I replaced my old nikon with a sony and I can safely say it was the worst decision of my life. I hate it. I wish I could go back without incurring huge losses.I find it interesting how the market has changed.
When I was really into photography (~2008-2012) Nikon was absolutely killing it, with the best high speed and low light performance on the market, and terrific professional lenses.
Canon was a close second, and Sony - despite providing Nikon's sensors - was pretty much an also ran.
Now Nikon seems like they have fallen behind and Sony seems to be filing it out with Canon.
Nope - DSLR shutters physically 'roll'. A global shutter requires global (instantaneous across the image sensor) blanking, otherwise motion artifacts from the sequential readout are possible.Wait, aren't all DSLRs global shutter by definition? So this maybe the first mirrorless camera with a global shutter, but definitely not the first full frame camera.
That's the max 'shutter speed', i.e., can capture ONE frame at 1/80000th of a second. From the video I watched the camera tops out at 120FPS - at full 24MP, and in lossless raw, so full possible quality.So... can it actually capture 80,000 FPS video at a high resolution? Or is that just the effective shutter speed of a digital shutter.. so very effective at capturing high speed movement with stills?
Should've remembered the old Onion video about Sony - they're usually anathema to things like ergonomic human interfaces and making things work intuitively.I replaced my old nikon with a sony and I can safely say it was the worst decision of my life. I hate it. I wish I could go back without incurring huge losses.
Nikon and Canon were the mainstays, Sony was a bit of a sore upstart (their camera business grew from Sony' acquisition of Minolta, the first Sony DSLRs and their DSLTs (fixed, translucent mirror) all used Minolta's digital mount.When I was really into photography (~2008-2012) Nikon was absolutely killing it, with the best high speed and low light performance on the market, and terrific professional lenses.
Also note that your Nikon lenses can be adapted well to Nikon mirrorless cameras, as well as to Sony and Canon cameras with varying degrees of interoperability (the Nikon adapters are first-party and official, of course). If you're so inclined.
The AF is a no-go; I'd thought someone was building an adapter with a motor in it for the screwdrive lenses (Sony did this), but I've only found refutations and of course your thread asking about it on the [H] a few years back...Most of my best lenses are old style screw motor AF and AF-D lenses, for which - at least the last time I checked - no one has released an adapter yet.
As far as adapter goes, only the new style AF-I and AF-S lenses need apply :/
For some reason I always assumed DSLRs weren't affected by sequential readout artifacts. Sony had global shutter sensors in the professional segment which I've been using for work for over a decade. Although those are only 5MPX.Nope - DSLR shutters physically 'roll'. A global shutter requires global (instantaneous across the image sensor) blanking, otherwise motion artifacts from the sequential readout are possible.
It's not just the ergonomics, although that is significantly worse also, but I could live with that. It's that 99% of pictures I take turn out as absolute ****e no matter what setting I use. I never had this problem with Nikon cameras, from D60 to D850. I know the 850 is full frame and not a fair comparison, but if the 850 is 10 on a scale of 10, then the entry level Nikon DSLRs that I owned are at least a 7, but the SONY alpha 6400 I have now is a 3 at best.Should've remembered the old Onion video about Sony - they're usually anathema to things like ergonomic human interfaces and making things work intuitively.
...you're not using the kit lens are you? Sony put out some really horrific kit lenses for whatever reason...but the SONY alpha 6400 I have now is a 3 at best.
I've been using a SEL55210 which is better than the kit lens, but I still wasn't satisfied with the quality. So I recently got a Tamron lens, which I have not yet used enough to give a verdict on....you're not using the kit lens are you? Sony put out some really horrific kit lenses for whatever reason...
That's still a 4x entry-level zoom; short tele, of course, so these are usually better than the standard range kit zooms, but sometimes only just.I've been using a SEL55210
I've had no quality issues with similar entry level zoom lenses for Nikon, of course the fixed lenses have better low light quality but they were too inflexible for me. Not to mention that this entry level Sony lens cost twice as much as I ever paid for a lens during my Nikon era. So for that kind of money I expected at least the same performance. And I have fair comparison as I used to have a Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G with optical stabilization as well. I also had a TAMRON Di II AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR for Nikon, which was still better IMO, despite being a sub $200 lens. It had some chromatic aberration, but I'd take that any day over the hazy grainy images that come out from the SONY. Or maybe it is not the lens, just the 8 years older Nikon camera I had was so much better.That's still a 4x entry-level zoom; short tele, of course, so these are usually better than the standard range kit zooms, but sometimes only just.
Which Tamron did you get? They vary just as much in terms of quality from middling to class-leading (like their 35mm f/1.4 lens).
This is unlikely. Without meaning to imply disrespect, if the Sony camera is producing worse quality, the problem is likely how it's set up.Or maybe it is not the lens, just the 8 years older Nikon camera I had was so much better.
These are still 'kit' grade lenses, and lower. The Tamron is a ~21x super zoom and unlikely to meet sensor resolution at any setting; it's a lens for flexibility with a priority of being able to frame the shot over shot quality. Note that Canon produces a 24mm-240mm consumer zoom for their new full-frame RF system, so it's not like the desire for these lenses has gone away, just that they're not ever going to be the pinnacle of image quality.And I have fair comparison as I used to have a Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G with optical stabilization as well. I also had a TAMRON Di II AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR for Nikon, which was still better IMO, despite being a sub $200 lens.
Some have actually been stellar; many photographers keep the kit lenses because they're small, they're light, they're cheap (with respect to say concerns about robbery or theft when travelling), and within their niche they can still produce excellent images. Sony's entry-level kit zoom for their APS-C cameras was an exceptionally poor standout versus what everyone else (literally) was producing.I've had no quality issues with similar entry level zoom lenses for Nikon
Sure, but that's the tradeoff, whether you're spending ~US$300, ~US$3000, or ~US$30,000+ per lens.of course the fixed lenses have better low light quality but they were too inflexible for me
Comparing at the same iso speed the images captured by the Sony look worse, the grain is more pronounced and there seems to be compression artifacts as well. (highest quality jpeg) maybe, I could try using RAW. I rarely did that with the Nikon, and when I did not because of compression.This is unlikely. Without meaning to imply disrespect, if the Sony camera is producing worse quality, the problem is likely how it's set up.
That is exactly the point, I always used cheap lenses because I could never afford (or was willing to pay for) hi-end ones. But with the SONY everything is 2x 3x as expensive. What I could get for $200 in nikon DX costs $500-1000$ for sony APS-CThese are still 'kit' grade lenses, and lower. The Tamron is a ~21x super zoom and unlikely to meet sensor resolution at any setting; it's a lens for flexibility with a priority of being able to frame the shot over shot quality. Note that Canon produces a 24mm-240mm consumer zoom for their new full-frame RF system, so it's not like the desire for these lenses has gone away, just that they're not ever going to be the pinnacle of image quality.
So far my experience is that the exceptionally poor bit applies to more than the kit lens.Some have actually been stellar; many photographers keep the kit lenses because they're small, they're light, they're cheap (with respect to say concerns about robbery or theft when travelling), and within their niche they can still produce excellent images. Sony's entry-level kit zoom for their APS-C cameras was an exceptionally poor standout versus what everyone else (literally) was producing.
And I'm happy with that tradeoff, I just didn't know the tradeoff with Sony will be twice as big for twice the money spent.Sure, but that's the tradeoff, whether you're spending ~US$300, ~US$3000, or ~US$30,000+ per lens.
For some reason SONY lenses are insanely expensive. For example the cheapest 35mm f1.8 one is more than double of what I paid for a similar Nikon adjusted for inflation. And it still looks like one of those kit lenses. So I'd need to pay 3x for a Samayang 35mm that actually looks like a proper one. And the proper Sony ones? Closer to $2000 than to $1000.Having the ability to change the lens is the whole point of having an interchangeable lens camera though, since it isn't possible to get 'everything' in one lens - and attempts to do so push size, weight, and cost up very quick (see Canon's f/2 and latest f/2.8 zooms for example).
If you're not comparing raw to raw, you're not really comparing the cameras but also all built-in corrections, noise cancelling, and JPEG rendering as well. Though I wouldn't be surprised with Nikon putting out better JPEGs.Comparing at the same iso speed the images captured by the Sony look worse, the grain is more pronounced and there seems to be compression artifacts as well. (highest quality jpeg) maybe, I could try using RAW. I rarely did that with the Nikon, and when I did not because of compression.
You got an E-mount, and literally everyone that makes lenses for other mounts makes E-mount lenses; you can even get AF lenses from the likes of Viltrox and Samyang.That is exactly the point, I always used cheap lenses because I could never afford (or was willing to pay for) hi-end ones. But with the SONY everything is 2x 3x as expensive. What I could get for $200 in nikon DX costs $500-1000$ for sony APS-C
Well, it's going to apply to nearly every entry-level zoom, which is most APS-C zooms.So far my experience is that the exceptionally poor bit applies to more than the kit lens.
They're proud of their brand for sure, but honestly they're not too much out of line.For some reason SONY lenses are insanely expensive.
That's the APS-C 'trap', where the real upgrades are to use full-frame lenses. Look at FX versions of Nikon's lenses as opposed to the DX ones, (like the 35mm f/1.8 ones) and you'll see similar price hikes. Also, generally speaking, the newer the lens, the more expensive it will be priced. Most of Sony's lenses are newer, whereas I'm still using Canon lenses that were originally released 30 years ago - and use massaged optical formulas that are older than that.For example the cheapest 35mm f1.8 one is more than double of what I paid for a similar Nikon adjusted for inflation. And it still looks like one of those kit lenses. So I'd need to pay 3x for a Samayang 35mm that actually looks like a proper one. And the proper Sony ones? Closer to $2000 than to $1000.
And those aren't part of the camera? It might be more software than hardware, but it's still a part of the package. So yeah, I think it is absolutely valid to compare this way.If you're not comparing raw to raw, you're not really comparing the cameras but also all built-in corrections, noise cancelling, and JPEG rendering as well.
And I wish I didn't. The same 50mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8 lenses I used to have for my Nikon are still reasonably priced. But the only E-mount lenses available in this price range are Chinese offbrand "TTartisian" and "7artisians" lenses that don't even have AF.You got an E-mount,
Well obviously, but it is not inconsequential that Nikon entry level lenses are cheaper than entry level E-Mount zoom lenses. So I expected better quality for the higher price, instead I got worse quality.Well, it's going to apply to nearly every entry-level zoom, which is most APS-C zooms.
They might not be out of line at the mid range and top end, but they are much more expensive at the entry level. Exactly what I'm looking for, because I'm not paying $1000 for a lens, no way. The Tamron I got at a 33% off for $600 and that was already like pulling my teeth.They're proud of their brand for sure, but honestly they're not too much out of line.
I understand this, I used FX lens for my Nikon. My issue is that the Nikon entry level lenses were not just cheaper but better too. Which I did not expect, especially considering that they are older models than the Sony ones.That's the APS-C 'trap', where the real upgrades are to use full-frame lenses. Look at FX versions of Nikon's lenses as opposed to the DX ones, (like the 35mm f/1.8 ones) and you'll see similar price hikes. Also, generally speaking, the newer the lens, the more expensive it will be priced. Most of Sony's lenses are newer, whereas I'm still using Canon lenses that were originally released 30 years ago - and use massaged optical formulas that are older than that.
I'm constantly looking, and if a compatible lens pops up for a price I'm willing to pay I'll buy it.But yeah, you really have to look outside of Sony's branded lenses. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, Viltrox to name a few. You can even adapt Canon EF lenses fairly reliably (and retain all functionality like autofocus and stabilization) as well as some Nikon lenses and others. Don't forgo looking used and / or refurbished if you're sticking to a budget, I do this all the time with Canon lenses.
Well, can't you do compression and such external to the camera as well? The RAW though, you can't change and it's hardware-dependent.And those aren't part of the camera?
They used ancient lithography processes with seriously slow readout times, more or less. Many newer releases are omitting the mechanical shutter though.It would seem digitally telling the sensor when to stop receiving light would be way more effective and accurate, and not have any of the wear issues associated with a mechanical shutter.
