[Rondec]

Sony (and Apple) has always been an innovator and with that comes pros and cons for them and the user. But when you buy into their products, you have to know they will throw out the old tech to embrace the new tech, so not so great if you're not willing to buy and dispose every 5-10 years. But between various sensors made by Kodak, Toshiba, Canon, Sigma, Samsung, TowerJazz, or Cmosis, I do find the Sony sensors as my top choice in terms of dynamic range and price.

Sony offers a lot from a specification standpoint. The thing is that to me, the specs are the smallest part of what makes a camera work. Most of us could actually get by with 3 frames per second and 10 megapixels and a 4 shot buffer. We just have been trained to think that we need faster and bigger and better. But I think what has caused so many people to burn out on photography is that they did get faster and bigger and better and their photos were still "just OK."

As far as true improvements in still image quality -- better low iso performance, better color depth, and better noise performance at high iso -- we've been pretty stagnant over the last several years. The A7r III is about the same as the A7r II with regard to high iso performance and none of them are particularly better than five year old camera sensors like those in the D810 and K-1. Maybe some day we'll get foveon sensors with decent high iso performance, but otherwise it feels like we are stuck and sensor makers are instead adding faster read outs and better video performance and I just don't care much about that, even if it is an engineering miracle to keep sensor performance the same while improving read out speed.

[newmikey]

That kind of knowledge comes only with experience. There are reasons for paying the big bucks for Apple's, there are reasons for buying lots of other computers. You pick what suits you. The smart person pays for what they value and ignores folks like you telling them what's best for them. How are you different from any other marketer? Except you're a stockholm syndrome marketer. You got locked into a system and can't see outside of it. You're not even being paid.

All good reasons for me to have switched to Linux some 12 years ago and never look back. As you say: "you pick what suits you". But in todays world, we have so many PC's around us, we can no longer afford being locked in. Heck, even in my house we have three operating systems running concurrently on different devices. My wife has finally migrated her business from Debian (which she successfully used for about 6 years) to a Mac mini, my office laptop runs Win7 and my own (photo) laptop runs Arch.

Not too many differences if you look beyond the simple things like interface design. The wife's Mac is sleek and has a neat desktop, the logic of which she likes. My work laptop has the power of a large multinational's IT department behind it to keep it safe from the everyday dangers Windows PC's are faced with (because they're such a big fat target and because their OS design is pretty crappy) and it does what I need it to do - SAP, Yammer, Word, Outlook etc. etc. but I would never choose to do any banking or other confidential stuff on it. My Arch laptop is my dependable and trusted machine which gets to do not just the photowork but also the sensitive stuff such as e-taxes and e-banking. Is it chunky in terms of usability? Maybe but, over time, it has shown the lowest Cost of Ownership of all three systems as well as the least need for maintenance and system intervention.

In the end, each OS serves its purpose and I can see a future where the OS doesn't really matter anymore and the application software (cross-platform of course) will be what interests you while having no interest at all in the platform it runs on. Apple has not embraced the hardware side of that future and Microsoft has no accepted the software side - time will tell if either will survive in the computer business.

[clackers]

Apple has not embraced the hardware side of that future and Microsoft has no accepted the software side - time will tell if either will survive in the computer business.

?

Apple hardware is Intel PC these days and the Microsoft suite runs on Mac, iOS and Android. Using it now on my Samsung Galaxy.

[Digitalis]

Are we worse in PP than Sony users?

No, we just rely on the clarity slider less.

Are Sony users better photographers in general?

No, There are good photographers everywhere, using all kinds of equipment. Brand matters very little in the grand scheme of things. If you have a good eye for composition, solid knowledge of your craft and masterful technique you will be able to create interesting work with a polaroid.

Do you think that it’s just because more talented Sony photographers use Flickr?

Using a single source for your research and small sample sizes in academia would land you with a 0 on your report. Cast a wider net, and you will see.

What do you guys think?

I think associating a "better" brand ∴ "better" images, is a sure fire path to disappointment. Learn what you can with what you have, instead of agonizing on what you imagine you might be missing out on by getting xxxxx brand camera.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-25-2018 at 03:31 AM.

[Wasp]

There was a Nikon D7100 that looked like a really, really good deal on a local auction site the other day. It was one of those quick auction that starts at rock bottom and runs for about 36 hours. Bidding was kinda slow and it looked like a bargain might be had, unless there was going to be last moment sniping (who me?).

I did some quick research and found lots of glowing reviews, especially from Ken Rockwell. According to him, the autofocus is just wonderful. I was really thinking about the possibility and implications of switching brands. Maybe just the one Nikon and a nice lens to go with it. Finding the funds was not going to be easy, but maybe a plan could be made.

Then fate took a hand. The seller's nerve gave in and the auction was deleted. How he convinced the administrators to do that, I do not know. So no Nikon for me, yet.

I have also looked at D3100 and the like since then. It gets good reviews, but I am not convinced that it is a good idea. I remember seeing some derogatory remarks from the Internet commentariat about plastic mirror boxes on entry level Nikons...

[fmw]

Hey there guys!
Hope all is well.
This thread is a mere chance to get your opinion and not bash one or another gear brand.
I am a bit confused. Let me explain.
Sometimes I get on Flickr to check out photographs from different systems. I enjoy skimming through all sorts of genres admiring how people frame and process their images. It gets me inspired. But lately I have been wondering. All the talk about Pentax k-1 being awesome in various aspects and having a great sensor has to show in the most important aspect - the images. Yet when I go to Flickr and type K-1 into search bar I get a whole bunch of OK shots. With a very good one here and there. Yet if I type sony a7r3 I am being blown away by the imagery. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy my Pentax gear but I would like to hear your take on this matter. And I do know for a fact that Pentax k-1 is a very capable camera.
Are we worse in PP than Sony users?
Are Sony users better photographers in general?
Do you think that it’s just because more talented Sony photographers use Flickr?
I can go on really but the main question for me is “what gives?”
What do you guys think?
Thanks a lot.

It is pretty hard to buy a bad digital camera these days. In my experience it isn't the camera that makes image quality so much as the photographer. A good photographer makes good images with any camera. A poor photographer does the opposite with any camera. Many amateurs think buying a better camera will yield better images. Instead they need to practice better technique.

[Digitalis]

I did some quick research and found lots of glowing reviews, especially from Ken Rockwell.

Ever heard of Choice supportive Bias? and since you brought up Ken Rockwell, look up Dunning–Kruger effect. Ken is pretty much a text book case of it.

[Rondec]

There was a Nikon D7100 that looked like a really, really good deal on a local auction site the other day. It was one of those quick auction that starts at rock bottom and runs for about 36 hours. Bidding was kinda slow and it looked like a bargain might be had, unless there was going to be last moment sniping (who me?).

I did some quick research and found lots of glowing reviews, especially from Ken Rockwell. According to him, the autofocus is just wonderful. I was really thinking about the possibility and implications of switching brands. Maybe just the one Nikon and a nice lens to go with it. Finding the funds was not going to be easy, but maybe a plan could be made.

Then fate took a hand. The seller's nerve gave in and the auction was deleted. How he convinced the administrators to do that, I do not know. So no Nikon for me, yet.

I have also looked at D3100 and the like since then. It gets good reviews, but I am not convinced that it is a good idea. I remember seeing some derogatory remarks from the Internet commentariat about plastic mirror boxes on entry level Nikons...

Most cameras released over the last five years are going to be good. Your signature says you're shooting with a K10 and most every Pentax camera even a couple of generations old will match that K10. The lower end Nikons (D3000/D5000) do have a penta mirror rather than a penta prism and that is a bit of a big deal. Pentax has not had an SLR with a penta mirror since the D500 was out -- all current cameras use a prism and will have better viewfinders as a result.

Regardless, the issue at this point is seldom specifications and more photographer skill, as I think most people have said in this thread.

[racingsnake]

The thread is on fire!) I didn’t intend for my original message to sound as if I am looking to switch. I am happy with my set up and though I do not post a lot of images here I do actually use it and I do enjoy doing it. It doesn’t however keep me away from staying up to date with what is going on in the photography world. I am going away for a snowboarding trip soon and planning to bring my trusty MX and 2 lenses (landscape - vivitar 28 close focus and portrait - Helios 44k4). And I know with some decent film in my camera I would be able to grab shots that I could print at a later stage. So yeah, my Pentax gear is not going anywhere. At least for now)


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

[beholder3]

Ever heard of Choice supportive Bias? and since you brought up Ken Rockwell, look up Dunning–Kruger effect. Ken is pretty much a text book case of it.

That proves that even in the most nonsense threads we can learn something valuable. Here: "Dunning–Kruger effect". Forums seem full of it, not only bloggers.

Even more fun with music:

You Tube

You Tube

[photoptimist]

That would be your opinion. And it's a product of Window's marketing. You are a slave to what you claim to be protesting against.

My school board ran side by side Windows and Apple media labs. After 6 months the Apple labs had made up the extra cost in lower maintenance costs. The windows media computers were reassigned and all media labs are now run on Apple computers.

As technical department head it took me 3 years to convince my school board to run those tests, because of people like you. And in the end, our whole IT department was wrong and I was right.

When the tests who'd Macs to be more dependable and cheaper in the long run, the head of IT came by and said "You're finally going to get your ******* Apple computers." What is with you windows dudes. I didn't care what I had, I just wanted it to be dependable. Windows dudes, even when they lose fair and square, they can't shut up.

Which is better depends on what you value. Since I bought my i7 quad core iMac 7 years ago, my gaming step son has bought 3 Windows computers. He wants the latest greatest gaming set-up, I want a dependable computer that will last me a long time. We want different things, we make different choices. Personally, it doesn't sound to me like you know enough to even make an intelligent choice. To do that you have to know the strengths of both sides. You clearly don't.

That kind of knowledge comes only with experience. There are reasons for paying the big bucks for Apple's, there are reasons for buying lots of other computers. You pick what suits you. The smart person pays for what they value and ignores folks like you telling them what's best for them. How are you different from any other marketer? Except you're a stockholm syndrome marketer. You got locked into a system and can't see outside of it. You're not even being paid.

Well said!

They both use the same, highly effective marketing tactics. The quality and tech level of the product doesn't matter. Apple uses inferior hardware to any similar priced product and Sony isn't using any tech that's vastly different or better than what everyone else is using. They simply create the perception (which you've perfectly demonstrated here), that their products are superior and cutting edge, then slap on a huge price tag to "prove" it. You now have a complete, self-supporting narrative of "cutting edge technology" and a cult like following of consumers that now need to buy into the cult to rationalize their overpriced and poorly/unresearched purchase. They sell the product for you as they push out to their friends and peers that anyone not using this obviously superior and cutting edge product is an uncool old fogy. We've seen this with Apple products for years and now it's the MO of most Sony Alpha users.

Sony has also taken the narrative building one step further with their heavily massaged RAW files (see the "star eater" issue) to help sell the "superior product" narrative to people that don't know any better.

The Alpha fad will pass. In the mean time, someone that's a good photographer with a K1 really needs to get some shots that do it justice up on Flickr.

Every organization that's tried the Mac vs. PC test finds the same pattern that normhead mentioned. Macs may seem more expensive to buy (even this is debatable) but they are generally a lot cheaper to own in the long run. Even IBM -- inventor of the PC -- is switching to Macs because they have lower hardware and software support costs.

As for Sony, they do make leading-edge sensors which is why so many other camera makers use Sony sensors. Sony's cameras do offer a certain combination of features that make them superior to Canon/Nikon/Pentax in some ways but inferior to Canon/Nikon/Pentax in other ways. As normhead said, "the smart person pays for what they value and ignores folks like you telling them what's best for them."

[Dan Rentea]

Every organization that's tried the Mac vs. PC test finds the same pattern that normhead mentioned. Macs may seem more expensive to buy (even this is debatable) but they are generally a lot cheaper to own in the long run.

The only thing I found Apple laptops being better is regarding their screens. I'm running a training company and we have 185 HP laptops which are spreaded all over the country and they are used for IT trainings. Just 5 of them failed in almost 3 years since I bought them. And those laptops are being used a lot. We also have around 13-15 Mac Book Pro 15" laptops at office, but we have different problems with them and except their screens which are very good, I wouln't consider Apple laptops being superior or more fiable than Windows laptops on the long term.

[Digitalis]

And to further derail the thread...

Macs may seem more expensive to buy (even this is debatable) but they are generally a lot cheaper to own in the long run.

This argument of "value" is very subjective and relative. And in my experience, Macs start off on the same footing with pcs, but as time winds on, the systems value is offset by obsolescence and repair costs*. Try as you might, entropy always gets ahead of you. I work strictly with PCs in my studio**, I know how to manage them, fix them and work with various operating systems. I design and build my own systems - when you buy an apple you have next to no choice at all at what components it will have, you cant improve system cooling if you want, you can't overhaul the motherboard if you need to upgrade the CPU or RAM or make use of up-to date I/O capabilities.

Even IBM -- inventor of the PC -- is switching to Macs because they have lower hardware and software support costs.

From what I understand IBM has been having financial problems over the years. If they are changing to macs I would resolve as follows: Macs= fewer variables in hardware/software. Fewer problems ergo: lower support costs, which looks good to shareholders. Which makes it fundamentally: a marketing decision.

*Apple is notorious for using proprietary hardware/software that locks you into their system. If your mac is over two years old you're better off replacing it entirely than repair it. Personally I find PCs easier to fix and maintain [If quality components are used] and the ones I design have been ticking for 3~5 years and gone through at most, two upgrade cycles. Whether you are working with an apple system or a windows PC: you're still in a straitjacket, albeit the windows platform has fewer buckles on it.

** I have worked with macs in the past, in my early days when I really didn't have a choice.They got the job done, in an obtusely dull way.

[racingsnake]

Off topic but I am still using a 2012 Mac mini with 8 gigs of ram and upgraded hard drive to a Samsung evo ssd. Not a problem at all doing day to day stuff and using LR for PP. and I do run the latest OS on it which I find to be crap.


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

[normhead]

** I have worked with macs in the past, in my early days when I really didn't have a choice.They got the job done, in an obtusely dull way.

For some of us, a computer is a tool used to get a job done. We don't look for excitement. Yes, you can't work or upgrade a Mac...for some of us, spending the time to buildi our computers is really 15 or 20 years gone. I used to build four or 5 P.C.s a year with my technology classes. I haven't opened a case in 15 years. These days I just want something dependable. that gets the job done. My step son still does the "build his own machines" thing for gaming. More power to him, but, it's irrelevant to a huge portion of the world. For folks like me, if you want to talk about boring, I'd find upgrading components in a P.C the very definition of dull and boring. Been there, done that, it's work. Please, leave me out of it.

I want to buy it off the shelf, plug in my backup drive and go to work. That's exciting, to each their own. There's people that build their own air planes too. I don't do that either.

My father's favourite piece of research was done testing beer drinkers. 5 beer drinkers in room, each one claiming he liked his own beer and not the others. These were the top selling brands in the country at the time. IN fact in blind tests, they couldn't pick out their "favourite." Then the classic internet part started, even though it was before the internet. Rather than admit, they couldn't tell the difference, they blamed the researchers and accused them of trying to trick them, by putting their beer in another company's bottles.

Choosing computers these days is very little different than choosing your favourite brand of beer. The desire to make use of computer equipment, gets lost in the tribalism of brand loyalty and often unsubstantiated beliefs in exactly what your brand provides that others don.t. "I build my own computers" people are, just another tribe in the computer world.

I also prefer the dependability of my Toyota to "exciting to drive" high performance cars. I don't look for exciting in my vehicles either. Four wheel drive and absolute dependability and big tires are what's going to get you from here to there where I live. Those little skinny tire high performance vehicles can't even get up my driveway... buy what suits your needs. It's not all about absolute performance. Some of us "need" to avoid opening computer cases.