armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.6 #2 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5 | |
osv2 wrote:
you and geoff are posting brand mis-generalizations that are poorly informed and not logical.
you guys don't shoots sports, so neither of you understands that the a9ii upgrades are largely targeted at shooters who need to get jpegs out asap, for example with the best voice annotation capability on the market, aka at the olympics.
a9ii is for people who need the best light flicker control of any camera on the market, no other camera has that ability even with the mechanical shutter, and sony did it with the electronic shutter... claiming that market-leading capabilities like those don't "advance the narrative" is not true.
the a7siii is a *huge* step up from the a7sii, it's one of the best video-focused milc bodies on the market, far superior to the crippled r5 melt-down nightmare... canon failed with video performance on the r5, while sony hit a home run with the a7siii.
the only reason that canon "came on strong" is because they were coming from eos-r/eos-rp junk cameras, lol... canon still doesn't have sensor readout speeds that are anywhere near what the a9/a9ii has.
...Show more →
I've largely stayed on the sidelines - literally and figuratively - since the days of manual focus and film. Originally was a Nikon shooter and when Canon introduced the USM AF motors for lenses, I switched and stayed with them until abandoning Canon in favor of Sony a little more than a year ago. Years ago, even with 6-8mp cameras the .jpgs were a bear to send over FTP because of the file sizes. Without a doubt, if I were working today, the R5 would not be my choice for a sideline camera for many reasons. Though the a9(ii) performs magnificently in many respects and I know people who employ it successfully at every level, if I were still shooting freelance or agency for sports (retired that segment just after the release of the 1dx), I would probably use whatever they afforded me or likely would use a pro-DSLR for reliability, battery life, etc. Perhaps with the slated pro-MILC cameras on the drawing boards, I would be compelled to switch?
With respect to wildlife and BIF, for me the a9(ii) is still a great contender as its AF which is still second to none as well as for all of the reasons mentioned. The big drawback IMHO is the limitation in the ability to crop. For most users and 99% of the images posted on the web it doesn't matter and the limitation only comes into play when printing large or having to crop significantly. That's why I was so intrigued with the a7riv and while I loved its file sizes (after coming to grips with the noise), it was hampered by the AF, inability to play nice with the 200-600 (supposedly resolved), slow sensor read out leading to rolling shutter and evf issues.
The best value IMHO for one wanting to shoot wildlife is to pick up an a9 and 200-600. There is nothing on the market which will perform as well for the $.
Wanting more MP is not an indictment on Sony or the technology. Put 45 mp in the a9(III) and I'll be one of the first in line to buy one. But it isn't here and Canon came to market with a camera which everyone is loving to hate; some of the criticism is well deserved and some of it is not. For stills, and that is 99% of what I shoot, it is a remarkable camera. Yes,the sensor read out increases the risk of rolling shutter compared to the a9(ii), though my subjects are BIF, perched birds, wildlife, and not toy fans on a table. My real life experience suggests that for these applications rolling shutter is not usually an issue unlike the a7riv. Yes, the presence of an AA filter has an effect on sharpness, though that is offset by the "Canon colors" and I find the images need less overall PP. There are always trade-offs and compromises and compared to the a7riv it is so much better for the BIF/Wildlife application.
For sports, the R5's rolling shutter is a problem and one has to use MS which is not as good as the a9(ii) MS for reasons discussed. As an aside, the EVF on the R5 is so much nicer than the a9(ii) both in terms of brightness, resolution, color, etc. Given many of my lenses date back to my pro days, after the the market for glass collapsed, I didn't bother to part with them. This obviously, had a significant influence on my decision to move back to Canon. $13k is a lot of cash to part with for a Sony 600 f/4 and the lack of an extensive array of more affordable long Sony glass is a hindrance for many people. Again, for the $ an a9 + 200-600 is the best value on the market for the BIF/Wildlife segment.
In my analysis, I care more about the results than the brand. If my current car was a Lexus and then Infinity came out with a model which fit my needs better, I would not hesitate to switch. If one had to buy a collection of expensive wheels separately which only fit a particular car manufacturer, that would factor into my decision making. At the end of the day, cameras are tools which we use for enjoyment, as a source of income, and fulfillment. Contrary to what the manufacturers might peddle, the brands don't define the photographer.
|
...