What's in a name? Is your brand of camera holding YOU back?

If I were to buy another DSLR itwould be a Sony. I reckon the a99 is the most incredible SLR available today. And they have af Zeiss lenses. Yum.

Gordon

I agree about Sony DSLRs. In fact, I'm even impressed with their lower-end SLTs and was thinking about picking up an A37 on close-out. It's only about the size of a GH2 and has the same 16mp sensor that's in my Pentaxes. Yes, the lenses are bigger than micro four thirds but not only do they have Zeiss on board, they still offer a lot of good, older Minolta designs and it looks like Olympus will be helping them with new lens designs. Rumor has it the next generation of Sony's DSLR-class cameras won't even have the pellicle mirror - that they'll be true mirrorless designs once they have on-sensor phase-detection auto-focus. I've stopped myself from buyIng a Sony a few times because I have fairly sizeable Pentax and micro four-thirds kits. But the appeal is definitely there.

EDIT: What does ISO 6400 look like on an a58?
 
I had the same snobby attitude (from other photographers) when I bought the Fuji STX1 in the early 80's

I, too, had a little of this with my STX-1, which I purchased in 1980.
However, what very few people seemed to realise is that it was a pretty damned good camera! And fun to use.:)
 
I don't seem to have any brand loyalty at all. I'll try most things. What I've found through using so many different brands, is that I can pretty much get what I want out of all of them with the right lens and so it then comes down to the user experience.
 
i tend to prefer olympus
but i think because ive always liked them more than similar competitions cameras

i always hated sony
everything always felt too complicated
but i love my rx1
 
John,

If I had an M9 with a Noctilux, I would definitely be a better photographer -- NOT!

In college, I took a course in photography and shot with a Rolleiflex, souped my own film, printed it, the whole nine yards. Then I bought 35mm SLRs because that's what "serious" photographers were shooting. After a while I had two bodies, a wide, normal, and tele primes, plus a big zoom. Pretty soon, it never went anywhere because it was too much stuff to carry.

As a professional writer with a need to illustrate my stories, I bought an Olympus ZLR, a 35 mm film reflex camera with a 35-180 fixed lens with autofocus. But the workflow was lousy: shoot the stuff, get it processed, discover my mistakes, shoot it again.

Digital photography revolutionized my workflow: shoot the stuff, see immediately if it is good enough; if not, shot it again, then move on. I've had literally hundreds of photographs published in magazines that were taken with a 3-megapixel Olympus D-550.

Now I buy for function: small, portable, good-enough photo quality. Small sensors mean small glass. Fixed lenses mean no issues with sensors dirtied while changing lenses. My G12 is small enough to tuck under an outer shirt and carry everywhere. My FZ150 has astonishing reach in a package that is smaller than my Pentax 35mm SLR with a 50 mm on it.

I admire the heck out of the pictures taken by many of the folks here with larger sensor cameras, I truly do. I've tried to convince myself several times that I "need" a bigger sensor camera, but it always comes down to this: if I have a system camera, will I carry it? And there is always that little voice in the back of my head that says: "No you won't." At which point, my Scottish thrift genes kick in and ask: "Then why bother?"

John, this is a great topic. Thanks for raising it.

Cheers, Jock
 
Re: The Leica -lux cameras are just panasonics with a Leica dot thrown on.

It's partly true, but if you cycle through compacts regularly (looking for the perfect ONE) there can be an advantage to the buying the Leica. When I bought my D-Lux 4 (later sold to help finance my E-P2), I considered the argument around LX-3 vs D-lux 4 and decided that the Leica was a better choice for me for a number of reasons: a better warranty, Capture One instead of Silypix (which I loathe), a look I liked better, jpegs I liked much better, and the resale value. When I finally did sell the D-Lux 4 it was fetching twice what the LX 3 was commanding. Did I like the little red dot. You bet; it's probably the only digital Leica I'll ever own. I can't even afford the lenses for the M cameras, let alone a finicky body that requires more attention than I want to give it.
 
Re: The Leica -lux cameras are just panasonics with a Leica dot thrown on.

It's partly true, but if you cycle through compacts regularly (looking for the perfect ONE) there can be an advantage to the buying the Leica. When I bought my D-Lux 4 (later sold to help finance my E-P2), I considered the argument around LX-3 vs D-lux 4 and decided that the Leica was a better choice for me for a number of reasons: a better warranty, Capture One instead of Silypix (which I loathe), a look I liked better, jpegs I liked much better, and the resale value. When I finally did sell the D-Lux 4 it was fetching twice what the LX 3 was commanding. Did I like the little red dot. You bet; it's probably the only digital Leica I'll ever own. I can't even afford the lenses for the M cameras, let alone a finicky body that requires more attention than I want to give it.

If anyone is looking for a reason to justify a Leica D-Lux series camera versus a near-identical Panasonic LX series camera, jpg rendering is probably as far as you need to look. The jpgs are definitely different. The included image-processing software doesn't really matter to me as I use Aperture and iPhoto. But if you shoot jpgs, the red dot will make a difference.
 
Back
Top