Also, Canon has been kicking Nikon's butt at form, function, and price in the camera market. This is strictly my opinion and the same of some of my friends.
That's somewhat true, but the biggest reason to buy a camera these days (over just using a phone camera) is for better image quality, and IMO the mid and high end Nikons give better results than Canon. Obviously subjective, but it's why I bought a Nikon last year.
Thats what I was saying. The Nikon D600 vs the Canon 6D had a better sensor. The canon 6D had built in wifi & GPS. Nikon could of put that in for $5 although, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to why they would not do that. The add on modules are a pain in the ass to use.
Even with Nikon struggling, I would (and have) choose them over Sony. There are a lot of people frustrated with how they've treated the whole A-mount lens system.
One of the things I love about Nikon is that the lens my dad shot with in 1993 works perfectly well on my camera from 2016. People spend a lot of money on glass (with good reason), and to have the camera manufacturer get wishy-washy on whether or not the line will be supported in the future must be concerning.
E-mount is significantly superior to A-mount for MILC cameras. The extremely short flange length means that it's compatible with pretty much any lens with a suitable adapter.
Your dad's old lens F-mount lens will work perfectly on an E-mount camera, with full AF and aperture control. So will any A-mount or EF-mount lens.
If you're using a Metabones or LA-EA4 adapter on a camera with phase detect AF, there's no practical difference. AF will be slower on a camera that only has contrast-detect AF.
The LA-EA4 doesn't count since it doesn't cover your statement "Your dad's old lens F-mount lens will work perfectly".
Every Metabones review I've seen had slightly slower AF. "Perfectly" still does not apply. Also, not all lenses work with Metabones, i.e., the lenses that don't work with teleconverters because their backs stick out too much.
While I appreciate the benefits you're selling, those adapters aren't perfect.
>> Neither company can keep pace with Sony and Zeiss.
I'm a fan of Sony cameras, but I would only go so far as to say that Sony's sensors are great.
I find some of Sony's handling and physical camera design choices to be a little questionable, especially when compared to Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji.
Not just their sensors but also their lenses. Their Zeiss collaborations are some of the best lenses around and their new G-Master lenses are fantastic.
Agree that their ergonomics and UI are pretty bad though.
I'm sure their lenses are just great (I was plenty happy when I was an Alpha DSLR user). I have no illusions about being a pro or serious amateur, so having the best optics isn't even remotely enough to sway me over to Sony, especially if I don't like the handling or UI of the body itself.
The DxOMark rankings are distinctly unflattering for Canon and Nikon. The Canon and Nikon zooms measure up fairly well, but Zeiss primes are utterly dominant. Sigma are highly competitive at much lower cost.
That's not good news for prestige brands that have long been "industry standard".
>> That's not good news for prestige brands that have long been "industry standard".
Well, that's possibly exaggerating the situation. The only people it truly matters to are people are specs people and pixel peepers. There may be a significant number of them, but most people will stick with the established brands, including pros. Canon and Nikon have well established support infrastructures for their working pros. Sony... not so much.
I loved the Alpha DSLR line, the mirrorless line, not so much. The cameras are technically fantastic and excel statistically, but they seemed to be designed by people who don't spend a lot of time taking photos.
>Canon and Nikon have well established support infrastructures for their working pros. Sony... not so much.
That infrastructure is, to a great extent, a marketing expense. It's not very profitable to sell cameras to professionals, but you make your money back from the trickle-down to amateurs. The R&D expense of designing flagship cameras and lenses for a tiny group of professionals is amortized over a vastly greater number of amateurs. If a rift opens up between those user groups, Canon and Nikon's camera businesses are in real trouble.
>> Canon and Nikon's camera businesses are in real trouble.
So are everyone else's including Sony's.
Their biggest threat is Apple. Who needs a fast, large aperture lens when you've got Portrait mode? The dual lens on the iPhone obviates the need for many people to step up to a camera with a zoom. If Apple can find a way to fake it through low light photography with software tricks, everyone's in deep trouble.
Let's not forget that the best camera is the one you have with you, not the one with the best technology or optics.
Sony have a sensor business; their own branded cameras are a useful spin-off. They're essentially agnostic as to the future of photography, because they hold such a dominant position in the sensor market.
iPhones use Sony sensors, as do the majority of high-end Android handsets. Nikon use Sony sensors across most of their camera range, as do Pentax and Fujifilm. GoPro have used Sony sensors from the outset, as do most of their competitors. Sony sensors dominate the scientific, industrial and security markets.
If you need a CMOS imaging sensor, you have two choices - Sony Exmor, or something worse.
We were talking about cameras, not sensors. Those are two separate but related businesses. Talking about Sony's sensor business dominance is not a counterpoint to the decline of the still camera industry in general.
Everyone uses Sony sensors for their still cameras to some degree, including Canon (sensors smaller than APS). If all still camera companies decline it hurts Sony big time. Sensors one of their few genuinely successful and profitable businesses that pump up their quarterly corprate numbers.
I'm pretty sure that Sony doesn't want to be left making only smartphone camera sensors in large volumes.
