I think that it was a pretty fair video. In their opinion it comes down to which system you already shoot. If you are picking without any pre-existing equipment then they give the nod to Canon because of price. Which of course is objective, Canon is significantly less expensive. I think they may be giving the slight nod to Canon because that is what they shoot, and so find it more comfortable for them. This is in line with what they said.
I could nit pick some things, but overall I have no problem with the video, or its conclusions.
It is fair but they don't take into account the System as a whole RF lens range compared to FE range unless you want to use adapted lenses -i don't so Sony wins for me .
Is there anyone started shooting with SD card and now feel like buying CFExpress A? I'm asking to see if I'd have to account the card in total cost. I will be using mostly in BIF/Action situation. I have couple of UHS-II (300 mbps) cards already..
Jemini wrote:
Is there anyone started shooting with SD card and now feel like buying CFExpress A? I'm asking to see if I'd have to account the card in total cost. I will be using mostly in BIF/Action situation. I have couple of UHS-II (300 mbps) cards already..
I'm now at the point where I won't even bother buying a CFe-A even with competition and lower prices. Unless the price came all the way down to UHS-II levels AND I actually needed a new card then I'd buy the CFe instead of the SD at the same price.
I have not once thought about the card while shooting unlike my A7RIV. That is all that matters to me. I don't care about download speeds and I don't shoot deep enough into the buffer to get stressed about the clearing time.
I just took the ~1200 CAD into consideration right from the start as my initial investment so I had the 2 CFxA 160GB cards and reader even before I got my camera. I have a couple of SD cards as a backup in case I fill both CFx cards.
Jemini wrote:
Is there anyone started shooting with SD card and now feel like buying CFExpress A? I'm asking to see if I'd have to account the card in total cost. I will be using mostly in BIF/Action situation. I have couple of UHS-II (300 mbps) cards already..
Unless you regularly see yourself needing to multiple bursts of 100 or more within 45 second windows or so, then you should not need a CFExpress A card. It's certainly nice to have, but the camera works quite well with the UHS-II 300Mbps cards. It certainly seems no slower (possibly faster even) than the A9/A9ii writing speeds.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think that it was a pretty fair video. In their opinion it comes down to which system you already shoot. If you are picking without any pre-existing equipment then they give the nod to Canon because of price. Which of course is objective, Canon is significantly less expensive. I think they may be giving the slight nod to Canon because that is what they shoot, and so find it more comfortable for them. This is in line with what they said.
I could nit pick some things, but overall I have no problem with the video, or its conclusions.
I would not call it unfair. Shallow, though, more of a "hands on". Not a review. Certainly not a battle with two exclamation marks. Given only what these two presented, I'd rather buy an A7R3
PS: also, for some reason it rather irked me that they repeatedly called the R5 an 48MP camera. No biggie, sure, but arguing about the relative resolutions and then getting them wrong? Ouch.
davidnumrich wrote:
Unless you regularly see yourself needing to multiple bursts of 100 or more within 45 second windows or so, then you should not need a CFExpress A card. It's certainly nice to have, but the camera works quite well with the UHS-II 300Mbps cards. It certainly seems no slower (possibly faster even) than the A9/A9ii writing speeds.
Thank you.
I don't think I will be doing such bursts. I can see at 30 fps it can happen once in a while. But not a lot. I'm sure I will get CFExpress eventually, but can wait until the price come down at least to type B level.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I think these guys are pro Canon or is it a fair evaluation.
I think it is fair for what they tested. But a number of simple facts were incorrect. Also the 70-200GM is not considered the greatest AF lens on the A1.
First off the A9 had the top left mode dials since 2017...these guys think it is brand new on the A1.
That sort of tells me why they have never been blown away by Sony AF before because they obviously have never touched an A9 or A9II.
The R5 is not 48MPs....can you not get one of the most basic specs correct in a review?
They first say the bike test with the A1 got them 100% hit rate with face and eye tracking. Then they later say the R5 is slightly better for face tracing and throw up some shots of a guy just standing in a field. How can a moving bike with face tracking with 100% in focus be not as good? Did the R5 get 110% in focus?
Obviously they never even pushed the AF at all so would never figure out where the A1 is better. I'm pretty sure both cameras will get you close to 100% in focus for a slow moving bike and a guy in a field
Anyways, the review is what it is....can be helpful for some. Not for me.
arbitrage wrote:
I think it is fair for what they tested. But a number of simple facts were incorrect. Also the 70-200GM is not considered the greatest AF lens on the A1.
First off the A9 had the top left mode dials since 2017...these guys think it is brand new on the A1.
That sort of tells me why they have never been blown away by Sony AF before because they obviously have never touched an A9 or A9II.
So they are even worse than the square space ambassador toneh....
Basically know nothing about Sony system.
Jemini wrote:
Is there anyone started shooting with SD card and now feel like buying CFExpress A? I'm asking to see if I'd have to account the card in total cost. I will be using mostly in BIF/Action situation. I have couple of UHS-II (300 mbps) cards already..
Personally I hate thinking hard (too exhausting) I just buy the fastest card available -- helps to future proof. (I do wish Sony used type B cards in the a1 though -- that was a bummer.) So for me it's CFE-A's only. Just like my OWC Thunderblade external SSD drives -- silent, bloody fast and also bloody expensive, but once paid for you'll never regret the purchase.
arbitrage wrote:
I think it is fair for what they tested. But a number of simple facts were incorrect. Also the 70-200GM is not considered the greatest AF lens on the A1.
First off the A9 had the top left mode dials since 2017...these guys think it is brand new on the A1.
That sort of tells me why they have never been blown away by Sony AF before because they obviously have never touched an A9 or A9II.
The R5 is not 48MPs....can you not get one of the most basic specs correct in a review?
They first say the bike test with the A1 got them 100% hit rate with face and eye tracking. Then they later say the R5 is slightly better for face tracing and throw up some shots of a guy just standing in a field. How can a moving bike with face tracking with 100% in focus be not as good? Did the R5 get 110% in focus?
Obviously they never even pushed the AF at all so would never figure out where the A1 is better. I'm pretty sure both cameras will get you close to 100% in focus for a slow moving bike and a guy in a field
Anyways, the review is what it is....can be helpful for some. Not for me....Show more →
They lost their credibility entirely by stating that the top left dials were new to Sony in the A1. Period!
AGeoJO wrote:
They lost their credibility entirely by stating that the top left dials were new to Sony in the A1. Period!
To be honest, I got more worked up when Tony Nortroup went on that incoherent rambling about it being a design failure that custom C3 button was set the change shutter mode by default or how some FN slots was set to drive mode etc that couldn’t be changed. Yes, throw the camera in the trash, useless piece of junk!
To be honest, I got more worked up when Tony Nortroup went on that incoherent rambling about it being a design failure that custom C3 button was set the change shutter mode by default or how some FN slots was set to drive mode etc that couldn’t be changed. Yes, throw the camera in the trash, useless piece of junk!
Nils, the problem was back then, we didn’t have the A1 yet and had to rely on what he was saying, if you tried to believe him, of course. Now, that we have used the A1 for a few weeks and we know what it can do. No, it didn’t upset me but I am just amazed... I could care less what those two guys were saying anyway...
arbitrage wrote:
I made sure to PM that pre-link to Pius as he seems to have been waiting for that video to make some sort of be all, end all, conclusion on the A1
I've been wondering whats taking so long for MS to get a hands on video out. Not talking about an unboxing... Guessing like every new release there are some hurdles to overcome.
I'm not really impressed with the high iso capabilities so far, can't really tell if the noise is an after effect from high sharpening to bring out some extra detail.
I noticed that in your swallow shots, yes I looked at them on flickr.... and other photos I have seen posted in the A1 image thread. Some at really low iso and still showing noise.
I'm just speaking from a wildlife photographer's point of view not other genres as cropping is a fact of life for WP's.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I've been wondering whats taking so long for MS to get a hands on video out. Not talking about an unboxing... Guessing like every new release there are some hurdles to overcome.
I'm not really impressed with the high iso capabilities so far, can't really tell if the noise is an after effect from high sharpening to bring out some extra detail.
I noticed that in your swallow shots, yes I looked at them on flickr.... and other photos I have seen posted in the A1 image thread. Some at really low iso and still showing noise.
I'm just speaking from a wildlife photographer's point of view not other genres as cropping is a fact of life for WP's.
My general impression is that the high-ISO noise of the D850, Z7, R5, A7RIV, A1 are all close enough to be a moot point. If I spent more time in Topaz I likely could clean up some of the deep cropped, high ISO ones but I'm lazy and always just use a default Topaz AI Clear setting of Med NR and Low Sharpening.
A1 and R5 look pretty much identical as far as high ISO noise go when looking over my 10s of 1000 of RAW files in LR. If you download the RAWs from the DPR Studio scene and process them in LR you can see what you think. That is pretty much a perfectly controlled comparison except for different lenses being used. But noise should be able to be compared fairly. Don't rely on just looking at the widget on DPR as I found they looked different when the actual RAWs were evaluated in LR and then you can process with your regular workflow and try out your regular Topaz workflow also.
Guessing like every new release there are some hurdles to overcome.