I think it goes without saying that anyone shooting photos for money should probably not be using a kit lens, but they are good for beginners just looking to learn and take better snaps than they can with their smartphones.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I think it goes without saying that anyone shooting photos for money should probably not be using a kit lens, but they are good for beginners just looking to learn and take better snaps than they can with their smartphones.
The thing is, if you're budget constrained, I don't think there's a better offering than the A6000 or A6300 price wise, at least in Europe.
You get a camera that can do good both with video and stills while being significantly cheaper. It's more difficult to get the hang of and I would say that post processing with it is a must, but if you can get over those inconveniences, you get a very versatile system for a reasonable amount of money.
I've only had a A6000, though, and I agree with Jaded. The menu driven system is not pleasing. Fujifilm is much more fun to use and takes better photos right away.
You get a camera that can do good both with video and stills while being significantly cheaper. It's more difficult to get the hang of and I would say that post processing with it is a must, but if you can get over those inconveniences, you get a very versatile system for a reasonable amount of money.
I've only had a A6000, though, and I agree with Jaded. The menu driven system is not pleasing. Fujifilm is much more fun to use and takes better photos right away.
I wouldn't say better right away but it is easier. I had to put some effort into really learning how to get the best out of the Fuji raws though. Glad I did though. Took a bunch of shoots but I'm really happy I've been able to get some really good images out of it now. Pretty much I think if you can edit RAF files you can edit anything because a lot of people complain about them.
I will say I do like how compact the A6000 kit lens is. Feels very small overall.
Kit lenses are fine to start out. It's better than getting a f1.8 right away and then always taking blurry photos because the lack of understanding of what it all means... A few years ago I had someone who bought a 5DM2 and 50 f1.8 lens from recommendation and always shot at f1.8 not knowing what it meant asked me "why are most of my pictures blurry?" A lot of people don't grow out of kit lenses (or the Auto mode) anyway because it just never became their hobby.
I said this same thing about the Fuji kit lens for like the first 200-300 pictures, now it's sitting in my insulated Trader Joe's bag where I keep unused or gear that I don't have enough bag room for.
When I first really got started my first lens was a 50 1.8. I think I shot wide open most of the time...still do, but rarely at 1.8 for the most part now. It has it's place...definitely not in landscape photography though. Though getting out of auto helps substantially. You know a person is in auto when they're photographing a building in broad daylight using the pop up flash.
Last edited:
Not really the same as the Fuji. The Sony APS-C 16-50mm kit lens is pretty much a pancake lens when the camera is off (it extends when you turn it on). It's super light weight and tiny and pretty much turns the a6000 into a pocket camera. 3.5-5.6 aperture, though, and the corners get very soft, but it's a pretty damn fine option to have for casual shooting.
The 18-55 2.8-4. I think if it was my first lens I'd be pretty fucking fine with it, but coming from the world of Nikon's 2.8 24-70 is not a world you follow up easily.
Aperture aside, I almost feel like that lens does not deserve the "kit" label. It's got some very good sharpness and microcontrast that you wouldn't expect from a typical kit lens.
Interesting, that 2.8-4 lens has more than once made me want to buy a Fuji. If I liked the feel/grip of the XT20 I'd probably own one by now.
What cameras do you own atm and what's your favourite camera/lens combo?
I had a Panasonic G85 for a day but returned it (the ibis noise -- this was pre firmware fix -- and some low light issues made me return it). If I were to buy a FF camera I think it would most likely be a Nikon... always had a soft spot for them. I liked my mom's old D90, actually.
I wouldn't do a natural light portrait session with it. I tried in one scenario and I don't find the sharpness to be there. It's good for a kit lens yes, but since a lot of kit lenses are poorly built pieces of plastic nonsense that's not exactly that much of a high bar. I had to work the NYC Marathon on Sunday. They give us D3000's and an 18-105 kit lens. The plastic piece of the front barrel came loose and I had to snap it back onto the front part so it could stop jamming up my zoom. You get what you pay for, which is something that you can't put that much stress on. These aren't labeled work horse lenses for a good reason.
I have owned the Nikon D7100, used the 50 1.8 a lot, eventually got the Sigma 2.8 17-50 and 18-35 art lenses ( I don't like the AF on these too much). Eventually got the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which was excellent for events. Traded all of this in for the Fuji XT2. My Fuji lenses that I like are the 90F2, 35F2, 16-55 2.8 and the 50-140 2.8. My Nikon gear as of now is the D600 and D810. Lenses are the Tamron 2.8 70-200 (I hated the bokeh rendition of the Sigma on the D810), Nikon 2.8 24-70 and 85 1.8G (It's a great portrait lens, sharp as fuck). I'm looking at other stuff but I have no idea what to really get. Also I find the XT-20 to just be too small, it's too small. XT-2 is perfectly fine though, even better with the vertical grip because it's nice and solid. Almost like sex in your hands.
Last edited:
Oh shit, just saw the newly announced Panasonic Lumix G9. That thing looks like a goddamn steal at $1,700 if you're cool with micro four thirds. I'd feel a bit burned at this point if I bought a GH5 and also cared about stills.
Yeah that thing looks really slick. Can't do some of the video stuff that the GH5 can though.
I'm curious to see what the replacement for the G85 looks like.
Yeah, I think that's probably the best description of it (as far as I can tell).
It's a still a damn fine AF performance for what you pay. It was a beast when it was brand new. I have a Sony a7II and that one has a worst performing AF system than what it's on the a6000. BrianCK, the a6000 is the perfect camera for what you are looking for. The user base for it keeps growing and now you have all kinds of cool manual lenses, adapters, and companies like Sigma providing really good alternatives to native Sony lenses. I think the Fuji X series is pure sex, but if you are just starting out, there is no better alternative than the a6000 IMO.
Wait the AF is worse on the A7II, that's filthy. And yeah Fuji X series is pure sex. I think I'm personally just too picky for Sony stuff I guess.
Having shot a few weddings, engagements, portrait sessions, Sony camera's auto focus awful performance is the most annoying part of the system by far. I think the a7RII is better, but if I was a pro who made a living out of photography I wouldn't get anything below the a7RIII. That's not acceptable to me, when you can pay about the same for a Nikon D850 or get very decent used gear from both Nikon and Canon for that much.
Sony is getting better, but the D850 really made me pay attention to other systems.
Jeez...no wonder why I never bought Sony. Good sensors, wonky ergonomics and finicky AF sounds like the name of the game and one card slot and no XQD...yep...I'd get a D850. Yes I know A9 has great AF, but I don't exactly always buy the latest camera.
Oh don't worry, this I know. I always just thought the A7's were just the lower res versions of the A7r's. I'm not hyper familiar with their tier branding.
I'm not expecting to get the equivalent of a top of the line camera, but for the price I paid for the a7II I would have at least expected dual memory cards. The Nikon d750 and the Fuji X-T2 have them. I can live with the AF missing shots as annoying as it is, since I can compensate by having object tracking and eye AF, and the EVF. If the a7III doesn't come with two dual cards, then I'll be jumping ship to Fuji, or Nikon.
My D600 has two cards, that's entry level. I paid like 700 for that thing. The AF isn't hyper fab, but it's serviceable and the sensor is great, AF points are too center clustered though. I do think Sony over charges a bit. The A9 shouldn't be more than a D850.
Damn, this seems like a great price. I look forward to seeing how it performs. My Fuji 16mm is all I'll ever need but I look forward to seeing the comparisons. I wonder if it does well if they'll go after the Fuji XF mount market with it?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2825443206/sigma-s-new-16mm-f1-4-will-cost-450-ships-later-this-month
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2825443206/sigma-s-new-16mm-f1-4-will-cost-450-ships-later-this-month
Basically, Sony autofocus gets a lot better with each model. APS-C and Full Frame don't always share the same AF capabilities.
The AF on full frame got really good with the A7R II. It's still not perfect, of course. The A7R III looks to improve on it dramatically by increase the contrast detect autofocus points and the processing speed. The A9 is also, obviously, incredibly good at focus tracking across the entire frame.
I think anyone who isn't using a flagship Nikon or Canon sports camera would be perfectly happy with the A7R II autofocus and tracking, though.
Sony tech progresses extremely quickly and they release quite a few new models. It's been only 3 and a half years since they released the very first full frame mirrorless camera in the A7. Compare that to the A7R III or A9 and there is an incredible difference in performance and ergonomics.
With that in mind, if you're jumping in now, I wouldn't recommend getting anything below the A7R II.
One thing I like about Sony's approach is that they don't seem to artificially hold things back. They put in everything they can at the time for the price point they determined. For better or worse, if the tech is ready, they tend to cram it into the latest model they are releasing. Of course, that angers a lot of people who bought the model previous to the latest (see A9 purchasers complaining about how capable the much cheaper A7R III is).
Yea I can't live without having dual SD cards but it always seems like a lower priority for Sony for whatever reason. I always say Sony push a lot on the tech front but the overall system is less balanced from usage point of view. MILC is still too expensive for my blood and it's not going to get better with basically a couple suppliers for the sensor and the amount of tech required to move forward. Not that I'm concerned since I have no interest to replace a dozen of lenses I love. Sure I can adapt them but why.
Last edited:
I hope Sony continues that trend with the a7III. Don't need the resolution of the a7RIII, but everything else the camera has is great. Those features without the resolution would make the a7III a killer camera. Once you start approaching the $3k US range, I start considering other systems. But if the a7III comes out at $2200 or below, that will be an instant upgrade for me.
edit - messed up the a7II name. It was suppose to be a7III
Last edited:
The way I see it Sony pushes on tech specs, but lag really far behind when it comes to making their cameras fun to use. I don't exactly want to program 8 Fn buttons before I can get something that works. Especially when I'm trying something out in a store.
If they make an A7 III, I imagine it will be a similar upgrade as the A7R III. Same sensor and tech, but improved everything else. So pretty much a lower-resolution version of the A7R III.
That's assuming they even make it, of course. The A7R II is already down to around $2300 new and they may just let that be their new entry-point to full frame mirrorless, although I'm sure there is some demand for a lower resolution sensor that also has amazing auto-focus and maybe doesn't cost $4,500 new. I imagine the A7S III is next for them, though, as that one is in most of need of an upgrade. If they can get the auto-focus system and other battery/ergonomic improvements of the A7R III and add something like 4K/60 video with no crop, then they would have a huge winner on their hands.
I've personally never understood the complaints about ease of use when it comes to Sony cameras. I guess it's all subjective, but to me, the Sony system makes sense. I've always played with Panasonic, Canon, Fuji, and Nikon systems. The only ones that I ever had trouble with operating was Nikon. It wasn't immediately intuitive to me at all, but I figured it out after a little while.
I think dual SD cards is the way forward for Sony. The A9 and now the A7R III have it, although their implementation is less than ideal (one UHS-I and one UHS-II slot). I assume that they will just manufacture that going forward on all of their bodies and eventually upgrade it to dual UHS-II in a later revision.
There's plenty of good reasons to go MILC + adapter. You can gain a lot of functionality that you may not have on other systems. Whether or not that functionality is needed or even attractive to you is another issue. If you are perfectly happy with what you have, I see zero reason to even consider anything else.
Having just purchased the A9 (used for $3800, no tax), I feel like the price is justified at this very moment. If you care about what makes it a unique camera, there is truly no other option available in the full frame market.
The A7R III that comes out this month is Sony's competitor to the D850 and is priced accordingly.
Last edited:
Ergonomics go a long way to me. Whenever I pick one up it just doesn't grab me so to speak. I could figure the thing out within a week or two, by that I mean get used to it, but for some odd reason when I pick it up it just doesn't make my want to spend 2K on one. I'll buy one yes, but it has to be at the right price. A7II's are coming down nicely, it's just a glass problem for me now because them shits are expensive.
No I really don't care about any of the features in that camera that make it unique. I have no need personally for 20fps that's limited to electronic shutter. I like the AF capability of it, but that's about it. It spits out files I can edit easily I'm certain of that, but I could buy a lot of other cameras and pretty much say the same thing. If I'm doing an event that requires flash I need the mechanical shutter any way and for the most part I don't care if people hear me taking the picture. It's viable for somebody already invested in the Sony ecosystem. I wouldn't jump ship for it though. It's also got to be really good at handling weddings.
Yeah, I know there are a million and one situations in which you might not want to use an adapted lens. I'm just saying there are plenty of reasons why people would want to do so. It all depends on what you want to do.
If the anti-distortion electronic shutter is not a benefit to you, then it would be dumb to consider the A9. Even if you like Sony cameras, the A7R III would be the better option.
Only people who value having an electronic shutter that is not plagued with banding, rolling shutter, and distortion, should consider the A9. That happens to be me, and is the main reason I decided to buy the A9 after the A7R III was revealed to not be using the stacked sensor technology that allows for anti-distortion.
To me, it's an absolute game changer, especially when combined with the ultra-fast and accurate auto-focus and 20 FPS shooting capabilities. Most of my shooting is of my kids and their friends, so being able to easily and quickly capture their movement while also shooting silently to not distract them is massive.
Personally, I hate shutter sounds in all situations. I find that it always distracts people when you're trying to get candid shots and changes the mood of the room. Being able to get in and snap shots as if you're using an iPhone, except do that at 20 FPS with a full frame sensor and amazing lenses is really the biggest selling point of the A9 for me personally.
The electronic shutter also allows for insane shutter speeds up to 1/32,000. I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but I am excited to try shooting at F/1.8 on a bright sunny day soon using that shutter speed.
Last edited:
Awesome. I love the feel of the XT2. On paper I like the value of the XT20 but in my hand the XT2 is just so much nicer.
Sounds like you need it then. Me? Nope. I'm pretty good at candids and my D810 and XT2 aren't exactly loud cameras. The only loud things I've used are the D3 and D4s of my coworker (7100 and 600 are loudish too). With those though I just CH them and lay down a quick burst if need be. I think it mainly just depends on the photographer. I don't care if you're distracted by me. It's my job, if you didn't want to hear a camera then you really shouldn't have asked my bosses for a photographer to appear at your event. On top of this suits are used to it to be honest. If you pay a person 150K and they get thrown off during their speech because a camera is going off then you wasted your money. I'd only be weird with this in like a quiet jazz club or something. As I said. The A9 would be a really good wedding or golf camera. It's an overpriced portrait camera though. Anytime i see a youtuber that mainlines portraits and is using an A9 I just honestly consider it to be a waste of money. It's like with politicians. They hear a thousand or more shutter actuations every time they talk. If they're stumbling over something like that they're inexperienced.
The XT20 is too fucking small. It's got good value, but it's just too small in the hand so yeah I agree. I'd never buy that thing.
The XT2 with the vertical grip is sex in the hands. I love that camera.
Yeah, I felt like I needed it (well, not *need* -- I don't need any camera).
I guess it just comes down to there not being any advantages to having a shutter sound. For me at least. I'm not a professional photographer and just do this as a hobby and because I like photography as well as to capture memories for my family and friends. Because of that, candid photos are most of what I do and the lack of a shutter sound is a life saver, especially when it comes to kids. I've only had the camera for a few days now, but it's really quite a game changer for me and allows me to get shots I know I otherwise would not have.
If you're being paid as a pro to take portraits or do events or something, then yeah, it wouldn't make much sense to care about shutter noise, although I do think it could allow you to get better pictures. For me at least, I find that the less people are aware of the camera, the better expressions you'll get and the more "real" the moments will feel.
And, yeah, there are certainly better cameras than the A9 for portraiture, although it might be more useful in natural light settings that don't utilize flash just because of the frame rate. Still, I'd rather go with a higher resolution sensor that has more dynamic range for portraits.
there are professional gigs where silence is required, so having that option is better than not. I'd rather not use sound blimps on my gear.
Depending on the event or lighting you're either using natural light or speedlight. If they don't hear the shutter they see the flash so it's really just a whatever thing to me. Regarding better candids? These are people not birds, they either see me with the camera or lens or they don't. I have never really wished for a quieter camera. Now if I was doing weddings? Then yeah I'd probably get an A9 because I hear people are starting to act like assholes regarding that stuff. What exactly are your used focal lengths and locations for the child stuff out of curiosity? With enough distance you can pop off a shot or two before you're even noticed. Busy streets of NYC I really don't think people even notice it. Dude I've used the D810 and XT2 on CH for portraits...you DO NOT need 20fps for portraiture unless the model is unprofessional, deaf and does her own thing or hopped up on sugar. I only used it last time because the 90F2 on the Fuji has no stabilization so I was just hoping that I'd get at least two or three in focus in case of movement. I kept the SS high and got way more keepers than I thought. 20fps is straight unneeded overkill for traditional portraiture
Aren't most of these things golf games and Bars Mitzvah's or something?
Pretty much the things that require you to be silent as fuck are a bit rare...at least for me. I don't shoot golf games and I don't deal with Bar Mitzvahs. This is one of those "what's your professional niche" topics. On top of this I heard Bars Mitzvah's don't even allow flash.
I primarily switch between my 28mm F/2, my 35mm F/2.8, my 55mm F/1.8, and my 85mm F/1.8 lenses depending on the situation and how I'm feeling that day. I've got the kit zoom lens, too, but I almost never use it.
I can only speak from my own experience, and I'm sure all kids and people are different, but I find that it's not the sight of the camera that attracts attention, it's the shutter sound. You say people aren't birds, and yeah, the people aren't going to fly away at the sound of a shutter going off, but I find they are often just as easily distracted by noise.
When it comes to high frame rates and portraiture, I'd argue that more is always better when it comes to getting that decisive moment. Sure, it means you have to dig through more photos after the fact, but you may capture something that you wouldn't have otherwise with 15 frames or 10 frames or 5 frames per second. Is it needed? No, nothing is really needed. If you're doing a professional shoot with a model that can keep their expression, you can more than get by with single shot. It sure is nice to have the option (and higher than 20 FPS will definitely be a thing sooner than later, which will be all the better still when you want that option).
I'm not really arguing about what you need to just get by or "get the job done." That's more in the skill and knowledge of the photographer than any camera capabilities beyond the bare minimum. I just like the idea of having more options and more capabilities that new technology allows for me. I know it certainly helps me get shots I otherwise would not have obtained.
Required? Definitely not that common especially since it's common knowledge that cameras make noise, so people know what they are getting into when the book a photographer.
Better to not make noise? In my opinion, that's any situation.
Now that depends on where you are. Photographing people you don't even know react very negatively to a camera in there face or even pointed in their general vicinity unless they just don't care. More isn't always better, it just gives you more pics of eyes not being straight, mouths open, tongue in teeth and so forth. Peoples faces do really weird shit. I've mostly just been using CL for the most part unless I'm nervous about my focus being erratic or shutter shake or non stabilized lens or just street photography of walking people. The high fps has a place and I agree with that, but man I do think there is such a thing as too much fps unless you're shooting sports. You also have to remember you're dealing with kids. They react more to noise than probably the object of something they don't quite understand. Also you're just very close. Adults know what a camera is and what it's for, they don't want to be on camera randomly.
I'm not exactly dismissing features. I'm asking for a logical reason on why said person specifically needs said features. I wouldn't exactly tell some newbie or even most pros to get an A9 unless they specifically needed it's specific skill set.
I find it's the same thing with adults. I've done some work events where it's understood that photos will be taken, but people still react to the shutter noise and look towards the camera and do a pose or something more often than not. Those shots are good to get, too, but I like the ability to shoot silently and more easily get candid photos. It all comes down to what you want to shoot and what tool will make that easier, though. If you don't feel that silent shooting will help you in any way, then there is really no reason to consider it. Mechanical shutters are a more proven and sure-fire technology at the moment.
It's really depends on the event and just knowing how to be a bit nonchalant with it. I've gotten mostly pretty decent at it as long as they don't see the camera. That's where I feel a certain level of just straight reach helps. I don't cover an event without my 70-200 for a reason. Even then I've dealt with teens and they care briefly then just tell them to act like I'm not there or give it a few minutes and then they act normally again. Not every event is the same and not everybody being photographed is the same. It's honestly just the nature of what it all is. Do I hate the A9? No not really. I just wish they didn't gimp certain aspects of it to big up the electronic shutter technology. It has a 5fps shutter, camera is 4K in price. That ain't cheap, especially for a sports camera that might not reliably get non banding shots with background LED's with the ES. It should have at least had a 10 FPS shutter in there for back up. It ain't hard to get one of those and not make the camera more expensive than it already is. The A7RIII proved that. Shit I actually would get the A7RIII over it. Seems like more of an all rounder.
Yeah, the A7R III is definitely a better all-rounder. No doubt about that. I wanted to get the A9 since it was announced, but I was waiting to see what Sony announced next. I was hoping the stacked sensor that allows for distortion-free continuous silent shooting with the electronic shutter would be going into all of their models, but that wasn't to be, unfortunately. The distortion and banding with the A7R II's electronic shutter is pretty bad and I doubt it will be improved much for the III. The A7R III is definitely better in terms of the mechanical shutter frame rate (and 10 FPS with 42 MP images is pretty crazy anyway), as well as other features like improved eye-detect auto-focus, having a USB 3.1 (type C) connection, and some more stuff. I'm sure the A9 II will have all of that and more, and most people would probably be better served waiting for that.