Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

KenjiS wrote in post #18623360
See I've heard a lot about the sony image look and ive also seen a lot of images i like coming from Sony sensors to determine they have something to them that is different than Canon, Not better or worse. Different.

I also like my Canon look at times... Thus why im adding the A7III to my setup versus replacing things..

Im just trying really hard to decide on lenses as im on a budget, and no, i dont want manual focus or all converted stuff. I do want at least some pure sony as some of the work will be shooting my cardigan corgis who do not sit still...

Namely I'm pretty sure im getting the 85mm f/1.8, but the 90mm f/2.8 is extremely appealing to me given my second love of shooting nature (Seriously my 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is probably my most used lens... Followed by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 150-600 Sigma) I also considered the 24-105 as a general purpose zoom that can pair well with the 7D mounting the 70-200 and be used when the dogs get closer to me.... Luna is primarily the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma or the 70-200. Depends on what im doing.

Thoughts?

Hopefully more people can chime in....I'm new to sony too

The 100L IS is an absolute piece of turd with the sigma MC-11 with the A7iii. It works but you must be patient with it.

The 70-200ii actually works OK with center point in good light. Adapted lenses are not the best to judge the sony A7iii or any Sony body.

I like fast glass so f/4 usually isn't my choice so this is such a personal decision.....

Hopefully more can contribute to your insanity (and mine)

AlanU wrote in post #18623378
Hopefully more people can chime in....I'm new to sony too

The 100L IS is an absolute piece of turd with the sigma MC-11 with the A7iii. It works but you must be patient with it.

The 70-200ii actually works OK with center point in good light. Adapted lenses are not the best to judge the sony A7iii or any Sony body.

I like fast glass so f/4 usually isn't my choice so this is such a personal decision.....

Hopefully more can contribute to your insanity (and mine)

Yeah thats why im not planning to convert TOO many, but its good to hear first hand experience. The MC-11 is mostly for the 150-600, not my other glass. I figure if i start talking about adapting every lens i own i will actually start making choices on what goes where. I want mostly native glass to start and the 85 is a logical starting point (fast AF and superb IQ) plus if i think about it a little, i could get 2 lenses for the cost of the macro or the 24-105 that way (ie, look for something in the 35 or 50 range for walkarounds)

And Corgis are fast. So welcome to "lets see how good the A7III AF is"

And the buffer. And the write speed

AlanU wrote in post #18623363
The whole point for me to buy into sony is to have a capable mirrorless body that performs better than Fuji. The Fuji system has produced some incredible images but I wanted to have a higher performing low light camera.

I will say the Sony colours are different. Not saying Canon is the best or worst. The Sony colours are strong coming out of the gate in RAW files. Intense colours compared to Canon and Fuji.

The clarity from the Sony system is eye popping. However looking at the Sony images it has this certain type of high energy "pop". I think human subject poses is one thing but the editing style can produce subdued look any other emotions. I see that the sony high clarity render is not so easy to tame in some types of looks you want to create.

When I first started to buy new Canon L glass I was impressed by the micro contrast look it provided. Now by using those same exact lenses on Sony I'm saying WTF? it's a totally different level of sharpness in how it renders images. However by saying this the photos can also exhibit a more digital look. Looking at my old 5D classic images the full frame old canon sensor produced some amazing organic film like qualities.

Again..... I shoot 3 systems so I can pick and choose what I want. I can create a certain look just by grabbing a camera. The Fuji has the most organic film look that is the least digital looking, Canon is second and Sony is the most digital render look.

Just my observation.....

Alan, I have shot with all 3 systems, in fact still have cameras from Fuji, Canon and Sony. What you call organic, I call in-camera processed. Fuji is the most heavy handed at this, but Canon comes close and Sony leaves much of the processing to the user.

Personally i’d Rather do all my own processing rather than having a camera engineer dictate for me a certain look. I can manipulate Sony images to achieve whatever I want...but creating the fine details out of a Fuji system which smears those fine details is just not possible.

Give me the raw unaltered data ( or at least as little alteration as possible) and let me be in total control to create MY look rather than having that look dictated to me by the camera. I feel I can create the vision i’m after far better than someone else.

This is why I don’t shoot jpegs...don’t want the processing dictated by someone else.

AlanU wrote in post #18623368
As a walk around the Sony was quite easy to use.

I've been pleased with the performance. It's the adaptation to the slower speeds I'm taking to edit photos. I'm battling the fact that Sony is too sharp and contrasty in how it renders human subjects

work in progress.....

Can you elaborate on your processing steps you are doing with the Sony files. Really shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve any look you want.

Hogloff wrote in post #18623384
Can you elaborate on your processing steps you are doing with the Sony files. Really shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve any look you want.

Cooked can be a description of what a camera does even in RAW form.

Sony's render is sharp and extremely high in contrast once I import it to LR.

I can manipulate RAW files but for some reason it seems it takes more longer to do in LR. Sony or Fuji files can take settings across a wider range of batch files "better" to my eyes. I can edit Sony but the colours are the harder things to manipulate as the colour science is way more intense than fuji or Canon. The greens can be "in your face" with intensity so i must touch the green colour path. Also the awb in mixed lighting seemed more difficult to deal with the colours. This is just how I'm adapting at the moment with Sony.

If I was a landscape photog I'd appreciate the details Sony offers. Canon and Fuji definitely create's cartoon trees etc.

However for human subjects called the Hogloff phenomenon "cooked/smudge" actually works for me better than Sony's brutally raw and sharp images. HOWEVER it's not impossible to create similar effects with post processing sony files.

AlanU wrote in post #18623395
Cooked can be a description of what a camera does even in RAW form.

Sony's render is sharp and extremely high in contrast once I import it to LR.

I can manipulate RAW files but for some reason it seems it takes more longer to do in LR. Sony or Fuji files can take settings across a wider range of batch files "better" to my eyes. I can edit Sony but the colours are the harder things to manipulate as the colour science is way more intense than fuji or Canon. The greens can be "in your face" with intensity so i must touch the green colour path. Also the awb in mixed lighting seemed more difficult to deal with the colours. This is just how I'm adapting at the moment with Sony.

If I was a landscape photog I'd appreciate the details Sony offers. Canon and Fuji definitely create's cartoon trees etc.

However for human subjects called the Hogloff phenomenon "cooked/smudge" actually works for me better than Sony's brutally raw and sharp images. HOWEVER it's not impossible to create similar effects with post processing sony files.

What profiles have you tried with your Sony files and have you tried the profiles in the latest LR? Have you created any custom profiles.

Profiles can drastically affect the colours in an image.

Hogloff wrote in post #18623407
What profiles have you tried with your Sony files and have you tried the profiles in the latest LR? Have you created any custom profiles.

Profiles can drastically affect the colours in an image.

I'm using LR 6 at the moment. I'm using adobe dng converter.

I am using xtrite passport and creating custom profiles.

If I purchase Adobe cloud as a monthly subscription does it give me a new icon and leave my standalone separately if so I'll dump 13bucks cdn to play with sony files.

AlanU wrote in post #18623417
I'm using LR 6 at the moment. I'm using adobe dng converter.

I am using xtrite passport and creating custom profiles.

If I purchase Adobe cloud as a monthly subscription does it give me a new icon and leave my standalone separately if so I'll dump 13bucks cdn to play with sony files.

You can’t purchase LR CC for a month only for $13. You need to subscribe for a year...and pay monthly if you look like.

I believe you can download a trial and use it for a bit.

Hogloff wrote in post #18623428
You can’t purchase LR CC for a month only for $13. You need to subscribe for a year...and pay monthly if you look like.

I believe you can download a trial and use it for a bit.

But that effects my chef boyardee diet so i can't afford my G Master glass :P

Does LR CC create a brand new icon and leave the stand alone "alone"???

AlanU wrote in post #18623431
But that effects my chef boyardee diet so i can't afford my G Master glass :P

Does LR CC create a brand new icon and leave the stand alone "alone"???

Yes, when you install ensure the option to remove previous versions is not checked.

Hogloff wrote in post #18623447
Yes, when you install ensure the option to remove previous versions is not checked.

Thank you!!! That's what I wanted to hear.

is the CC version that much better than my old LR6???? Sony is making me spend 13bucks a month LOL!!

Hogloff wrote in post #18623383
Personally i’d Rather do all my own processing rather than having a camera engineer dictate for me a certain look. I can manipulate Sony images to achieve whatever I want...but creating the fine details out of a Fuji system which smears those fine details is just not possible.

Which Fuji system and what subject. Never seen any problem. Almost straight from the camera. No sharpening except LR default.

Bobby,

I think it's more to do with small aperture photography in available light.

The wideopen (or close to it) photos always look clean with Fuji. You'll especially get clean images shooting with a strobe/flash. I have outdoor photos that have this painterly look if you uplift some shadows on shrubs or trees using no flash.

That look is fine with me...... people have their opinions and preferences.

So, here we are, a year on and Canon are still going.

It's a bit disappointing really as I was looking for a good reason to change systems.

I hope 10 years from now Sony Canon Fuji Oly are all still going on strong!
Choice.
Yeah Nikon too, my first ever real camera was an F2 Photomic.