report) are talking about here do not just limit to weddings or event shooting?

I agree that our imagination cannot be limited by our equipment. But then again. A 300mm is a 300mm, it can't go longer without adding a TC(losing speed) or changing the lens here. Having more equipment expands the capabilities.