Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

I like Nikon too.
The only reason I went Canon (many years ago) was Nikon did not have the lenses I wanted.
That's largely all changed now though.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18623707
I like Nikon too.
The only reason I went Canon (many years ago) was Nikon did not have the lenses I wanted.
That's largely all changed now though.

I understand. I went Canon at first because they had the MP-65 and many apps/software for astro were
Canon oriented.
I just sold my MP-65 when the Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x macro arrived in e-mount last week.

AlanU wrote in post #18623453
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!!

I went ahead and just paid for a year subscription and then later discovered that this version of light room does not even have batch sync processing. Oh my goodness I can’t even use this for my workflow but I guess one month payment app subscription is worth a cuppa coffee and pastry so I guess I’ll stick with it.

AlanU wrote in post #18623821
I went ahead and just paid for a year subscription and then later discovered that this version of light room does not even have batch sync processing. Oh my goodness I can’t even use this for my workflow but I guess one month payment app subscription is worth a cuppa coffee and pastry so I guess I’ll stick with it.

Don't know what Lr you (guessing Lightroom CC?) have but with Lightroom Classic CC you can batch sync process. Download that version from your CC account.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18623872
Don't know what Lr you (guessing Lightroom CC?) have but with Lightroom Classic CC you can batch sync process. Download that version from your CC account.

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=186​23872&i=i44102711
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Kim is that "classic" going to update my standalone I already have?

Or is the classic part of what I am paying for monthly?

this stuff is confusing.

AlanU wrote in post #18623821
I went ahead and just paid for a year subscription and then later discovered that this version of light room does not even have batch sync processing. Oh my goodness I can’t even use this for my workflow but I guess one month payment app subscription is worth a cuppa coffee and pastry so I guess I’ll stick with it.

If what you mean by 'batch sync' is a 'macro' to tell LR to execute a batch file to make chosen files all have a series of controls set to certain parameters, you are right that LR does not have that. What it does have, accomplishes the same thing...

1. you can create a Preset and tell LR to automatically apply that set of parameters automatically during Import
   
2. you can have many stored Preset and tell LR to apply the chosen Preset to one/many chosen photos
   
3. you can set up one photo to have a certain combination of parameters, then you can select one one/many additional files and tell LR to 'sync' the chosen photos to be just like the first photo.
   

AlanU wrote in post #18623109
I'm truly discovering the massive difference between Canon and Sony.

Sony files have this unbelievable realism. Crystal clear images true to life. No argument from me but the thing is I must really do some manipulating Sony RAW files to reduce the extreme real crisp digital look. Sounds odd but my eyes and many "human's" have been trained to appreciate manipulated photo edited images via magazines to photos on the net of human subjects. Sharp images yet softer gradual shadows with a smoother comforting effect when you look at the image.

I've edited some of my A7iii raw files but the output with the images has "ALMOST" the image I would get from my old Canon Xti jpgs hit with Standard profile with the sharpness ramped up to max. Sony has the edgy unprocessed photo that has this hard POP to the photo that I must reduce contrast to -20 and clarity to -10 to -15 to get a more analog look i get with my Fuji gear.

Before you start an argument I'd suggest taking a good look at alot of the portraits on the Sony section of the POTN or even the web. Many photogs have this hard edge contrast look to a portrait. Perhaps intentional but I know many of my Canon files have increased Micro contrast with my 5dmk4 with latest L glass......However after editing in LR the portraits can have a more gradual less contrast look. Call it personal preference.....

I now shoot Canon, Fuji and Sony. Fuji has this eye candy look that can look painterly but the files are so easy to process. Canon is effortless in LR for me. Even though I've developed a preset process for Sony I still find the auto white balance in mixed light is much harder to deal with than my Canon for some reason.

Certainly canon has a certain colour science but I think the Sony has a more dominant swing in the greens and reds that are more aggressive than Canon's colour orange.

Do I like Sony? It's a great performer and it's a tool. Mirrored bodies for events is my goto camera as I NEVER EVER have focus issues. I cannot judge Sony just yet as I use adapted canon glass. However I know enough locals and friends that say going from Canon to Sony they are also adapting to colour science and in low light they still understand mirrored bodies with external speedlights are noticeably more comforting to lock AF ALWAYS. These people are the ones that have gone mirror to mirrorless. Sure there's a learning curve involved but when I rely on AF I use my Canon gear 100% when I know I'm hired to shoot an event.

Mileage may vary so the people that are debating...... Dont!! Buy a Sony A7iii or A7Riii or A9 and test it yourself.

I got my A7iii as one of the first batch to come in my local area. I'm still struggling with a love / hate relationship with this camera. I need to buy native glass to judge truthfully but auto WB is good but can be finicky compared to Fuji. For the softer eye candy presentation I prefer my fuji X-t2 with 56mm compared to my Sony A7iii with adapted Canon 85Lmk2!!!

This is where I was hit in the face with massive differences in Sony render vs Canon. Sony I must manipulate the RAW a lot more to get "easier on the eyes" presentation without grungy "pop" with true honest realism. People see realism all day long with their own eyes.

Tools are tools. Pick and choose the look your after and improve on your photo editing skills.

Personally, I am happy with the Fuji system and experience so I will leave it at that. We are all on our own journey

AlanU wrote in post #18623949
Kim is that "classic" going to update my standalone I already have?

Or is the classic part of what I am paying for monthly?

this stuff is confusing.

As long as you uncheck the box that says remove existing versions (or something like that, I can't remember) you will still have the original useable on your computer. 'New' Lightroom will need to upgrade your catalogue to be able to be used with the 7.3 version, so make sure you back it up before you do. As a bonus the latest update to Lightroom Classic handles Fuji's files much better...

Lightroom Classic CC is part of what you are paying for on the photographer plan @ $13pm - assuming you are on that plan. And a big yes on the confusing part at first. 'Lightroom CC' is the cloud version very similar to the mobile one. Lightroom Classic CC is just like the Lightroom you know, hence the Classic in the name. Have fun.

AlanU wrote in post #18623949
Kim is that "classic" going to update my standalone I already have?

Or is the classic part of what I am paying for monthly?

this stuff is confusing.

Blame Adobe for creating confusion with renaming their Lightroom versions, for no consistency from LR6 to LR7.
What was 'Lightroom CC' is now called 'Lightroom Classic', and Adobe has a 'Lightroom CC' now which is entirely different from what was called Lightroom CC previously! Some have said that the new Lightroom CC is best suited for people that want a mobile/cloud based workflow.

Blame Adobe for adding further to the confusion by changing the way in which its software is installed. It used to be that when LR was installed it would continue to run 'forever'. But now, with Lightroom CC (the new) the PC has to 'check in' with Adobe to confirm you have an active subscription and are paid up...unlike Lightoom CC (the Classic) which was a one-time perpetual license.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18623707
I like Nikon too.
The only reason I went Canon (many years ago) was Nikon did not have the lenses I wanted.
That's largely all changed now though.

I started off Nikon but went to Canon because at the time their lens compatability chart nonsense was a horrorshow. I had to rebuy most of my lenses because they wouldnt work with this body or that body, and the new ones wouldn't work with my film stuff, and if i went digital oh boy...

This was..14 years ago mind you. I decided to be serious with photography and bought an EOS 3 for the whopping price of $300-something, plus the power drive booster, a 50mm f/1.4 USM and never looked back... Added in the 200mm f/2.8L, then the 24-105 f/4L, a Sigma 15-30mm...and a whole lot of Velvia...Went digital with the 30D, lots of lens swapping (I am somewhat known for that here) trying to get stuff that works with my "eye" and eventually im fairly settled now.. I still lack one lens i want (something with a 50mm equivalent) but overall im satisfied

Ive contemplated switches several times, closest I came was prior to the 7D being anounced back in 09 because I was simply tired of Canon not offering what I wanted, I wanted the D300 + 16-85 and 105 VR Macro, Canon had nothing like them. Then they announced the 7D, 15-85 and 100L in one sitting... Given i own all three, no i was not one of those couch people who complains about a system lacking something they will never buy

I really dont wanna wait any more on Canon to release a mirrorless. But if they do, it will likely have full EF compatability through adapters. My partial addition of a Sony body puts me at minimal investment if I decide down the line that Canon would better suit my needs, but i highly doubt it.

Hey ... I recalled this thread asking if Canon is doomed.

So .. did Canon file for bankruptcy yet? LOL !!

dOoMeD!!!

No... Canon has not declared bankruptcy yet..... because they are far more than just a camera company..... But they are losing marketshare in pretty quick strides. It's not just Sony, but all the others that are starting to nip at their heals. As someone who shot Canon for over 30 years, I have a ton of glass. Far more than I could ever think of swapping out. But looking at things like the new 400 from Sony that resolves far better than the Canon, is faster, lighter.... Canon safe area of lenses is now also under attack. I really hope that Canon decides to get off their laurels here.... but I've seen nothing that shows me Canon is serious here.

The comments out there that there is little difference between 10 and 20 fps..... or that they don't see the need for a continuous view evf that shows how images will be actually captured... you haven't sold much I take it. The often is the difference between a "good" shot and a perfect shot. I say this as someone who started shooting sports manual focus and one frame at a time. I know very well knowing your sport, and timing a play is the most important factor. But if you can catch a cluster of 4 -10 images of a catch... your much more likely to get that key shot. It's what will separate you from the person shooting next to you.

Croasdail wrote in post #18656171
But looking at things like the new 400 from Sony that resolves far better than the Canon, is faster, lighter.... Canon safe area of lenses is now also under attack.

How did you know this? Was Sony 400mm f2.8 just released last week? Any links to compare with Canon 400mm? Also that Sony lens costs 12K and I think it should be considered too. I mean, if I already have Canon 1dx2 with 400mm 2.8L IS II, I don't think I'd swap it with Sony.

That being said, I'd love to see the performance of Sony a9 + 400mm 2.8 VS Canon 1Dx2 + 400mm 2.8L IS II

2loose wrote in post #18656399
How did you know this? Was Sony 400mm f2.8 just released last week? Any links to compare with Canon 400mm? Also that Sony lens costs 12K and I think it should be considered too. I mean, if I already have Canon 1dx2 with 400mm 2.8L IS II, I don't think I'd swap it with Sony.

That being said, I'd love to see the performance of Sony a9 + 400mm 2.8 VS Canon 1Dx2 + 400mm 2.8L IS II

Is this what you're looking for?