When you move from one brand to another, some issues become glaringly obvious.
For me, one of the most obvious differences was the open lens mount. When I started looking at lenses, there were options from Sony, Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron, Samyang… and that’s just the autofocus ones with a native mount. If you had an AF adapter, suddenly you had more from Canon and other brands.
There is one thing I find amazing about Sony users: they seem to have bought into the Sony marketing pitch hook, line and sinker. In fact, I would go as far as to say they took the whole fishing rod.
Any time I see a question about a new lens on the facebook sites, the first responses back point to G master lenses or $2000 Zeiss lenses. It’s like every other lens in Sony mount has rabies. Beginner looking for a first lens: G Master. Intermediate looking for a new lens: G Master. Part-time macro user: G Master. Street lens? G Master. Portrait lens with a $300 budget. Save for longer and get a G Master or the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. I even had someone try to argue with me that a complete beginner would progress more quickly with a G Master lens. They won’t even have their composition right but apparently, they can master DOF.
When Sony designed the Sony A7 and A9 series cameras, it seems like they designed it for hobbits or a group of people who have really small hands. I have this idea that they went to market and every photographer they found had hands the size of my 8-year-old daughter. I can’t see any other reason for the way they designed their cameras, or one of them would have identified that you couldn’t actually hold the camera properly.
I’m not sure why every mirrorless manufacturer thinks that all camera users want tiny cameras. Some of us just like mirrorless for being mirrorless, for the use of the EVF, and the WYSIWYG perspective of the world where you know the photo is going to look exactly the same as you saw through the viewfinder. And yet for some obscure reason, not one camera manufacturer has made a decent sized mirrorless.
Glass is glass, or at least that’s what you normally think. To a large degree, you would expect the focal lengths to at least stay static, but that’s not always the case has my recent move from Fujifilm to Sony shows.
There are the obvious items, like the availability of lenses in specific focal lengths, If it’s not available, it’s not available, but that played less of a factor than I expected.
I saw a video by Tony and Chelsea entitled “What’s the best mirrorless camera for shooting sports”. I guess what annoyed me about the video is that it seemed like the usual bloggers excuse to get as many mirrorless cameras into a single video, with links of course to purchase them via an affiliate link.
Commercial interests aside, what also concerned me about the article was the value of one piece of functionality over another. There are four things that typically differentiate a camera for sports: autofocus, high ISO capability frame rate and buffer. It’s not to say they are the most important for everyone, but every sports camera has had these over other non-sports orientated models.