IMO, if you look at the final image any of these bodies produce they are all very overpriced compared to the used pricing of the previous generation. The new generation won't get you much, at all. It's like racing where you pay a very hefty premium for a very tiny bit of extra performance. But if you want the best of the latest and greatest, you need to pay to play. And Sony is the most expensive, but it is the best available option out there for speed and resolution.
One must consider the ecosystem too when taking about pricing. If one is starting from scratch, is the Sony ecosystem worth an extra 2k to you? For a lot of people, the answer would be yes considering the have the best bodies available for every single category of photography. A1II, A9III, A7SIII, A7R5 are all the best available in their categories. And the lens selection is huge with the 3rd parties. People claimed Canon had the 28-70 f/2, well, Sony just bested that with a more lightweight version. I think all Canon has on Sony right now is the 100-300, but honestly when comparing size/weight the Sony 300 is very amazing.
If someone thinks the Canon ecosystem is best (I think it's the worst as of today), then the R5II is the best value by far.
artsupreme wrote:
IMO, if you look at the final image any of these bodies produce they are all very overpriced compared to the used pricing of the previous generation. The new generation won't get you much, at all. It's like racing where you pay a very hefty premium for a very tiny bit of extra performance. But if you want the best of the latest and greatest, you need to pay to play. And Sony is the most expensive, but it is the best available option out there for speed and resolution.
One must consider the ecosystem too when taking about pricing. If one is starting from scratch, is the Sony ecosystem worth an extra 2k to you? For a lot of people, the answer would be yes considering the have the best bodies available for every single category of photography. A1II, A9III, A7SIII, A7R5 are all the best available in their categories. And the lens selection is huge with the 3rd parties. People claimed Canon had the 28-70 f/2, well, Sony just bested that with a more lightweight version. I think all Canon has on Sony right now is the 100-300, but honestly when comparing size/weight the Sony 300 is very amazing.
If someone thinks the Canon ecosystem is best (I think it's the worst as of today), then the R5II is the best value by far....Show more →
Canon is losing big time on the lenses game, IMO. Too expensive, too big, too heavy, and the IQ isn't even better than Sony's directly comparable lenses. I admittedly don't know much about Nikon's lenses other than they have a couple of great unicorn lenses, but they are MASSIVE and expensive, too.
nycdarkness wrote:
Still have an A1 and I also have R1. preordered the A1 II. Call me a gear hobbyist. I am not saying the R1 is not overpriced, but once you use a R1 it's really hard to put down. It's really you have to try it to understand it body. Yes the 24mp sucks.
Does the R1 EVF blow the A1 out of the water?
Sony EVFs really underperform their spec sheets because of all the resolution drops they do with AF or faster refresh rates etc.
I just finished reading through the thread on R1 first impressions and it has me really wanting to try an R1. I think I may have to renew my CPS Platinum membership and get a 3-4 day test drive trial of the R1 and a 100-300 or 400/2.8. I don't plan on buying one or switching to Canon but I'd still love to try one. I used my CPS to try the R3 and RF600/4 a couple years ago.
arbitrage wrote:
Does the R1 EVF blow the A1 out of the water?
Sony EVFs really underperform their spec sheets because of all the resolution drops they do with AF or faster refresh rates etc.
I just finished reading through the thread on R1 first impressions and it has me really wanting to try an R1. I think I may have to renew my CPS Platinum membership and get a 3-4 day test drive trial of the R1 and a 100-300 or 400/2.8. I don't plan on buying one or switching to Canon but I'd still love to try one. I used my CPS to try the R3 and RF600/4 a couple years ago....Show more →
According to my two buddies who bought them the EVF is the only thing they are excited about other than matching slots. They are really impressed with the EVF so Canon nailed it there, but both of them say the new car smell period for this camera was a very short one like it was going from the 1DXII to 1DXIII.
artsupreme wrote:
...both of them say the new car smell period for this camera was a very short one like it was going from the 1DXII to 1DXIII.
Well, Canon seems to have "solved" autofocus and high ISO, judging from early adopter feedback. Apparently, the only thing the R1 lacks is resolution.
All of this would be fine if people just stopped editing photos on 5K Retina displays...
In all seriousness, I feel that nearly every professional use case for a 40fps camera is satisfied by 24Mpx. It was not so long ago that this was considered very high resolution, sufficient for commercial photography. For typical editorial web and print use, even for a full-page glossy magazine, 6MP was honestly more than sufficient.
The output requirements for professional editorial photography have not really changed since then. What has changed is that today 24Mpx seems subjectively "low res" on a 5K display.
I think Canon has unapologetically aimed the R1 at a small, select audience of working professionals. I don't think they are chuffed one whit what Petapixel (or anyone else) thinks a "flagship" is supposed to be, and they don't worry much about the A1 or Z8/9. (The 5D2 is perfectly competitive with those other models.)
I recognize that wildlife photography (and especially birding) often demands heavy cropping making resolution more important, and that online forums like FM overflow with enthusiasts of these disciplines. For many of you, the other brands' flagships might be more appealing. I just don't think Canon has aimed the R1 at you.
trippalhealick wrote:
Flaghship to flagship, the A1 II blows the R1 out of the water as far as (proven and objective) feature sets go. The reason Sony priced the A1 and A1 II at $6500 US is because....well, because they can. Look back at the Canon 1DX III. It was $6500, and how many years ago was it released? The simple fact is, neither of the other two major manufacturers have a camera that meets the A1 in specs. Close, very close, but not 100% when measured side-by-side. So, I wouldn't call the A1 II overpriced. I'd call the Canon R5 II EXTREMELY competitively priced. A value buy if you're just getting in and don't already have a bunch invested in a system. I consider switching back to Canon frequently, but I have to remind myself why I switched away from them years ago. Their stagnation of innovation. Sony brought a LOT of that when they started this mirrorless market, and continue to lead, IMO.
Edit: Anyone looking for a used A1 can thank me for the soon-to-be lowered used prices, because I pre-ordered the A1 II about 15 seconds into it being live on B&H. lol...Show more →
Again, I’ll try to type it slower….this is not a flagship to flagship comparison. Because what each company calls their flagship cameras, differ in the use cases they’re intended for. Sony’s Flagship camera feature set aligns more with the non flagship R5 II. vis a vis….. and despite your consternation with that reality, both cameras produce great photos to meet the intended use case requirements. If two photographers go out to shoot their cameras one Canon R5II and the other Sony A1II for the same use case, the only limiting factor is gonna be between each of their ears, and not the cameras. So again, anyway you want to frame it — the A1II is overpriced, but Sony knows that if you’re only invested in their lens ecosystem, you have to pay whatever they’re charging. I have about the same amount of cameras and lenses from both companies, so I have the freedom to choose the better value, the R5II
garyvot wrote:
Well, Canon seems to have "solved" autofocus and high ISO, judging from early adopter feedback. Apparently, the only thing the R1 lacks is resolution.
All of this would be fine if people just stopped editing photos on 5K Retina displays...
In all seriousness, I feel that nearly every professional use case for a 40fps camera is satisfied by 24Mpx. It was not so long ago that this was considered very high resolution, sufficient for commercial photography. For typical editorial web and print use, even for a full-page glossy magazine, 6MP was honestly more than sufficient.
The output requirements for professional editorial photography have not really changed since then. What has changed is that today 24Mpx seems subjectively "low res" on a 5K display.
I think Canon has unapologetically aimed the R1 at a small, select audience of working professionals. I don't think they are chuffed one whit what Petapixel (or anyone else) thinks a "flagship" is supposed to be, and they don't worry much about the A1 or Z8/9. (The 5D2 is perfectly competitive with those other models.)
I recognize that wildlife photography (and especially birding) often demands heavy cropping making resolution more important, and that online forums like FM overflow with enthusiasts of these disciplines. For many of you, the other brands' flagships might be more appealing. I just don't think Canon has aimed the R1 at you....Show more →
Yeah, the 5K panels are finally starting to flow and I imagine there will be many more options soon and prices will come down for everyone. Then it will be 6k and 8k right behind them, so the 24mp will only get worse. The AI upscaling will work on the higher MP bodies files too when we get to 16K. Asus recently released a 27" 5K and BenQ has announced they have one on the way as well:
You are correct about aiming the R1 at a small audience but I would not say a ton of them are working professionals. Most full time "working pros" I know are using older gear and usually stay a generation behind, and some still use DSLR's. They don't visit forums like these and they don't keep up with gear like us gearheads.
The only two guys I know who bought R1's own the R3 and they are not full time working pros. They buy every body no matter what it is. They say the camera is nice to use with the EVF and they can use the extra fps occasionally but it's still the same 24mp sensor when they upload, and they know the R3 is no slouch. The R3 is more than adequate for AF/high ISO and most people are sticking with the R3 this round.
R1 is not for me at its price point because the R3 is plenty but if I wanted the fastest camera available it would be the A9III. Being able to boost up to 120fps vs R1 40fps is quite a jump.
Talking about AF nowadays is becoming kind of irrelevant as they are all so good, so as you know it comes down to the photographer.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Again, I’ll try to type it slower….this is not a flagship to flagship comparison. Because what each company calls their flagship cameras, differ in the use cases they’re intended for. Sony’s Flagship camera feature set aligns more with the non flagship R5 II. vis a vis….. and despite your consternation with that reality, both cameras produce great photos to meet the intended use case requirements. If two photographers go out to shoot their cameras one Canon R5II and the other Sony A1II for the same use case, the only limiting factor is gonna be between each of their ears, and not the cameras. So again, anyway you want to frame it — the A1II is overpriced, but Sony knows that if you’re only invested in their lens ecosystem, you have to pay whatever they’re charging. I have about the same amount of cameras and lenses from both companies, so I have the freedom to choose the better value, the R5II...Show more →
So I also own quite a few Canon RF lenses and Sony GM/GMII lenses and haven’t chosen the EOS R5 Mark II or the Sony A1 II yet. I currently own A1’s and a a Caon R5. If I go Canon I really have to add 24/1,4, 35/1.4 RF L lenses and possible others to give me the range of primes I have covered with Sony already. This will cost me over $2000, so I’m still trying to decide which way I go. What are you considering?
artsupreme wrote:
People claimed Canon had the 28-70 f/2, well, Sony just bested that with a more lightweight version.
28-70 f/2 is sooo 2018, people go to 24-105 f/2.8 now
I see several lens categories where I would prefer the RF options over the FE mount alternatives. Some where there is no match (lower end) and some where I prefer the RF variant (example 14-35 and compact 70-200 F4). But Canon needs to step up and make more lenses to compete with SoNi.
trippalhealick wrote:
Canon is losing big time on the lenses game, IMO. Too expensive, too big, too heavy, and the IQ isn't even better than Sony's directly comparable lenses. I admittedly don't know much about Nikon's lenses other than they have a couple of great unicorn lenses, but they are MASSIVE and expensive, too.
I wouldn't say "losing" per see - Canon has excellent RF glass but they made some business choices that are impacting their user base:
1) The RF mount: with a 50mm throat and 20mm flange, it gave their engineers a lot of design options to e.g. put bigger glass towards the mount, but it also have impacts on the size of the lenses, from what I understand. It was originally argued that a larger lens-mount would allow for faster glass, but Sony has now been able to ship 50/1.2 GM, 28-70/2 GM, etc which are smaller and lighter than the Canon equivalent.
2) To maximize profits, they decided not to allow third-party AF lenses on the platform. Personally, I think this is a big mistake, and it has clearly disadvantaged Canon's customers. For instance, I'd love to see some smaller all-metal Sigma primes with RF mount (Tamron is now out of the prime lens game, I think).
Then again, everything in business and product design is a question of compromises, priorities, and trade-offs. My preferences are clearly not the same as Canon's, Nikon's or Sony's. And we as sitting-by-our-computers-design-experts clearly don't have very good visibility into the realities of what it takes to R&D, produce and ship camera lenses or cameras.
Again, it all come down to individual needs. If Canon has the glass you want, I think their product offering (camera + lenses) are probably the best in the business (body design, ergonomics, AF performance, intuitive design (apart from on/off switch...), etc).
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Again, I’ll try to type it slower….this is not a flagship to flagship comparison. Because what each company calls their flagship cameras, differ in the use cases they’re intended for. Sony’s Flagship camera feature set aligns more with the non flagship R5 II. vis a vis….. and despite your consternation with that reality, both cameras produce great photos to meet the intended use case requirements. If two photographers go out to shoot their cameras one Canon R5II and the other Sony A1II for the same use case, the only limiting factor is gonna be between each of their ears, and not the cameras. So again, anyway you want to frame it — the A1II is overpriced, but Sony knows that if you’re only invested in their lens ecosystem, you have to pay whatever they’re charging. I have about the same amount of cameras and lenses from both companies, so I have the freedom to choose the better value, the R5II...Show more →
I wasn't arguing with you. I'm agreeing with you. lol
arbitrage wrote:
Does the R1 EVF blow the A1 out of the water?
Sony EVFs really underperform their spec sheets because of all the resolution drops they do with AF or faster refresh rates etc.
I just finished reading through the thread on R1 first impressions and it has me really wanting to try an R1. I think I may have to renew my CPS Platinum membership and get a 3-4 day test drive trial of the R1 and a 100-300 or 400/2.8. I don't plan on buying one or switching to Canon but I'd still love to try one. I used my CPS to try the R3 and RF600/4 a couple years ago....Show more →
I'm strongly considering trying Canon, as well. Either the R5 II or the R1. I've been hearing about the superior AF from too many sources.
Edit: Strike that. I must stop succumbing to the greener grass syndrome. lol
swldstn wrote:
So I also own quite a few Canon RF lenses and Sony GM/GMII lenses and haven’t chosen the EOS R5 Mark II or the Sony A1 II yet. I currently own A1’s and a a Caon R5. If I go Canon I really have to add 24/1,4, 35/1.4 RF L lenses and possible others to give me the range of primes I have covered with Sony already. This will cost me over $2000, so I’m still trying to decide which way I go. What are you considering?
Well, I did a 180 and purchased the R5II when I swore I wasn’t going to upgrade. The clincher for me was the 20% discount from Canon direct, and the relatively high price I got for my used R5 ($2800). I was watching closely the release of the A1II ..hoping it’d trump the R5II, so I can finally retire/sell off my ancient A9, and my workhorse A7RIV…. But like I’ve been saying in all these threads, for me since I am in both camps and have the R5II, the A1II doesn’t offer enough from what I already have in the R5II. Now I may buy the A1II somewhere down the road to upgrade my current Sonys…but it’ll be once the A1II comes down about $1000-$1500, or used a year or so down the road.
alundeb wrote:
28-70 f/2 is sooo 2018, people go to 24-105 f/2.8 now
I see several lens categories where I would prefer the RF options over the FE mount alternatives. Some where there is no match (lower end) and some where I prefer the RF variant (example 14-35 and compact 70-200 F4). But Canon needs to step up and make more lenses to compete with SoNi.
Yes and before we give this 28-70 F2 battle to Sony, let’s await the real world and lab tests. From I’ve been reading Sony cut some corners to reduce the size and weight, and is relying on software corrections, while Canon did not. So let’s see if software vs optical-glass wins out.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Yes and before we give this 28-70 F2 battle to Sony, let’s await the real world and lab tests. From I’ve been reading Sony cut some corners to reduce the size and weight, and is relying on software corrections, while Canon did not. So let’s see if software vs optical-glass wins out.
Even if that's true, when will you ever *not* use software with a digital camera and raw files?
Well, I did a 180 and purchased the R5II when I swore I wasn’t going to upgrade. The clincher for me was the 20% discount from Canon direct, and the relatively high price I got for my used R5 ($2800). I was watching closely the release of the A1II ..hoping it’d trump the R5II, so I can finally retire/sell off my ancient A9, and my workhorse ARIV…. But like I’ve been saying in all these threads, for me since I am in both camps and have the R5II, the A1II doesn’t offer enough from what I already have in the R5II. Now I do -lan somewhere down the road to upgrade my current Sonys…but it’ll be once the A1II comes down about $1000-$1500, or used a year or so down the road.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Well, I did a 180 and purchased the R5II when I swore I wasn’t going to upgrade. The clincher for me was the 20% discount from Canon direct, and the relatively high price I got for my used R5 ($2800). I was watching closely the release of the A1II ..hoping it’d trump the R5II, so I can finally retire/sell off my ancient A9, and my workhorse ARIV…. But like I’ve been saying in all these threads, for me since I am in both camps and have the R5II, the A1II doesn’t offer enough from what I already have in the R5II. Now I do -lan somewhere down the road to upgrade my current Sonys…but it’ll be once the A1II comes down about $1000-$1500, or used a year or so down the road.
Thanks for the update. I’ve seen some very nice pricing on the R5 Mark II. If I get one I will probably sell my R5 but I’m sure I would never get $2800 for it even though it’s very lightly used. If I only shot Canon I would definitely hold on to it because I hate not having a backup body. For Sony my two A1’s are in great shape so there is really no rush to trade up.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Yes and before we give this 28-70 F2 battle to Sony, let’s await the real world and lab tests. From I’ve been reading Sony cut some corners to reduce the size and weight, and is relying on software corrections, while Canon did not. So let’s see if software vs optical-glass wins out.
If it’s anything like the 35VCM I would love it. The distortion often adds more character and it’s nice to have the option to uncheck the correction profile. Sounds like Sony is doing it all in a smaller/lighter package like Canon is doing with the VCM line 👍
swldstn wrote:
Thanks for the update. I’ve seen some very nice pricing on the R5 Mark II. If I get one I will probably sell my R5 but I’m sure I would never get $2800 for it even though it’s very lightly used. If I only shot Canon I would definitely hold on to it because I hate not having a backup body. For Sony my two A1’s are in great shape so there is really no rush to trade up.
Someone really clueless must have bought his R5 for $2800 considering that’s what you can buy them for new. I think the most you might get is 2k. I plan on selling mine for $1800 or less.
