Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 16 Mar 2018 (Friday) 02:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I've switched to Sony twice. Hated it. Now I'm thinking about doing it a third time.

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,477 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3114
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 09:21 |  #16

.

AlanU wrote in post #18586993 (external link)
I think he can tell immediately if you like or dislike the camera body .

.
The OP actually made it clear that that is not the case:
.

quadwing wrote in post #18586832 (external link)
I’d need to rent it for a solid month to know whether or not I’d truly like it, and that’s not exactly an option for me at the moment financially speaking.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,834 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 786
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 16, 2018 09:48 |  #17

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587008 (external link)
.

.
The OP actually made it clear that that is not the case:
.

.

Well even while genuinely supporting POTN folks.. each to their own in personal tool selection and financial responsibilities.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,323 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1368
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 10:02 |  #18

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587007 (external link)
.
I didn't misread you. . I totally 'get' that you were suggesting NOT to rent the camera. .But the reason that you suggested it seemed to be because you thought that if the (mere) cost of a month's rental was a stretch financially, then the purchase price is something that the OP may not be able to wisely afford.

My post was to counter that by making the point that rental rates are enormously huge sums of money paid for nothing, and whilst one may wisely buy a camera outright, renting a camera to try it out is financial foolishness.

.

You've utterly lost me on how renting something for a while is complete foolishness, Tom...??

An A7R3, from LensRentals, can be hired out for $600 (rounded up) for 30 days ($1100 for a full 90 days), for a body that retails for $3200. Plus, they'll apply your rental toward the purchase of that particular rental should you decide it really *does* work for you. I cannot see how that makes less sense than spending $3k complete out of pocket in order to figure out if it works.


OP: 'Why' are you trying so hard to switch to an lineup that has repeatedly proven to not meet your needs? What is it about the Canon bodies that you're unhappy with?

A brief side-by-side of the A73 and A7R3 features:
https://www.dpreview.c​om …7iii&products=s​ony_a7riii (external link)


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,477 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3114
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 10:14 |  #19

Snydremark wrote in post #18587046 (external link)
You've utterly lost me on how renting something for a while is complete foolishness, Tom...??

.
Years ago I rented a Canon 400 f5.6 for a month and the total cost was around $300. . At the end of the month I was out $300 and had nothing to show for it because you get no equity in something that you have to mail back to the owner.

A year later I bought a 400 f5.6 for $900. . I felt that I had completely wasted the $300 on the previous year's rental and that instead of renting it I should have just bought it to begin with.

So I spent a total of $1200 when I could have spent just $900. . Renting resulted in a net waste of $300. . That sucks. . Certainly seems like foolishness to me.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,834 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 786
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 16, 2018 10:23 |  #20

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587062 (external link)
.
Years ago I rented a Canon 400 f5.6 for a month and the total cost was around $300. . At the end of the month I was out $300 and had nothing to show for it because you get no equity in something that you have to mail back to the owner.

A year later I bought a 400 f5.6 for $900. . I felt that I had completely wasted the $300 on the previous year's rental and that instead of renting it I should have just bought it to begin with.

So I spent a total of $1200 when I could have spent just $900. . Renting resulted in a net waste of $300. . That sucks. . Certainly seems like foolishness to me.

.

You should have bought it if you truly intended to buy new in the first place.

Sounds like you liked it so you would have benefited buying it with rental credit.

If you didn’t like it the rental cost is the price of you pay for curiosity.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
normware
Member
45 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 25
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa Canada
     
Mar 16, 2018 10:30 |  #21

Hmmm


Tries it twice and did not like it each time.....

What do you tell a POTN Photographer with 2 black eyes??

Nothnig...He/she has already been told twice.


Canon 6D II - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art - Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C - Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art - Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD | Coming soon Rokinon 85MM with chip
Canon M5 - EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM - EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
Luminar 2018 , Aurora HDR 2018, Creative Kit 2018

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,477 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3114
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 8 months ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Mar 16, 2018 11:16 |  #22

AlanU wrote in post #18587067 (external link)
You should have bought it if you truly intended to buy new in the first place.

Of course - that was my point. . But of course I would never buy camera gear new - used is the way to go if you want it to hold its value for a while (just like with cars).

.

AlanU wrote in post #18587067 (external link)
Sounds like you liked it so you would have benefited buying it with rental credit.

Bad idea - throwing money away, just like renting. . Why? . Because then you're forced to pay the price that the rental place charges for the lens, instead of hunting through classifieds and finding a truly good deal on one that is priced below used market value.

Rent-to-own seldom works to the advantage of the buyer, for any kind of item, because then you're stuck paying that one seller's price instead of having the freedom to bargain hunt.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chet
my rates fluctuate
Avatar
43,041 posts
Gallery: 128 photos
Likes: 1880
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 16, 2018 11:18 |  #23

normware wrote in post #18587076 (external link)
What do you tell a POTN Photographer with 2 black eyes??

Cover your nuts.


Curator of the Bob's Pickle Emporium experience. -As always, One location to serve you better!
~Feel good today and donate to this great forum~ LINK
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,323 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1368
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 12:25 |  #24

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587062 (external link)
.
Years ago I rented a Canon 400 f5.6 for a month and the total cost was around $300. . At the end of the month I was out $300 and had nothing to show for it because you get no equity in something that you have to mail back to the owner.

A year later I bought a 400 f5.6 for $900. . I felt that I had completely wasted the $300 on the previous year's rental and that instead of renting it I should have just bought it to begin with.

So I spent a total of $1200 when I could have spent just $900. . Renting resulted in a net waste of $300. . That sucks. . Certainly seems like foolishness to me.

.

Not as a disparagement, but I'd say that renting in and of itself wasn't foolish; it sounds like the timing of the rental wasn't actually the best (plus, I have no idea whether the rental agency at the time offered any credit toward a purchase). Without the option to credit your rental toward a purchase, I'd agree it's a bit of a waste in that circumstance. But that isn't the current state of rentals.

What changed in that year that had you make the purchase that far after the fact?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,477 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3114
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 12:48 |  #25

.

Snydremark wrote in post #18587161 (external link)
What changed in that year that had you make the purchase that far after the fact?

I had some more shooting opportunities for which the 400 f5.6 would be the best choice. . Having already seen the foolishness of renting the first time I needed the lens, I learned my lesson and the second time I needed it I looked for an opportunity to buy a used copy below market value and did just that.

.

Snydremark wrote in post #18587161 (external link)
. . . I have no idea whether the rental agency at the time offered any credit toward a purchase. Without the option to credit your rental toward a purchase, I'd agree it's a bit of a waste in that circumstance. But that isn't the current state of rentals.

The whole credit-your-rental-payment-toward-purchase deal is normally a dumb move, for the reason I stated in post #22.

.

Snydremark wrote in post #18587161 (external link)
. But that isn't the current state of rentals.

What isn't the current state of rentals? . What's changed in the way the rental business operates within the past 5 or 10 years?


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,323 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1368
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 13:16 |  #26

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587180 (external link)
.

I had some more shooting opportunities for which the 400 f5.6 would be the best choice. . Having already seen the foolishness of renting the first time I needed the lens, I learned my lesson and the second time I needed it I looked for an opportunity to buy a used copy below market value and did just that.

.

The whole credit-your-rental-payment-toward-purchase deal is normally a dumb move, for the reason I stated in post #22.

.

What isn't the current state of rentals? . What's changed in the way the rental business operates within the past 5 or 10 years?

.

crediting rental toward a purchase hasn't always been the case. The core at this point is that we just disagree on what is/isn't a waste of money, though. Just trying to understand where you were coming from; which I do now.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quadwing
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,029 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
     
Mar 16, 2018 15:06 |  #27

Snydremark wrote in post #18587046 (external link)
OP: 'Why' are you trying so hard to switch to an lineup that has repeatedly proven to not meet your needs? What is it about the Canon bodies that you're unhappy with?

A brief side-by-side of the A73 and A7R3 features:
https://www.dpreview.c​om …7iii&products=s​ony_a7riii (external link)

It's not that I'm terribly unhappy with it. I like the system. I like the images. I like what it has to offer. Except, with the A7R II, it wasn't offering a lot of it fast enough or long enough. The battery life was horrible, and the time between taking a picture and being able to preview it and zoom in on it was too long for my needs. Something Canon, at the time, does better. The A7R III might be better in these respects, but I don't know because I haven't tried it.

Tom is correct in his observance. Switching bodies is actually cheaper for me than is renting, especially considering that I buy most of my bodies grey market anyway. It'd be a $500 expense at most to sell off my 5DIV for a A7R III. Then if I were to sell the A7R III, I'd be losing that $500 in equity. It's not horribly expensive.


Camera gear: Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II | Lights: Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,862 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2222
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 8 months ago by Wilt.
     
Mar 16, 2018 15:14 |  #28

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18587007 (external link)
.
I didn't misread you. . I totally 'get' that you were suggesting NOT to rent the camera. .But the reason that you suggested it seemed to be because you thought that if the (mere) cost of a month's rental was a stretch financially, then the purchase price is something that the OP may not be able to wisely afford.

My post was to counter that by making the point that rental rates are enormously huge sums of money paid for nothing, and whilst one may wisely buy a camera outright, renting a camera to try it out is financial foolishness.

.

Agree. i tcan indeed be far better for a 'one month try out' to PURCHASE!


  1. One can rent a Nikon D750 for $207 for 14 days, or about $400 for the month (a month would entail getting a quote to find out the real amount) from Lens Rentals. Add a 24-70 f/2.8 lens at $139 for 14 days, or about $270 for the month...$670 in rental fees out the door.
  2. You can buy a D750 used body for $1200 right now from Adorama, add another $550 for a new 2-lens kit (Nikon Landscape and Macro Two Lens Kit (AFP DX 10-20/4.5-5.6G VR & Micro 40/2.8) Use it for a month or two can get back almost all of the money from the used body resale, and maybe lose $100 on the lenses (usual new price $646)... so it cost you $200-300 to use a Nikon D750 kit to try out. Advantage: Purchase, not rent!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,834 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 786
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 16, 2018 18:24 |  #29

Quadwing,

Do you need the resolution of the A7Riii or why not consider the A7iii and sigma adapter before dumping the 5dmk4.

24MP will be a sweet spott for most shooting situations.

If your in the US the A7iii is somewhat cheap to acquire and a sigma adapter is extremely inexpensive.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,989 posts
Likes: 946
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Mar 16, 2018 18:29 |  #30

The old saying is...

"Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me."

But, fool me three times :p


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16,966 views & 213 likes for this thread
I've switched to Sony twice. Hated it. Now I'm thinking about doing it a third time.
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is canon-noob
665 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.