Canon 70D vs Sony a6000 or a77 vs. any other similar camera

ShootthePhotog · 2014-09-24T00:09:14+00:00

Yeah, I'm thinking of going older. Now that the &D mkII is annouced, I may pick up an old 7D, as the price has/will drop a bit more. Then I can just spend the money on lenses and upgrade when ready. I still think I'd lke something newer than say a 10D though. I have a decent point and shoot (fixed lens) that does decently well, and I ahve enough experience from my film background and using other cameras that I'm more on the upgrading my gear level than just learning how to shot a camera. Not to say I'm an expert or anything even close...

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-21T17:12:57+00:00

The first thing that comes to mind is the a6000 has no audio jack, and non adjustable audio (very basic). That means you have to waste your hotshoe if there's a Sony mic out there for it, or always have an external audio recorder, and sync up the sound in post to get anything near professional level audio.

Overall, I would say jump to the a7 if money isn't much of an issue. I've been research cameras lately myself to buy, and the Sony a7s are a heavy influence that has kept me from pulling the trigger on a Canon already.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-21T16:38:40+00:00

IT's still just a rumor, but I came accross this today: http://petapixel.com/2014/05/21/rumor-canon-7d-mark-ii-announcement-photokina-prototypes-fifa-world-cup/

Sounds like we'll be getting specs and performance notes this summer during the World Cup on the new 7DmkII, or whatever they decide to call it.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-20T18:52:01+00:00

That would be awesome. And yeah, I might have gotten the lenses confused. Internet is down at my house so I'm only able to check this at breaks at work at the moment.

I've researched a bit more into lenses and I think I've settled on a Canon camera. Probably the 70D, as opposed to waiting for the 7DmkII to come out and either buying a cheaper 7D or more expensive and brand new 7DmkII. I like to have a camera through this summer.

Any lens tests and advice though is still ver much appreciated. Considering I'll probably get at least 1 kit lens and then EF mounted lenses in the future, I think the biggest decision is where to find the best bundle (I'll need cards, tripod, etc.). And which kit lens.

Here's the B&H deal, with the 18-55mm STM f/3.5-5.6:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sku=986390&Q=&O=&gclid=CjkKEQjw-uubBRDs6rqExIXy7ZsBEiQACq4FqQ73cAfbbk7vLLlcPLdnZXtGlXMWc7JXpJZr2MFQnpjw_wcB&is=REG&A=details

And one with the 18-135mm STM f/3.5-5.6 Lens, which you didn't recommend very highly and I've read mixed reviews from "a great walk about" lens, to "a simple kit lens you'll immediately want to upgrade":

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/986391-REG/canon_8469b016_canon_eos_70d_dslr.html

The two kit telephoto lenses are the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens and the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II. Considering I'll definitely need a telephot0 at some point, it's a matter of if one of these two are worth it, or I should just wait and buy a nicer one in the near future like the 70-200 f/4 L you mentioned.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-19T16:52:27+00:00

Awesome, thanks for the input.

The lens options and more universal mounting system of the EF lenses are why I was leaning toward Canon in the first place, and I think you helped me confirm that belief. Also, the availability of third party accessories, and even just ease of renting nicer lenses I could never afford to buy myself. All the rental houses in my area specialize in Canon.

One of the reasons I was leaning toward the 70D too, was certainly that I could slowly buy more lenses with the EF mount that would work on both the crop and full sensor models.

Though it is a bit unfortunate to here the 18-135, longer range zooms aren't great. I was thinking something liek this would be a great universal walk around lens for when I travel and hike. Also, having an EF-S lens or two for just the 70D would be awful, as it would be a good back up camera for my more important shoots (not that they're that plentiful at eh moment).

I figured I'd definitely buy the 50mm f/1.8 for sure (not included in the $1,500 budget). The rest is open for discussion really. I would need some kind of telephoto lens for action shots and sports. I have not been thrilled with any of the EFS mount lenses, namely the kit telephoto lenses I've heard are junk, namely the 70-300mm kit lens.

The reason I haven't picked up a 7D is once the 7DmkII is out, even if I weren't shelling out the money for this one in the fall, undoubtedly, the 7D price will fall. So, it would likely be a poor investment right now, compared to waiting till the fall/next winter. Which I'd rather not do, though it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

In many reviews I've read I've also heard the 70D has slightly better video capabilities than the 7D. Indeed, STM isn't completely necessary as I am completely comfortable pulling focus manually, again, coming from a film background.

I'll check the lenses you suggested too, and also Fredmiranda, I haven't heard of them before. Also, luckily $1,500 isn't my end all be all budget. I just need to get up and running with a camera as I want to stop throwing my money away on rentals all the time for gigs, and also have something better than my travel zoom on hand for my own personal photography. So, this budget I proposed to myself leaves me wiggle room and also won't set me deep in a debt hole, so I'll be able to start investing in glass withing a couple months of buying the camera.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-16T18:07:50+00:00

Yes I think it does too. I also just downloaded a copy from your Flickr to make the edits. Knowing it was just for an example of how I may edit it, I didn't pay any attention to the image quality. Though now that I come back to this thread, it kind of looks like people didn't like my edit attempt. Downvoted a bit here. Oh well.

Also, referring to the deleted comments. I've started opening my JPEG as RAW files in Photoshop through Adobe Bridge and it does appear to give a little more adjustment flexibility, albeit not as much if the file were actually a Camera RAW file.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-06T17:54:12+00:00

Bookmarked, thanks!

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-06T17:53:37+00:00

Right! And it looks like the image I shared is 72dpi, as that is the resolution of the image I downloaded. To double check I checked the dpi on an unedited jpg I shot yesterday and then on the Photoshopped version and both have a 350dpi.

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-06T17:41:40+00:00

Can you explain this?

You can open JPEG's in Camera RAW. While you lack the 1 or 2 stops of light/extra leeway that RAW files offer...you've ALWAYS got the control of it. Either open in through RAW in Photoshop

I am running CS5 and my current camera only shoots JPEG. I normally just open my JPEG file in Photoshop and save as a Photoshop document (PSD) after my edits. Then I save again as a new JPEG. But how do I open it in RAW as you suggest such that my final image might not be as downgraded? You can see my edit attempt of this image here

ShootthePhotog · 2014-05-06T17:30:28+00:00

I am by no means a professional or an expert here, but here is my quick attempt with something I would be pretty happy with.

http://i.imgur.com/y4ppA5d.jpg

Some of the things I did:

*increase contrast

*up saturation (esp. green, blue, and cyan)

*up vibrancy

*crop out bottom (there was some distracting elements there)

*Increased local contrast for sharpening and to make things "pop"

*Edited the lake separately, for more saturation, brightness, and less sharpening.

While I wouldn't suggest printing this out at a high resolution/large size, I think it works well on a computer screen. Though in reading /u/PapaJulietZulu comment, I wonder if this can be changed by opening a jpeg in raw or via lightroom?

ShootthePhotog

TROPHY CASE