synapseman
Senior Member
If Sony doesn't have the lenses I want, I'm perfectly fine with getting 3rd party. No need to stress. Not everything must get original brand.
Sigma 30/1.4 EX DC ftw.
Sigma 30/1.4 EX DC ftw.
Nikkor cropped 35/1.8 review is up on DPreview
- Thread starter Titan10k
- Start date
- Status
I don't blame the tool, but rather, the tool maker. I'm pretty happy with my current line up, and don't see myself buying anything new, well let say a 35/1.4 even if i could afford. But that doesn't mean that Sony doesnt need to improve its lens line up, doesnt mean that Sony is doing a good job at it.
To be honest, I am pretty happy with the lenses provided by Sony and other 3rd party providers. With what I have, I doubt I would be buying any new lens for this year (I may not be buying any the year next). No point coming out all kind of lenses if some maybe rarely used (even yourself who is asking for this lens is not buying). In this recession time, it maybe better to maintain rather to explore new avenue.
Hopefully, in a year or 2, I can fully exploit all my tools.
If there is anything I wish from Sony, is to come out new firmware for the camera body. Better DRO and ISO handling.
Very true..
Isn't it the same thing? at the end still excuse? I am sorry being so blunt, but once you pass the stage that "photography is about the equipment", you will take photography a little serious.
If you really understand the word Photography, you will understand it doesn't really talking about equipment.
Ansel Adam was one of the best B&W landscape photographer of all time. If you read his book, the lens that take those beautiful landscape don't even have shutter blade, he control it with his lens cap.
Did Ansel Adam blame the manufacturer of the camera equipment not to have those thing?
If he did, he will probably be dead before he can take any pictures.... let alone be one of the best.
@Agetan
I guess we don't share a common ground... I can't agree with more that photography isn't about equipment at all. I believe any good photographer out there can take nice shots with some lousy camera, let alone Ansel Adam himself.
But, photographers can live without good equipment and manufacturers can't live without good sale numbers.
I have recently tried to convince a friend of mine, who wants to get into photography, to go with Sony. He asked me all sort of questions about the equipment, and one particularly interesting, about the price of the 50/1.8 for Canon and Sony respectively. I told him, Canon brand new for 100+, Minolta 2nd hand for 200+, and he was like "what the heck?". That moment he almost abandoned the idea of adopting Sony had I not tried to explain the differences.
From a working pro point of view, Sony current line up may be affordable for the tasks required. But someone trying to break into photography doesn't necessarily have the same view point. 50/1.7 costs double that of a brand new Canon? Where are the cheap 35, 85, 135? Those are all sort of questions that a newbie needs to consider when picking a system. I believe it wouldn't be easy to convince them the 35G or the Zeiss 85, 135 are affordable.
Now back to your question "Isn't it the same thing?". My answer is, it can't be any more different. Great photographs, great photographers are timeless. Equipments are not, and manufacturers are not.
Contax, one of the first, if not the first SLR brand, died.
Konica, manufacturer of the superb Hexanon, died.
Minolta, first to introduce a SLR auto focus system, died.
Pentax, first to make a Japan's SLR, is in serious trouble.
It's easy for you to assume that equipment doesn't matter, to assume a pair of 3k lenses each are enough for almost everything. But for the vast consumers, I don't see how they see things like you do. And with the market being so competitive, if they're not happy with Sony, there're just so many alternatives. And manufacturers earn mostly on those consumers.
The whole point of my rant is rather simple, Sony isn't doing a good job improving its lens line up. If it can't impress me, as a Sony user, then how can I impress others that Sony is a good system? Hope I make myself clear... I'm not one good with words.
I guess we don't share a common ground... I can't agree with more that photography isn't about equipment at all. I believe any good photographer out there can take nice shots with some lousy camera, let alone Ansel Adam himself.
But, photographers can live without good equipment and manufacturers can't live without good sale numbers.
I have recently tried to convince a friend of mine, who wants to get into photography, to go with Sony. He asked me all sort of questions about the equipment, and one particularly interesting, about the price of the 50/1.8 for Canon and Sony respectively. I told him, Canon brand new for 100+, Minolta 2nd hand for 200+, and he was like "what the heck?". That moment he almost abandoned the idea of adopting Sony had I not tried to explain the differences.
From a working pro point of view, Sony current line up may be affordable for the tasks required. But someone trying to break into photography doesn't necessarily have the same view point. 50/1.7 costs double that of a brand new Canon? Where are the cheap 35, 85, 135? Those are all sort of questions that a newbie needs to consider when picking a system. I believe it wouldn't be easy to convince them the 35G or the Zeiss 85, 135 are affordable.
Now back to your question "Isn't it the same thing?". My answer is, it can't be any more different. Great photographs, great photographers are timeless. Equipments are not, and manufacturers are not.
Contax, one of the first, if not the first SLR brand, died.
Konica, manufacturer of the superb Hexanon, died.
Minolta, first to introduce a SLR auto focus system, died.
Pentax, first to make a Japan's SLR, is in serious trouble.
It's easy for you to assume that equipment doesn't matter, to assume a pair of 3k lenses each are enough for almost everything. But for the vast consumers, I don't see how they see things like you do. And with the market being so competitive, if they're not happy with Sony, there're just so many alternatives. And manufacturers earn mostly on those consumers.
The whole point of my rant is rather simple, Sony isn't doing a good job improving its lens line up. If it can't impress me, as a Sony user, then how can I impress others that Sony is a good system? Hope I make myself clear... I'm not one good with words.
Last edited:
From my understanding, for C and N users, there have entry level and pro lenses. For Sony, I notice, newbie and pro uses same lenses, most of the time. It is a wrong match when you tries to compare, simply by cost.
Minolta did not die. It lives on in Sony. If it really died, we won't be able to use any of its lenses.
Minolta did not die. It lives on in Sony. If it really died, we won't be able to use any of its lenses.
I don't know about Ansel Adams, before this. I think, for a newbie like me, I may look for his book to get some inspirations...
However, I think, is a bit unfair to compare his time and our time, in terms of equipment. If he has choices like what we have now, what would be his choice?
I don't know about Ansel Adams, before this. I think, for a newbie like me, I may look for his book to get some inspirations...
However, I think, is a bit unfair to compare his time and our time, in terms of equipment. If he has choices like what we have now, what would be his choice?
I think he will spend 99% of his time taking great photography. 1% something else.
Regards,
Hart
True, but that 1% is all the time he would need to get all his gears ready. I doubt he would be using the lens that required him to use its cap as shutter blade.
I dun believe in using gears to impress others.......shouldn't photo be doing tat??
What happens when someone use a 28-80 kit lens which cost just $50/- with Minolta 7D and beat the hell out of other using CZ & G lenses with latest Alpha cam??
I personally had seen tat very often With tat can I convice pple to buy the 7D which is just about $500 and the kit lens??
End of the day, Sony dun sponser me therefore I dun need to tell pple how good it is.....unless it's the ego in me wanting to prove others tat I invest in the right system.
On the other hand, Sony dun need to tell us their marketing plan and the path they heading for.
What happens when someone use a 28-80 kit lens which cost just $50/- with Minolta 7D and beat the hell out of other using CZ & G lenses with latest Alpha cam??
I personally had seen tat very often
With tat can I convice pple to buy the 7D which is just about $500 and the kit lens??End of the day, Sony dun sponser me therefore I dun need to tell pple how good it is.....unless it's the ego in me wanting to prove others tat I invest in the right system.
On the other hand, Sony dun need to tell us their marketing plan and the path they heading for.
I dun believe in using gears to impress others.......shouldn't photo be doing tat??
What happens when someone use a 28-80 kit lens which cost just $50/- with Minolta 7D and beat the hell out of other using CZ & G lenses with latest Alpha cam??
I personally had seen tat very often
End of the day, Sony dun sponser me therefore I dun need to tell pple how good it is.....unless it's the ego in me wanting to prove others tat I invest in the right system.
On the other hand, Sony dun need to tell us their marketing plan and the path they heading for.
Ah..... You should see my gear. None of them show the brand.
I have my own brand on the camera strap. Guess it's better to advertise for myself.
Again, what a manufacturer is doing is business and has nothing to do with photography
Ah well, buy the lens u want and if Sony don't have it, go to other manufacturer. Pretty simple. Go and obsess abt the gear and keep blaming the gear or manufacturer as it is probably easier.
Lexar
New Member
From certain point of view, I do agree the equipment used do play a part in making better pictures, if not all the professionals and wedding photographers would not be using the high-end cameras with good lenses and flash....if entry level cameras/lens or even PNS can do the same job...
Composition and the way photos are taken is another story altogether, however image quality still voice down to the camera and lenses used...
If we all are thinking that we can take good pictures with lousy gears, then all manufacturers will go bust, which is showing slowing now if you notice...only those with good legacies are surviving (C&N) and good cashflow are emerging (Sony&Samsung)...
And to be honest, it's the normal consumers' purchases that are helping these companies stay afloat...so obviously products must cater most to this group...
Last edited:
Professional will use high end camera and lenses as they need it. For example, the camera... a busy pro will easily put 100k shutter client in just 1 year.... hence they need the reliability that the camera can withstand the workload.
Lenses, why do pro use large aperture lens? because they need one... it is a lot of freedom to work from 1.4 or larger.
However, gear is a tool of trade... and the art of photography still within the imagination of the photographer.
Auto Focus was the greatest invention, but there are lots of great photographer who still uses Leica M series which is fully manual focus... that tells a lot that the great photographers who uses those system has great pre-visualisation.
The point we are talking here is if you are still blaming the gear, then you need to think again in terms of photography goes. Gear is the medium, without the person who operate it, it is nothing but an expensive paper weight.
But most of us "WANT" a piece of equipment, that doesn't mean that you "need" it.
Yes, manufacturer do need people to purchase their gear so they stay afloat, but that is purely business for them and for us.
Well said! :thumbsup:
Coming from the Nikon camp, yes, we are all v pleased with the range of good cameras and new lenses that were released recently. That said, having image stabilisation built into the sensor is an incredibly good idea too (wonder why Nikon didn't think of that).
On this debate, I guess it would be fair to say that equipment matters, even more so for people who are not experts. I'm sure you can give Ansel Adams a Kodak point and shoot and he'll still deliver nicer pictures than many others who can afford a D3x or 5D2 but don't know how to use it as well -- simply becos he can visualise better than most. But he is an exception -- the rest of us needs good equipment to help us increase the chances of getting decent shots. A lot of the technology is now taken for granted (Nikon for instance, has a good balanced flash technology that takes the guess work from the user). It is hard to generalise becos a lot depends on what one is shooting. Sports or bird photography is very demanding on the equipment -- there are no two ways about it. In this regard, I'm sure even Ansel will have a hard time shooting a wedding if he has to use the lens cap as a shutter...
For the average user, I've seen many instances where a failure to understand basic photography or appreciate the limitations of the equipment they have leads to poor results. Eg, trying to capture nice, closeup pictures of babies indoors without flash -- with an f5.6 kit lens. Or trying to capture an indoor live concert performance. Either they end up with noisy high ISO images or blurred stuff. Under difficult lighting conditions, without the right equipment, even the pros cannot get good results.
So I think what Nikon has done here is good. Create an affordable fast lens (for low light situations) to complement the slow kit zooms that are often used outdoors. Compromise on distortion and CA that eludes many people. I think there is a big market for these lenses as consumers understand the limitations of kit zooms, and want to expand their horizons. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, economies of scale matters -- I'm sure Sony can make all those wonderful lenses too but they may not have the right market size to make it economical.
It's interesting to see how this pans out -- who will be left standing 10 years from now...
:thumbsup: Bro Agetan explained it all already. People gripes about brand x, y & z got this.. got that.. but don't have this, don't have that.... it will be never ending.. just enjoy the art of photography,shoot more, share more, learn more. For me, it is better to 'wow' people with your pictures than 'wow' people with your equipments..cos at the end of the day..."pictures talk"
...wanna try?? go and post your picture at the Critique corner and you'll know..Maybe... Personally, I don't really care...
boombox
Senior Member
I think bro hart makes a great point...
I can relate that to my current case, that I live with whatever I have now... i.e. I can live without primes - and would continue without it (I personally shoot with 3 zoom lenses, covering from 17mm to 200mm), unless my job dictates that a shoot situation that clearly, specifically gives an advantage to primes - and it would have made my job much easier if I'm going to do it repeatedly, again and again. For one off jobs, unless I can get a full ROI on my equipment on just that single / couple of job(s), I'd probably still stick to whatever I have and rely on my abilities and experiences to get the job done.
Also, I probably will not get a Hassy unless my client demands resolutions and print sizes that my current mount cannot deliver.
Seriously, good equipment makes someone who shoots for a living work easier, because they need to do it again and again, and they'd definitely would have the financial ability to spend on something that makes their working life easier.
I've seen plenty of people online and around the world who are talented, but uses kit lenses and entry level cameras to do their stuff, and the stuff they make easily beats the daylights out of many of our own bros' photos. :sweatsm:
Equipment IMHO, should really take the back seat of things, especially when weighed against skill and experience. Though I don't totally neglect it as well, because good equipment does make my job easier for that matter.
I can relate that to my current case, that I live with whatever I have now... i.e. I can live without primes - and would continue without it (I personally shoot with 3 zoom lenses, covering from 17mm to 200mm), unless my job dictates that a shoot situation that clearly, specifically gives an advantage to primes - and it would have made my job much easier if I'm going to do it repeatedly, again and again. For one off jobs, unless I can get a full ROI on my equipment on just that single / couple of job(s), I'd probably still stick to whatever I have and rely on my abilities and experiences to get the job done.
Also, I probably will not get a Hassy unless my client demands resolutions and print sizes that my current mount cannot deliver.
Seriously, good equipment makes someone who shoots for a living work easier, because they need to do it again and again, and they'd definitely would have the financial ability to spend on something that makes their working life easier.
I've seen plenty of people online and around the world who are talented, but uses kit lenses and entry level cameras to do their stuff, and the stuff they make easily beats the daylights out of many of our own bros' photos. :sweatsm:
Equipment IMHO, should really take the back seat of things, especially when weighed against skill and experience. Though I don't totally neglect it as well, because good equipment does make my job easier for that matter.
- Status
Similar threads
