Canon EOS R has Crucified my thoughts about changing to Sony

mystik610 wrote in post #18754300
As a wedding photographer who has successfully shot very many weddings on Sony gear, I have to LOL at this sentiment. People hire you because of the photographs you produce...not because of what gear you shoot on. If you're that insecure about what people think about your gear, you're doing it wrong.

Sony and Fuji have finally addressed the bloat that struck SLR cameras in the 90’s and got worse with digital. Count me as a person that wants a smaller body.

Of course, my photography doesn’t require me to impress the rubes with my giant camera.

I'm looking for the mythical A6xxx with FF sensor, Z battery, no blackout/fast readout/global shutter, and dual cards

I've got the CV 21 and 35 now, a terrific combo with a combined weight of 300g, the smaller the better. The normal A7's are big enough, dont care for any additional size, if I did, I can simply put on my L bracket and it miraculously becomes larger.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18754307
Of course, my photography doesn’t require me to impress the rubes with my giant camera.

The idea of trying to impress people with the size of their camera is ridiculous. I guess some people feel the need to compensate....

Real talk...my wedding set-ups are basically DSLR sized, which is fine for paid work, but I'm not a fan of the direction FF mirrorless cameras are heading as they aren't as fun to shoot with as the earlier iterations of bodies and lenses which were physically smaller.

My go-to lens for shooting personal stuff is the tiny, cheap-o FE 50 1.8. That and the tiny, but optically awesome Loxia 21 for walking landscapes/cityscapes/​architecture when I have time for that.

Charlie wrote in post #18754356
I'm looking for the mythical A6xxx with FF sensor, Z battery, no blackout/fast readout/global shutter, and dual cards

The X-T3 is already half way there, no blackout even at 30FPS and twin UHS-ii slots, with fairly fast readout but not quite global shutter. I'm sure Sony could do than that in whatever's next.

mystik610 wrote in post #18754300
As a wedding photographer who has successfully shot very many weddings on Sony gear, I have to LOL at this sentiment. People hire you because of the photographs you produce...not because of what gear you shoot on. If you're that insecure about what people think about your gear, you're doing it wrong.

Actually, they hire due to both, so you are completely wrong if you totally rule out "PRESENTATION" ... Presentation is so universally known, to dispute it completely could make one a laughing stock. Its why chefs use garnish, why suit includes a tie, why a car has decals. To ingore such an obvious "IN YOUR FACE" business component like presentation and appearance raises a red flag about common sense. Its partly why I used the Burmuda shorts and sandal on an arborist to make the point more crystal clear. If some Bozo in shorts performs excellent pruning, but he is seen apart from the pruning, he won't get a fraction of the work as the arborist who does good pruning and wears jeans, high grade boots and looks decently groomed.

Moving along to something else ....

This video presents one aspect why I chose the EOS R. Because in low light with the right lens, it has the potential to lock on and capture shots that some other more expensive cameras may miss. And the reason the EOS R is a good added body alongside other bodies with other advantages. When the man in this video said the EOS R can nail focus in low light faster than the IDX mk ii, there's no question, because I've already seen it first hand.

Acting like a professional goes a lot further than looking like one. You can buy one...but must learn the other.

"Actually, they hire due to both, so you are completely wrong if you totally rule out "PRESENTATION"

And that presentation is your portfolio and references. If a client comes in and asks what camera you use to determine if you have an artistic eye, run from that client. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It makes about as much sense as choosing a mechanic or carpenter based on the brand tools they use. Its absurd.

Brand of camera has never been a gating factor. For a while there in the early days of digital size of image being sent did. For a while there it was 8, then 12 mpx.... but after most cameras images at 16 mpx it almost became a moot issue.

If your client wants to know what brand camera you use, ask them if they also asked the caterer what brand ovens they will be using as well.

It should be the final product that matters..... all that sausage making in the middle should be irrelevant.

Yes presentation is very important, particularly how you present yourself when working with a client but it’s not going to be about what camera you use. To think that it does shows a lack of experience and nothing more. All a client expects is great results, what you use to get them is up to you.

So now looking Profesional has become the main argument for buying a Canon camera No more color science talk then

mdvaden wrote in post #18756743
Actually, they hire due to both, so you are completely wrong if you totally rule out "PRESENTATION" ... Presentation is so universally known, to dispute it completely could make one a laughing stock. Its why chefs use garnish, why suit includes a tie, why a car has decals. To ingore such an obvious "IN YOUR FACE" business component like presentation and appearance raises a red flag about common sense. Its partly why I used the Burmuda shorts and sandal on an arborist to make the point more crystal clear. If some Bozo in shorts performs excellent pruning, but he is seen apart from the pruning, he won't get a fraction of the work as the arborist who does good pruning and wears jeans, high grade boots and looks decently groomed.

I'm all about presentation and always make sure that the way I dress appropriately according to the formality of the wedding. But gear has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Me in the middle...second shooter on the right with a fuji set-up. He's holding a flask because the groom (who took the photo) was hammered, wanted a photo of us, and trying to get us to drink lol (we didn't).

Videographer on the left, as an example of not being presentable....

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2bHs​qHF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ZZQw​WF

mdvaden wrote in post #18756743
Actually, they hire due to both, so you are completely wrong if you totally rule out "PRESENTATION" ... Presentation is so universally known, to dispute it completely could make one a laughing stock. Its why chefs use garnish, why suit includes a tie, why a car has decals. To ingore such an obvious "IN YOUR FACE" business component like presentation and appearance raises a red flag about common sense. Its partly why I used the Burmuda shorts and sandal on an arborist to make the point more crystal clear. If some Bozo in shorts performs excellent pruning, but he is seen apart from the pruning, he won't get a fraction of the work as the arborist who does good pruning and wears jeans, high grade boots and looks decently groomed.

This thread gets funnier and funnier

As has been pointed out already by several other members; presentation is certainly important, but your camera has little to nothing to do with that. I've shot portions of weddings with a silver X100T... nobody batted an eye. If you present yourself confidently and sure that you know what you're doing (which you better be if you're shooting a wedding), nobody is going to question what you're shooting with. Especially since if you're shooting your wedding they've already chosen you based on your portfolio and meeting.

Ive attended a workshop with a photographer who shot an intire wedding with a Diana. He was hired for weddings based on hos alternative creative style not the look of his cameras

Time to close this one.