molson wrote:
Sigh. My A1 arrived today, and the new owner is picking up my old R5 tomorrow.
I had the R5 II on order, but in the end I decided I just couldn't sink any more money into the RF system with no new lenses I wanted (14mm f1.8, 20mm f1.8, 300mm f2.8, 70-200mm macro, 200-600mm f5.6-6.3) on the horizon.
There's no question that Canon's AF is great, but so is Sony's, and which camera is superior on any given day depends on a more factors than just the camera's hardware and software.
And I just couldn't live with the selfie-vlogging LCD screen, no matter how good the rest of the camera is....Show more →
Funny...I was talking to some island photographers this past weekend and I made the bold prediction that Cliff would be buying an R5II within a month after canceling his preorder. I wasn't expecting a return to the A1 camp. But I should learn that with Cliff there is only one thing certain....he will be buying something new within a month....what that is more unpredictable
Well, anyone can go on Bill Claff's site . The A9III about the same DR vs the 5DsR we were supposed to dump and go mirrorless for the higher DR.
I know Arbitrage likes his Sony, but even I was surprised how much he took up for the a9III as a Sony fanboy over it's lack of DR. Other explanations besides being a fanboy include 1) not understanding how to read the graphs on that site and 2) not understanding DR and supposed lack thereof
But I'm sure it doesn't count as name calling, if you're Sony troll on the Canon board
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, anyone can go on Bill Claff's site . The A9III about the same DR vs the 5DsR we were supposed to dump and go mirrorless for the higher DR.
I know Arbitrage likes his Sony, but even I was surprised how much he took up for the a9III as a Sony fanboy over it's lack of DR. Other explanations besides being a fanboy include 1) not understanding how to read the graphs on that site and 2) not understanding DR and supposed lack thereof
But I'm sure it doesn't count as name calling, if you're Sony troll on the Canon board
I'm not sure what to say Mike....the higher the graph, the better the PDR as defined by Bill.
Black is higher than Blue. A9III is therefore higher than 5DSR.
I threw in the R5II to keep it somewhat relevant to this thread. And A9III is right there with it except where the A9III doesn't go like below ISO 250 and around the offset dual-gain steps where you will see advantages to the camera that jumps first.
I owned the 5DSR...never once complained about DR because I shoot at higher ISO most of the time and every camera in the last 10 years has similar DR at higher ISO.
I apologize to others for taking the troll's bait on this one but this thread has probably run its course anyways and OP has made a decision so lets see where this goes.
arbitrage wrote:
Funny...I was talking to some island photographers this past weekend and I made the bold prediction that Cliff would be buying an R5II within a month after canceling his preorder. I wasn't expecting a return to the A1 camp. But I should learn that with Cliff there is only one thing certain....he will be buying something new within a month....what that is more unpredictable
I had the R5 for six months.
If Canon had announced any interesting lenses along with the new cameras, I might have held on to it a little longer.
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, anyone can go on Bill Claff's site . The A9III about the same DR vs the 5DsR we were supposed to dump and go mirrorless for the higher DR.
I know Arbitrage likes his Sony, but even I was surprised how much he took up for the a9III as a Sony fanboy over it's lack of DR. Other explanations besides being a fanboy include 1) not understanding how to read the graphs on that site and 2) not understanding DR and supposed lack thereof
But I'm sure it doesn't count as name calling, if you're Sony troll on the Canon board
Geoff is anything but a fanboy. Unlike many others on these fora, he is open-minded enough to try various pieces of gear before he decides whether he likes them or not... and he obviously knows how to get the best out of the gear he uses, so his opinions are very valuable.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm not sure what to say Mike....the higher the graph, the better the PDR as defined by Bill.
Black is higher than Blue. A9III is therefore higher than 5DSR.
I threw in the R5II to keep it somewhat relevant to this thread. And A9III is right there with it except where the A9III doesn't go like below ISO 250 and around the offset dual-gain steps where you will see advantages to the camera that jumps first.
I owned the 5DSR...never once complained about DR because I shoot at higher ISO most of the time and every camera in the last 10 years has similar DR at higher ISO.
I apologize to others for taking the troll's bait on this one but this thread has probably run its course anyways and OP has made a decision so lets see where this goes.
You post the graph clearly illustrating (for those knowing how to read it) that the 5DsR is pretty much the same as the A9III. Then you say the A9III is better due to the minimal differences and call me the troll, of all things
This is exactly the reason I call you a Sony fanboy. Posts like this. Honestly I think you know a9III doesn't have the DR and take up for it anyway
AmbientMike wrote:
You post the graph clearly illustrating (for those knowing how to read it) that the 5DsR is pretty much the same as the A9III. Then you say the A9III is better due to the minimal differences and call me the troll, of all things
This is exactly the reason I call you a Sony fanboy. Posts like this. Honestly I think you know a9III doesn't have the DR and take up for it anyway
No, what I've been saying from the start is the DR is meaningless to me, has been for years now. I've defended camera's DR all the way back to 5DSR days, maybe even earlier because I shoot birds and therefore I shoot higher ISO and therefore the low ISO 100 DR is not important to me and that is where the more significant differences lie. If one is shooting base ISO for landscapes or maybe real estate etc then there are certainly better cameras for DR. A9III would never be my choice for that.
Yes the A9III is better. As I said, minimally better and meaningless at higher ISO.
Why aren't you arguing with the R5II owners and telling them that their camera is no better than the 5DSR? As you can see from the graph it is basically the same as the A9III until you get to those lower ISO values which the A9III doesn't have due to limitation with making a global shutter. Yes the R5II is better than both at low ISO. If I was shooting landscapes I would never buy an A9III over an R5II.
And remember, I'm no fan of the A9III...I owned it for 3 weeks and decided it wasn't worth the money to buy one.
I think you are very confused as to what constitutes a "fanboy". A fanboy to me is someone who puts on the blinders and will never be open to see the other side of the argument or take an objective look at what else is out there. That fits your posting history much more than it fits mine. As you can see, so far a number of people don't agree with you. I appreciate that they have valued my contributions over the years even when there will be a period of time when I'm preferring a Sony or Nikon camera. If I was a fanboy I'd never list all the pros of the R5II, I'd never create threads complaining about all the problems with the A1 on release, I'd never praise Nikon for having the greatest wildlife lens lineup known to man.
I think you summed yourself up back on page 2, post 13 where you said this: "I probably wouldn't use the A1 if I got one for free."
I would really appreciate if you could just HIDE ME and not reply to my posts. Or maybe come up with the will power to just not read them. Or better yet, just don't come in and participate in threads that are asking members to give their opinions on two different brands. Me and the OP can have a constructive conversation about the two systems. He already shoots both Canon and Sony as do I. You on the other hand, can't be objective at all. Everything out of your mouth is praising and defending Canon seemingly based on being hurt by people complaining about Canon's DR for a decade. Something that I assure you was never me....as I told you before...use the FM wayback feature....go back to the 5D3/5DSR days and try and find a post by me complaining about the high-ISO DR of a Canon camera. I guarantee you won't be able to find one as I was one of the ones defending the DR at ISO's suitable for wildlife/sports photography. You are beefing with the wrong guy Mike.
Personally I give him more credibility than the useless Youtube shills and Canon Rumor sites.
At least he is not pounding the pavement for clicks, and likes to channel money into his pocket.
Looks to be brand agnostic to me. A genuine photo enthusiast.
Here's my limited attempt to bring the thread back.
I've used the A1 and my primary camera is an R5. Both cameras are excellent tools, I'd be shooting Sony if I'd actually been able to buy one when I bought my R5 2 years ago. I've definitely lusted after the Nikon glass lineup but so far in many cases the more challenging pictures I've taken all had constraints other than pure camera performance whether it was ability to get close, available light and as always subject behavior that I doubt the differences in bodies would have had much impact on.
Another perspective - RobAmy loves his R3 and produces stunning photos, Geoff's work speaks for itself, our resident curmudgeon Tony uses all manner of cheap glass. Heck Morris produces bird photos that rival many others using the Fuji system which nobody claims is even in the running.
So - rent both cameras try them out and keep the one that works for you?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope this is the case and that the thread will get back on track. Specific discussions between two members should be handled via private message.
Did I miss something? ;-)
A general comment: For various reasons I have been looking into multiple camera brands recently: Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, and (a bit) Nikon.
Looked at from the outside (from one’s own brand perspective) it is easy to see any of those other brands as being remarkably better than whichever one you currently use or to seem them as being remarkably worse. But if you dig into things a bit, getting more feedback from photographers you trust who use each of the brands, talking to people who refuse to get bogged down in “brand wars” nonsense, and having an open mind you discover that:
- All of these brands (and others) currently produce some remarkable photographic equipment that works far better than what we might have imagined a decade or two ago.
- There are excellent photographers producing brilliant work with all of them, and you cannot tell which brand was used based on the photographs they produce.
- Honest users of any brand will tell you that their brand has (or their brands have) pluses and minuses, but that it is extremely rare fo any of those to amount to more than a preference based on subjective matters or some specific aspect of their personal photography.
I have not yet looked as deeply into the specific comparison in this thread as some of the participants, but over the past couple of months I’ve started and have learned enough to say that brand and model decisions are virtually never black and white affairs.
In FF, MILC's no camera offers DR superiority worth pi$$ing over. The issues come down to features, abilities, lenses, ergonomics, etc. Some users will prefer one particular brand, others will tend towards different manufacturers. Let's continue with the productive observations.
Confirmed with my friend that the R5II will be mine for Saturday evening and all day Sunday while she has other commitments. Unlike my first foray, this weekend will be perfect shooting conditions (until the heat haze sets in around 10AM). Can't wait to put this camera through some more thorough testing. My friend was struggling with a perched hummer today with the Eye-AF jumping to a dark leaf 6 inches to the right of the hummer. I will see what settings I can dial in for her to alleviate that sort of nonsense.
armd wrote:
In FF, MILC's no camera offers DR superiority worth pi$$ing over. The issues come down to features, abilities, lenses, ergonomics, etc.
True, *except* when shooting video, where the Canons were several stops behind in dynamic range until the R5 II with its CLOG2.
(PS I’m definitely not trying to get involved in some schoolyard squabbling here 😂
I had a great day with the R5II and 100-500 yesterday. I'm not going to bother going into details of my thoughts comparing it to the A1 as I see my original comparison was censored and deleted so obviously this forum doesn't support free speech and people don't value my thoughts (at least whomever reported that post).
Have fun out there guys, enjoy your gear of choice. You will get the shots you want with any of the top gear these days. Just need to learn the system you choose in depth and make it work in your hands. Probably best to chase the lens lineup you want over the cameras.
Ironically if you do want to read my original comparison you can go view Mike's post that quoted it and said I have no business on this thread. What a joke.
arbitrage wrote:
I had a great day with the R5II and 100-500 yesterday. I'm not going to bother going into details of my thoughts comparing it to the A1 as I see my original comparison was censored and deleted so obviously this forum doesn't support free speech and people don't value my thoughts (at least whomever reported that post).
Have fun out there guys, enjoy your gear of choice. You will get the shots you want with any of the top gear these days. Just need to learn the system you choose in depth and make it work in your hands. Probably best to chase the lens lineup you want over the cameras.
Ironically if you do want to read my original comparison you can go view Mike's post that quoted it and said I have no business on this thread. What a joke....Show more →
We would very much like to hear your opinion.
The irony is that it is allowed to be here contributing nothing, but it is not allowed to call someone a fool, even if it is true. I guess that is what got your post censored, not the A1 comparison.
alundeb wrote:
We would very much like to hear your opinion.
The irony is that it is allowed to be here contributing nothing, but it is not allowed to call someone a fool, even if it is true. I guess that is what got your post censored, not the A1 comparison.
That is true. Wish Fred had just gone in and deleted that first paragraph and let the actual comparison stand. I'd go edit that out myself if the post still was there.
arbitrage wrote:
That is true. Wish Fred had just gone in and deleted that first paragraph and let the actual comparison stand. I'd go edit that out myself if the post still was there.
Can you repost a new version of your original comparison please? I missed your first post before it got nuked... I'd really like to read your opinion. Thanks.
Rudy
