Well...I guess there is a room for silent shutter mode then...

No need to spook the horses.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Well...I guess there is a room for silent shutter mode then...

No need to spook the horses.

---

It's not the camera, it's the people. They've had remote cameras on the rail longer than either of us have been alive.


I'd care more about silent shutter at a wedding. But you can go into live view mode to be just about as quiet with a DSLR. There will be more noise for a DSLR because it has a real shutter not an electronic shutter, but it is pretty quiet.


Also, if their remote camera thing uses USB, I would be wary of that. The Canon and Nikon versions screw in. Would really suck to set up your remote camera, leave it and the USB works its way out just enough to not trigger. You won't find out until it is too late. Like set up a camera on a backboard. Big dunk might vibrate that USB out.

Cost of switching from Canon to Sony.

It's laughable to compare a 300 2.8 or a 400 2.8 to a 4.5-5.6 zoom. Pro sports photographers aren't making that switch unless Sony pays them.

dpreview had a previous article before that one talking about the roadblocks in making the switch:
https://m.dpreview.com/opinion/1937765842/sony-a9-why-being-better-might-not-be-enough

All your Nikon sensors are belong to Sony.

Well...not all.

But Nikon is at the mercy of Sony sensor technology.
And not sure Sony will release that 42mp sensor to Nikon.

Just a matter of time before some pro sports photogs switch...and i do hope sony pays them to switch. I like to see what Sony can do. And if sony is going after Canikon, they will have to release 300mm and 400mm f2.8. They are rapidly adding lenses... And the ones who switch won't care their remote USB cord isn't long enough.

Quote:

---

And the ones who switch won't care their remote USB cord isn't long enough.

---

The short ones will not work because you will have to be at the camera. That will rule out all the top level sports shooters.

And my favorite Nikon sensor isn't a Sony one. The 16MP D4 sensor is magical.

Nikon is in a good place because they make their own sensors, they get Sony sensors and they get Toshiba sensors. Maybe one other source. Canon only uses their own and I think that is a reason they have lagged so far behind on sensor tech for so long.

The 400 2.8 is going to have to be a loss leader for a long time when they do release it. Just not that many people need it. And that big of a piece of glass is expensive to create.

I have an email in to a Sony rep I know to get a test copy of an a9, I'll let yall know if I can pull it off. The use case is for aerial photography (I do a lot of shooting from helicopters), during which I routinely take 2000-2500 pictures because I shoot at night most of the time and sometimes you need to take 10 pictures to get one with no camera shake.

And completely agree with Soup about sensor size. I did my first ever freelance photojournalism assignments last year (covering two police officer funerals after the shootings in Dallas, no pressure), was shooting with my a7rII and a6300. The Canon shooters were jealous of my silent shutter and my ability to send images in almost real time by wifi-ing them to my phone and texting them to the digital editor of the newspaper I was shooting for. Great images but they were only ever displayed on a website at about 2.79 megapixels. As more and more internet traffic goes mobile I've even started running pictures only 1024px wide on my blog and that's still probably too much.

I love my a7rII for prints but for most sport and editorial photographers the 24MP doesn't really move the needle because they'll typically need so little of those megapixels.

Honestly I don't think Sony thinks this will take a lot of people away from Canon or Nikon, but it will get a few people to look and start considering it. They know they have to beat people over the head with insane specs to make up for lack of glass and lack of battery life (and lack of tilt shifts, ugh). Enough prosumers will get this camera to make it worth their while I think, even if the top tier folks won't make the jump. And the fact that a week after the announcement you're still seeing this many news/blog articles about the a9 (almost completely in lieu of NAB coverage on most of the sites I follow) means the PR alone is probably worth it, even if the headlines never actually come true.

Blog link?

www.andystravelblog.com, I think either you or your wife follow me on Facebook haha.

The pics I've posted recently have been 2048px but most have been 1024px this year so far.

The Star Eater Issue: Why I No Longer Recommend Sony Cameras for Astrophotography

dubi said:

---

The Star Eater Issue: Why I No Longer Recommend Sony Cameras for Astrophotography

---

Why you gotta diss Sony...

Another firmware should fix it..

Making up for my Sony diss....

Lovely new wideangles from Sony today, very very tempted by the 12-24 (would sell my current 16-35): http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-16-35mm-gm-12-24mm-officially-announced/

Full frame 12-24 for 1700 is not a bad deal. I know quality wides has been a knock on Sony for a while.

The weight on that one is great too, half the weight of the Canon 11-24mm.

Thoughts on Canon SL-1? I have outgrown my G-12, the old Rebel is on its last legs and we have a few Canon lenses. It could serve as back up body for Dubi and travel camera.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

Thoughts on Canon SL-1? I have outgrown my G-12, the old Rebel is on its last legs and we have a few Canon lenses. It could serve as back up body for Dubi and travel camera.

---

It's been a while since I had a rebel series. SL-1 does have 18mp, DIGIC V, and 100,000 published shutter life.

But I would rather buy a body that shares the same battery as Dubi's... I'm not sure what body she has but I wouldn't have any issues picking up a used 7D with about 10,000 shutter actuation for $300 to $400 over SL-1.

I have a 70D and 4 batteries.

Great idea....

The appeal of the SL-1 over any other DSLR is that Ikelit makes an underwater housing that is about the same size and weight as the housing I have been using for my G-12 for the last five years. That camera and housing package is also the most affordable (non-Chinese, fixed port) housing on the market for an SLR available too.

Interesting review of ND filters. Link

What does everyone use for photo editing?

I've been hanging onto an old version of Photoshop CS2 as I didn't want to fall into the monthly subscription nonsense from Adobe.

But I also ran into a recent situation with stitching together a pano where CS2 couldn't handle it, but using my wife's Creative Cloud account the latest version of Adobe handled the stitching without even flinching.

So, begrudgingly I know I need to upgrade but would prefer not to have to pay a monthly extortion fee to Adobe. I also have access to a full copy of Cyberlink Photo Director 8 (and the rest of that product suite).

Thanks in advance.

Pay for the entire Adobe creative suite.

You can still buy the current Lightroom 6 as a single license that isn't the monthly creative cloud payment. That is not the case for photoshop.

Permanent license of Lightroom. Love it.

There is a monthly Photoshop/Lightroom license that's only 10 bucks, which I consider fairly reasonable.

To the OP, check out Affinity Photo. It's now cross platform and for a non-pro should be more than adequate.

I use the monthly Lightroom / photoshop subscription

AG 2000' said:

---

What does everyone use for photo editing?

I've been hanging onto an old version of Photoshop CS2 as I didn't want to fall into the monthly subscription nonsense from Adobe.

But I also ran into a recent situation with stitching together a pano where CS2 couldn't handle it, but using my wife's Creative Cloud account the latest version of Adobe handled the stitching without even flinching.

So, begrudgingly I know I need to upgrade but would prefer not to have to pay a monthly extortion fee to Adobe. I also have access to a full copy of Cyberlink Photo Director 8 (and the rest of that product suite).

Thanks in advance.

---

If your wife has creative cloud, you are allowed to install on two computers. Just install on your machine and use her login.

Sadly we have more than 2 computers. You can install it, but you have to authenticate whenever you switch among the 3.

Wife's account is through her work, so that's not a good option for me.

Thanks for some of the other recommendations, will check those out.

i would just get the photography bundle. You get photoshop and lightroom for 9.99/mo, and they tend to update the software quarterly.

I'm not a fan of the subscription based services, but that is where everything is heading. If you let your subscription lapse, the software can still open and view files, you just won't be able to edit anything (just pointing that out in case you were worried about losing the ability to view RAW files in lightroom).

Photoshop used to be well over $500, and lightroom was $100, with brand new versions every 2 years. With the subscription model, it will take you 5 years to spend as much money as you would have in 2 years with the old model (assuming you weren't stealing it )

CS6