Nice comparison Dave, I would say you have better contrast and bokeh too, and better DOF control. I'm wondering if the DOF difference is FF vs aps-c, or if the Disney guy was shooting stopped down. Looks to me like the flash was to harsh on the Nikon, highlights are blown too.
That's honestly a good question on the DOF... I spent some time talking to some of the Disney photogs. If I had to guess, I would say he was stopped down to close to wide open. Those guys really don't have any understanding of the craft. They are actually given a three ring binder with sample framing for different group sizes. And there is a page with very specific Shutter/Ap settings. I only saw this binder when one guy couldn't figure out why his shots were showing dark on the screen. He had to go through his "manual" to learn that he had his shutter speed set incorrectly.
I think I would tell them to set to Program Shift and leave it the heck alone!
They would probably have better results.
And you are definitely right about the flash being too harsh in the photo. The Disney guys don't bounce. It's all direct flash, which is always harsh. Even more so when the lens is shooting wide open. Plus with their rigid "manual", they don't take ambient lighting into account at all.
Personally, I always shoot no flash if I can. If I can't, I bounce. If I can't bounce, I like a on flash soft box attachment. If that isn't going to work, then direct flash. Direct flash is always always always the last resort for me.
True, Sony has a long way to go to meet their market share goals. Plus they've not made a camera to compete with the 1Ds and D3 lines yet. A900 is mostly a 5D mk2 and D700 competitor. There are a some pros out there using Sony though, (Micheal Riechmann of Luminous Landscape, now uses Sony along side his Leica M9) mostly for studio and landscape work, Sony has focused more on low ISO detail, and not high ISO. So they are not as well suited for low light work (ie weddings/sports) as Canon..
Sony will have a tough time breaking into the pro market. They basically have to wait for the current pros to die or retire. I'm not about to pony up the $50k or so that it would cost me to switch over.
The only real shot Sony has in the pro market is with the really large news corps. A number of years ago a major paper (think it was USA Today, but may be remembering wrong) switched from Nikon gear over to Canon gear. The independant Nikon shooters made out like bandits when the paper put the old gear up for sale. I have a friend who shoots Nikon who picked up some really nice stuff for literally pennies on the dollar. But Sony will never be able to make those sales until they are offering gear that is on the top level like the EOS1Dmk3 (or is the mk4 out yet? I shoot a mk3). Most of the news guys shoot for frame rate over resolution, and that is the market that Sony is totally out of at moment. Low light is seriously important to us newsies too. Fast lenses and freakishly high ISO is like crack for a sports photographer. I actually still get a lot of satisfaction when I go to my daughters softball games... I'll sneak up behind a couple of parents who are trying to shoot between the wires of the chain link fence. I'll plop my 300f2.8 down on the monopod an let loose at 10fps at a low f stop to blow the chain link out. I love it when Sally Soccer mom says, "Oh wow, I bet you get some good pictures."
And it is actually even worse then that for Sony. As an independant, I occaisionally hire a stringer or two to help me out at an event I am covering. They shoot what I tell them to shoot, but the images are mine. Then I pay them whatever flat rate was agreed upon, usually in the range of $10-12 an hour. They don't make much, they get zero credit for their images, even if I sell them all over the world, but they get some experience and an new line on the old resume. Thing is, I usually require stringers to have some (not all) of their own gear. Two reasons, one is so I don't have to buy as much equipment and two is it is a way for me to weed out the applicants a bit. But, long story short, anybody who wants to be a stringer for me has a Canon body. So, they're already hooked into the Canon "tradition". That's a bond Sony won't find it easy to break either.
Trust me If I was rich I'd have the Minolta 600mm f4 for my long lens, unfortunately I'm a long way from that. The Sigma 150-500mm I've found is surprisingly good for a < $1,000 lens. Colors aren't fantastic, but I made a Lightroom preset to quickly deal with that. And it's reasonable sharp. It is best between 200-400mm stopped down to f8. Wide open it's soft, especially in the corners. I actually use it more with my A700 for that reason, the soft corners get cropped out on aps sensor.
Those are really long lengths. So you obviously (judging from your very nice mountain goat shots and your lens selections), are into wildlife. That's a pretty specialised group to be in. And unfortunately for you, the most expensive gear wise. (And hard to make money at too unfortunately).
But your getting great quality. I'm curious how much post production you are having to do on your images? You're getting really nice results.
I don't do much wildlife, except for fun when the opportunity presents. For instance, here is an Eagle photo that I took awhile back. Actually with my old Canon 10D, mounting my 300f2.8 on a 2x Tele-converter. The only post production was a minor crop.
I am thinking about selling the 150-500 and getting a Sony 500mm f8 reflex instead. I'm sure I'd be cussing the f8 part in the twilight hours though. And the mirror in it makes funky donuts in the bokeh. But I'm sure it's sharper, better color and faster focusing.
I'm sure you can do better then the 150-500, but I don't know if you're going to be happy with an f8 lens. I would almost think you would be better off trying pick up a used 300f2.8 and a 2x tele-converter also. At 2.8 and 2x tele you're shooting at 5.6. As long as you have a quality tele-converter you won't lose too much color saturation and will benefit from the huge amount of extra light that you'd be getting over an f8 lens. Your reach would be longer too. A 300f2.8 with a 2x tele on an APS-C camera is shooting equivelent to a FF 960mm after all, with quite a bit more light to boot. I don't know if there is anything like that available for your body or not. I do know that there probably isn't much of a used market for lenses you can use though. At any rate, I'd encourage you to explore the option before buying a mirror lens.
What I've read about Sigma and Tamron both is that they have spotty quality control. Meaning different copies of the same lens vary widely in quality. My first Sigma 90mm I sent back, it was just awful, I think an element was out of alignment, it was always soft on the left side, and sharp from the middle right, they sent me a replacement and it's great, tack sharp like macros should be.
That might be right. I can promise you that every Tamron and Tokina lens (including a Tokina 300f2.8) sucked.
It used to be the only zoom I had was a 70-200mm 2.8. But I've started doing more, and more portrait work, engagements, families, senior pictures that kind of thing. I've done a few weddings too, but that's not really my cup o' tea. And... well I got sick of constantly switching between my 24, 35, and 50mm primes. So I finally splurged on the Sony CZ 24-70mm 2.8. I've found it to be equal or better then the old Minolta primes I used to use, and it's built like a tank. Out of the 3, I only use the 50mm anymore because it's a 1.7.
The 70-200f2.8 is a good utility lens. In fact, that's probably my favorite lens to use. Even for portrait work. In fact, I would suggest that you do most of your portrait work at the 200mm end of that lens with the stop as wide open as lighting allows. The longer reach helps to blow the back ground out, which is generally preferred in a portrait. I also use a 24-70f2.8 (Canon though of course!) It is the lens that I use primarily at weddings (for the posed shots) and receptions (the candids).
The only "short" primes that I use very often are a 50f1.4 that I use to REALLY blow the back ground out, or if I want the Iris of an eye in focus but the tip of the nose very soft, and a 20f2.8 that I use for those large group occaisions.
As for weddings, the very best advice I can offer you is this. Spend a few hundred dollars on a couple of mono-lights and start doing a few weddings a year whether you like them or not. Sure they can be stressful, especially when you are new at it. But weddings are pretty much the best way to actually make money with a camera.
I would advise you to try and do a few every year, then just put the cash make directly into upgrading your gear. You'd be surprised how quickly you can improve your gear if you do a few weddings with the sole intent of pouring the money into equipment. It actually wouldn't take all that long to get yourself into some higher end glass.
If you might be interested in this, shoot me a PM and we'll get on the phone and I'll tell you how to approach it to actually break into the market in your area and make some money at it. It's easier then you might think.
Before the Sigma 150-500mm I had a Sigma 400mm 5.6 prime, which worked pretty good till my A700 AF stripped out the gears in it.
Canon Ultrasonic baby! No gears to strip!
