patotts wrote:
The bottom line is that Sony has a gap in the product offering they are not willing to fix, which is where the Canon R5 II shines. A stacked high MP sensor in a near top of the line body around the $4K mark.
Sony has the A9 series for speed, the A1 as the top-of-the-line for top-dollar, A7R series for high MP but slow sensor readout and fewer FPS, the entry level a7-series, the a7S for video, etc - but many of us want jack-of-all-trades around 40 MP that can shoot sport, portrait, wildlife, travel, documentary, etc in a package around $4k.
Man, if you could shoot Sony E-mount glass on a Canon R5 II like you can on a Nikon Z-mount, I'd be all over it......Show more →
Yes. What I would really like is a stacked sensor camera with 40-50 mpix in a small or compact body with superlative AF and IBIS.. I can totally do without 1,000,000 FPS shooting rates, CF cards, and ultra-high resolution EVF & LCD.
The R5II is almost enough to make me think of leaving Sony. But I own too many fine FE lenses and the R5II's body is too big. But if Canon made a version of the R5II in a compact body, I would probably run two 35mm systems.
Sony has always lurched us for bodies, but their lens prices makes up for it.
I was on the fence about jumping to Nikon for their 800 f/6.3 and Z8, but then realised for the same price I could just stay with my A1 and grab the 600 f/4. Not to mention me nabbing the 70-200 GM2 for $2400 AUD and 24-70 GM2 for $1800 AUD kinda sealed the deal for me to stay on Sony and just bemoan the body prices.
How do you talk about value when you switch cameras/ lenses/systems every second week??
You have blown value out the window.
Depends on how you do it.
I bought the Z8 new in box on FM for around $3k, sold it locally after a month of use for $100 more than I bought it for.
Because it still lists for $3500 + tax at B&H.
patotts wrote:
The bottom line is that Sony has a gap in the product offering they are not willing to fix, which is where the Canon R5 II shines. A stacked high MP sensor in a near top of the line body around the $4K mark.
Sony has the A9 series for speed, the A1 as the top-of-the-line for top-dollar, A7R series for high MP but slow sensor readout and fewer FPS, the entry level a7-series, the a7S for video, etc - but many of us want jack-of-all-trades around 40 MP that can shoot sport, portrait, wildlife, travel, documentary, etc in a package around $4k.
Man, if you could shoot Sony E-mount glass on a Canon R5 II like you can on a Nikon Z-mount, I'd be all over it......Show more →
Sony can leave 33mp or lower to A7C lineup and beef up A7V.
A7V to A7R5 could be what A9III is to A1II, similar price point but customer decides ultimate speed vs best of all worlds. A baby A1 II at 36~ mp.
berimbolo wrote:
Does Nikon even make their own glass?
Of course they do. Nikon is first and foremost an optical company.
And not only lenses for cameras, they are also experts about very high end technical lenses used in semi-conductor equipment under the brand Tochigi Nikkor, they manufacture the best binoculars money can buy (pricey though), they have a great microsopes line up, they produce and sell high end reading glasses,...
Having worked with Sony and Nikon in parallel for years, even the brilliant 50mm f1.2 GM (possibly the best GM lens in my book) is not able to match the (clearly much heavier and bulkier) Nikon 50mm f1.2 S. Sony is an amazing lens designer but they have chosen to prioritize weight/compactness over absolute performance (and still deliver great performance, which is remarkable). It' a great compromise for many photographers, but one you have to be aware of.
And obviously, it's not even close in long lenses line up as has been highlighted clearly. And this is prior to Nikon releasing their line up of super tele zoom lenses of which they have been leaders since their first 200-400mm f4 released in... 1984. If you love a light 300mm f2.8 then great, I personally far prefer a 100/120-300mm f2.8 even if it is bulkier.
arbitrage wrote:
The Canon precapture continues to confuse people and has been misreported by many reviewers.
The confusion comes in that most reviewers tested the precapture at 30FPS and therefore they were getting 15 precapture frames which is 0.5s worth. They therefore reported that the R5II does 0.5s precapture.
But this is incorrect. What the R5II does is up to 15 frames at your selected FPS. If you select 15FPS you can get up to 15 precapture frames which is 1s of precapture (of course you have to hold down the half shutter for that 1s to maximize it). If you select 5FPS you can get 3s worth of precapture (again 15 frames if you hold for 3s).
On top of not having any control over the time of precapture (other than selecting different FPS and holding down longer) the R5II also doesn't allow precapture to be activated by an AF-ON button. Only 1/2 press of the shutter button can activate it. Sony can activate via either way or both. Also R5II has no way to assign a custom button to just toggle pre-capture on and off. Sony can.
In actual use I found most of that didn't really matter...I would always use precapture at 30FPS so would get 0.5s which is reasonable. I found with A9III that I liked 0.3s or 0.4s but 0.5s isn't too far off my ideal and may be the ideal for some with slightly slower reaction times. I also found that if one was a back button AF shooter that there was no reason to have to turn precapture off. If you didn't want it you just shot normally with AF-ON to focus and when you hit the shutter it hadn't been held down and therefore hadn't saved any precapture frames. If you wanted precapture you half-pressed the shutter at the same time as using AF-ON and you got your frames. Of course this trick doesn't work if you are a shutter AF shooter. Then you are always getting precapture frames when it is on and have to menu dive to the top item in My Menu to toggle precapture on/off or use a C1/2/3 mode to have precapture on in one mode and off in another....Show more →
Yikes! I did not realize that the R5 had the limitation of only supporting pre-capture with the shutter. This is a non-starter for us back-button AF shooters. As a sports shooter, I like the fact that I can program my A9iii's C3 button to toggle recapture. When I'm taking casual photos of the team taking a break from the action, I don't want precapture.
Anyway, the A1ii sounds exactly like what I'd expect from an update from the market leader. Keep the price high and the feature set improvement minimal, but compelling enough. If Sony sees the A1ii struggle in the market, they have the option to lower the street price. If not, they preserve the margin. As a former product manager, this makes total sense to me.
chiron wrote:
Yes. What I would really like is a stacked sensor camera with 40-50 mpix in a small or compact body with superlative AF and IBIS.. I can totally do without 1,000,000 FPS shooting rates, CF cards, and ultra-high resolution EVF & LCD.
The R5II is almost enough to make me think of leaving Sony. But I own too many fine FE lenses and the R5II's body is too big. But if Canon made a version of the R5II in a compact body, I would probably run two 35mm systems.
The R5ii might have a stacked sensor but IIRC its readout speed is still significantly slower than the A1's so IMO that makes it a bit less versatile for anyone wanting to predominantly use the e-shutter for fast-moving subjects. It's one reason I still would not consider a high-MP canon body despite having a soft spot for Canon from my dSLR days
wordfool wrote:
The R5ii might have a stacked sensor but IIRC its readout speed is still significantly slower than the A1's so IMO that makes it a bit less versatile for anyone wanting to predominantly use the e-shutter for fast-moving subjects. It's one reason I still would not consider a high-MP canon body despite having a soft spot for Canon from my dSLR days
Yes it is slower. But it is the exact same readout as the A9 and A9II which we all raved about never having to use MS for action.
How do you talk about value when you switch cameras/ lenses/systems every second week??
You have blown value out the window.
Who on here is talking about every 2nd week?
These are system switches that are gradually done over years. I've never cold sold all of one system and bought another.
If I'm switching I usually own 2-3 systems at once and figure things out.
I value paying a fair price and buying an R5II is a better value. But I'm not saying I wouldn't be losing money doing so. You always lose money when you switch.
But if someone new to the game asks me what to buy I ain't telling them to go spend $8500+tax on an A1II when they can get the same FPS, same precapture and better bird AF in a camera for a fraction of the price. Of course I will tell them the lens selection blows so it may actually be worth the $8500 to not be stuck in the RF lens pool
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it is slower. But it is the exact same readout as the A9 and A9II which we all raved about never having to use MS for action.
True, and that also tells you just how advanced Sony's 50MP sensor was four years ago -- faster scanning than the R3 and R5ii, and only recently bested by the R1's 24MP sensor. Shame Sony couldn't have eked out a bit more scan speed in the A1ii to take on the Nikon Z8/Z9, but I suppose they did give us a global shutter so it's all good
patotts wrote Sony has the A9 series for speed, the A1 as the top-of-the-line for top-dollar, A7R series for high MP but slow sensor readout and fewer FPS, the entry level a7-series, the a7S for video, etc - but many of us want jack-of-all-trades around 40 MP that can shoot sport, portrait, wildlife, travel, documentary, etc in a package around $4k.
That's the 7RV you're describing. Honestly, I've been following this thread with disbelief. Since when 10fps became slow? In my humble opinion, if you're photographing at 30fps that's not photography.
All of these cameras are amazing. None present any obstacles to achieve any result you want. We're so past the point where equipment was the bottleneck to our process, that I refuse to take any arguments in this thread seriously. Every feature and every aspect of every camera mentioned in this thread solidly lands into "this is more than you'll ever need" terriotiry, regardless of who you are and which feature you're talking about.
I didn't notice any improvement whatsoever in the images people post online since the year 2000 or so. You have 20-30fps and AI-based eyelash focusing now, and you're still posting the same ducks, cats and HDR sunsets onto online photo competitions. I realize that this is a forum about equipment and the usual "this is just a tool" argument shouldn't apply, but can we at least agree on what the real and tangible limitations of the current technology? I refuse to believe that 30fps or more resolution is what we need. And I believe this confusion exists within Sony R&D. They are not getting any quality inputs from the users who're still struggling to discover the purpose of half the menu items in the camera they bought 4 years ago.
old-gregg wrote:
That's the 7RV you're describing. Honestly, I've been following this thread with disbelief. Since when 10fps became slow? In my humble opinion, if you're photographing at 30fps that's not photography.
All of these cameras are amazing. None present any obstacles to achieve any result you want. We're so past the point where equipment was the bottleneck to our process, that I refuse to take any arguments in this thread seriously. Every feature and every aspect of every camera mentioned in this thread solidly lands into "this is more than you'll ever need" terriotiry, regardless of who you are and which feature you're talking about.
I didn't notice any improvement whatsoever in the images people post online since the year 2000 or so. You have 20-30fps and AI-based eyelash focusing now, and you're still posting the same ducks, cats and HDR sunsets onto online photo competitions. I realize that this is a forum about equipment and the usual "this is just a tool" argument shouldn't apply, but can we at least agree on what the real and tangible limitations of the current technology? I refuse to believe that 30fps or more resolution is what we need. And I believe this confusion exists within Sony R&D. They are not getting any quality inputs from the users who're still struggling to figure out what 50% of the menu items do....Show more →
So basically you are still shooting film and wish everyone else was also?? 2001 was when DSLRs came to be. You are saying that nothing that has come about since the birth of the DSLR has made any difference in people's photography?
I guess we are just a bunch of suckers suffering from the GAS.
arbitrage wrote:
So basically you are still shooting film and wish everyone else was also?? 2001 was when DSLRs came to be. You are saying that nothing that has come about since the birth of the DSLR has made any difference in people's photography?
Film has nothing to do with it. In addition to film, I regularly shoot three digital platforms from Sony, Canon and Fuji. The only two tangible dimensions of improvement for digital imaging since the early DSLR days where dynamic range, resolution and image stabilization. Nothing else mattered or made any noticeable difference. And this thread (which I read every message in) is 100% dedicated to nothingness.
If you wanted the A1 II to NOT be a disappointment, it would be nice to hear what you're expecting. And not a single poster formulated a coherent vision for what they're missing in this new camera. You know why? Because none of us are capable of reaching the limits of A1 v1 performance envelope. Sony, along with other manufacturers, are now releasing products with capabilities exceeding the needs of their users.
GAS is fantastic. GAS drivers progress. But GAS requires imagination. You should be wanting something, but you don't. All I hear is "I am not impressed" followed by silence. In the early 2000s people were dreaming about specific things: more megapixels, more sensitivity, more battery life, or whatever. Now people just passively wait to be entertained.
old-gregg wrote:
Film has nothing to do with it. In addition to film, I regularly shoot three digital platforms from Sony, Canon and Fuji. The only two tangible dimensions of improvement for digital imaging since the early DSLR days where dynamic range, resolution and image stabilization. Nothing else mattered or made any noticeable difference. And this thread (which I read every message in) is 100% dedicated to nothingness.
If you wanted the A1 II to NOT be a disappointment, it would be nice to hear what you're expecting. And not a single poster formulated a coherent vision for what they're missing in this new camera. You know why? Because none of us are capable of reaching the limits of A1 v1 performance envelope. Sony, along with other manufacturers, are now releasing products with capabilities exceeding the needs of their users.
GAS is fantastic. GAS drivers progress. But GAS requires imagination. You should be wanting something, but you don't. All I hear is "I am not impressed" followed by silence. In the early 2000s people were dreaming about specific things: more megapixels, more sensitivity, more battery life, or whatever. Now people are just passively wait to be entertained....Show more →
Auto focus has dramatically improved over the years…same as the speed of the cameras. These may not matter to you for the subjects you shoot, but they definitely improved the ability to capture photos for many.
Sometimes one needs to look outside their box to realize cameras are used for many different applications.
old-gregg wrote:
Film has nothing to do with it. In addition to film, I regularly shoot three digital platforms from Sony, Canon and Fuji. The only two tangible dimensions of improvement for digital imaging since the early DSLR days where dynamic range, resolution and image stabilization. Nothing else mattered or made any noticeable difference. And this thread (which I read every message in) is 100% dedicated to nothingness.
If you wanted the A1 II to NOT be a disappointment, it would be nice to hear what you're expecting. And not a single poster formulated a coherent vision for what they're missing in this new camera. You know why? Because none of us are capable of reaching the limits of A1 v1 performance envelope. Sony, along with other manufacturers, are now releasing products with capabilities exceeding the needs of their users.
GAS is fantastic. GAS drivers progress. But GAS requires imagination. You should be wanting something, but you don't. All I hear is "I am not impressed" followed by silence. In the early 2000s people were dreaming about specific things: more megapixels, more sensitivity, more battery life, or whatever. Now people are just passively wait to be entertained....Show more →
As far as I am concerned I was mostly hoping for a 1/500s sensor read out speed for flash sync.
Besides:
- in camera raw video
- 60 fps lossless raw with infinite buffer
- a move to CFExpress B (faster, cheaper, larger capacities)
- a brighter EVF
old-gregg wrote:
Film has nothing to do with it. In addition to film, I regularly shoot three digital platforms from Sony, Canon and Fuji. The only two tangible dimensions of improvement for digital imaging since the early DSLR days where dynamic range, resolution and image stabilization. Nothing else mattered or made any noticeable difference. And this thread (which I read every message in) is 100% dedicated to nothingness.
If you wanted the A1 II to NOT be a disappointment, it would be nice to hear what you're expecting. And not a single poster formulated a coherent vision for what they're missing in this new camera. You know why? Because none of us are capable of reaching the limits of A1 v1 performance envelope. Sony, along with other manufacturers, are now releasing products with capabilities exceeding the needs of their users.
GAS is fantastic. GAS drivers progress. But GAS requires imagination. You should be wanting something, but you don't. All I hear is "I am not impressed" followed by silence. In the early 2000s people were dreaming about specific things: more megapixels, more sensitivity, more battery life, or whatever. Now people just passively wait to be entertained....Show more →
I am not at all disappointed in the new A1 II. As matter of fact, I placed a pre-order already. In addition to improved AF capabilities, I certainly do appreciate the pre-capture feature of the new A1 II. It is for sure something that I missed in the original A1. Unless you do fast paced/action photography, like sport or bird/wildlife photography, it is a feature that is superfluous in almost any other facets of photography, IMHO.
old-gregg wrote:
All of these cameras are amazing. None present any obstacles to achieve any result you want. We're so past the point where equipment was the bottleneck to our process, that I refuse to take any arguments in this thread seriously. Every feature and every aspect of every camera mentioned in this thread solidly lands into "this is more than you'll ever need" terriotiry, regardless of who you are and which feature you're talking about
If what you say is true, then I can only think of two possible outcomes. (1) Camera sales should crash since no one will buy any more cameras, or (2) Whoever are still buying the latest and greatest equipment are just stupid, and there apparently is still a large population of that.
The question then is why should your conclusion be trusted more than the opposite group of people.
Anyway, this has been debated plenty of times and no need to rehash the arguments. My point though is, what you stated is just your opinion, not a fact.
bernardl wrote:
As far as I am concerned I was mostly hoping for a 1/500s sensor read out speed for flash sync.
Besides:
- in camera raw video
- 60 fps lossless raw with infinite buffer
- a move to CFExpress B (faster, cheaper, larger capacities)
- a brighter EVF
Cheers,
Bernard
For me, just the 60fps burst and 8k60 video on top of the existing improvements.
+ Better trained neural network, however this is just software training, nothing to do with the camera itself.
CFExpress B doesn't make sense because then:
1) either the body would have to be much larger to accomodate 2 card slots with proper heating management
2) or just 1 CFE-B and 1 UHS-II, like the competition, which is inferior to 2x CFE-A
3) also, looking at the competition, the camera never write at faster than 800MB/s with CFE-B cards, even the Z9, so it would not even be faster.
old-gregg wrote:
Film has nothing to do with it. In addition to film, I regularly shoot three digital platforms from Sony, Canon and Fuji. The only two tangible dimensions of improvement for digital imaging since the early DSLR days where dynamic range, resolution and image stabilization. Nothing else mattered or made any noticeable difference. And this thread (which I read every message in) is 100% dedicated to nothingness.
If you wanted the A1 II to NOT be a disappointment, it would be nice to hear what you're expecting. And not a single poster formulated a coherent vision for what they're missing in this new camera. You know why? Because none of us are capable of reaching the limits of A1 v1 performance envelope. Sony, along with other manufacturers, are now releasing products with capabilities exceeding the needs of their users.
GAS is fantastic. GAS drivers progress. But GAS requires imagination. You should be wanting something, but you don't. All I hear is "I am not impressed" followed by silence. In the early 2000s people were dreaming about specific things: more megapixels, more sensitivity, more battery life, or whatever. Now people just passively wait to be entertained....Show more →
old-gregg wrote:
That's the 7RV you're describing. Honestly, I've been following this thread with disbelief. Since when 10fps became slow? In my humble opinion, if you're photographing at 30fps that's not photography.
All of these cameras are amazing. None present any obstacles to achieve any result you want. We're so past the point where equipment was the bottleneck to our process, that I refuse to take any arguments in this thread seriously. Every feature and every aspect of every camera mentioned in this thread solidly lands into "this is more than you'll ever need" terriotiry, regardless of who you are and which feature you're talking about.
I didn't notice any improvement whatsoever in the images people post online since the year 2000 or so. You have 20-30fps and AI-based eyelash focusing now, and you're still posting the same ducks, cats and HDR sunsets onto online photo competitions. I realize that this is a forum about equipment and the usual "this is just a tool" argument shouldn't apply, but can we at least agree on what the real and tangible limitations of the current technology? I refuse to believe that 30fps or more resolution is what we need. And I believe this confusion exists within Sony R&D. They are not getting any quality inputs from the users who're still struggling to discover the purpose of half the menu items in the camera they bought 4 years ago....Show more →
I have the a7RV for close to two years now. It is not my favorite camera, but Sony glass keeps me on the platform. a7RV is great for landscape and portraits, but the rolling shutter is a real downer - the sensor readout speed is annoying slow. The way the EVF framerate drops in continuous AF in unnerving. I could use more FPS at time. Video is OK but not great. No pre-caputre. Want me to go on?
I know that for my needs and wants, the Canon R5 II is a better fit as an imaging platform, but still, I don't like the Canon RF glass options, thus I stay on Sony, even if they miss that $4K semi-pro all-around body that would fit my needs. And no, I don't want to, or feel that I should have to, spend $6,500 + tax a Sony A1 II to get what I want (along with plenty of stuff I would never take advantage of).
