p.1 #1 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Lately, people have started asking if Sony is falling behind Nikon and Canon in the low to mid range FF market.
I see this as:
a7rV vs Z8 vs R5 II
a7IV vs Z6III / Z5II vs R6 II / R8
This site is usually a lot more level headed than most, so I was curious what your opinion is. Are the a7rV and a7IV overdue for an update? Or is this just another case of newer cameras being shinier in people's eyes?
p.1 #4 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Technology is very close... so I think there's going to be overlap all the time.
One day Z8 may be better until there is a7rVi, and then again there is Z8 II. No one is able to test all this systems, how much better Brand A beats Brand B in all scenarios.
I am waiting for Z7 III and I hope is going to be better camera than Sony a7rV. ( or similar to not existing yet a7rVi)
p.1 #5 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Yeah, saw the PetaPixel article talking about this and IMO one problem is that Sony's lineup has grown to be too big and complicated, not helped by the fact they continue selling old models alongside the new versions and have a model numbering system that makes little sense, where the 9-series and 1-series are both more expensive than the 7 series. At least Canon and Nikon have a numbering system that makes (more) sense. I guess Sony likes to milk its old models for revenue rather than launch new models.
If you want a Sony FF sensor body you can currently buy an A73, A74, A7R4a, A7R5, A7S3, A7C, A7C2, A7CR, A92, A93, A1, A1ii, and the ZV-E1... which leads into the FX series and another weird numbering system. And don't even get me started on the APS-C bodies, which sometimes seem like an afterthought -- at B&H you can currently buy an A6100, A6400, A6600, and A6700. At least the numbering makes a bit more sense, from oldest to newest, but what happened to the in between models?!
p.1 #7 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Ya in the entry level FF market (Z5 II/R8) Sony doesn't have much. The closest modern body Sony has for that is the A7CII (or A7IV if it's on sale) but the closest price wise is the A7 III which is a fine camera still but compared to the Z5II & R8 it really doesn't match up aside from the IQ.
As for the midrange (price wise) of the market (A7RV/Z8/R5 II) I feel like Sony has kind of pigeonholed themselves in to a corner where their 2 other competitors give you a relatively high-res stacked sensor and with relatively minor DR penalty for most shooters While the A7RV only offer ~15 more MP. To be fair the A7RV is more than enough for non-action shooters or even those dabbling in action shooting but the Z8 & R5 II are more versatile bodies that can handle non action shots for most folks as well as the A7RV and leaves the A7RV in the dust when it does come to action shooting. Sony shooters need to get an A1/A1 II if they want an equivalent body.
I feel like if Sony wants to keep the A7R lineup around they need to go all in on MP (80-100MP), give us 16bit RAW output, the A1's mechanical shutter or maybe some leaf shutter lenses and make this a landscape/portrait oriented body imo.
So ya if you're talking about bodies only I do feel like Sony has a gap to fill in the entry to midrange markets (more so on the entry level).
p.1 #8 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
wordfool wrote:
Yeah, saw the PetaPixel article talking about this and IMO one problem is that Sony's lineup has grown to be too big and complicated, not helped by the fact they continue selling old models alongside the new versions and have a model numbering system that makes little sense, where the 9-series and 1-series are both more expensive than the 7 series. At least Canon and Nikon have a numbering system that makes (more) sense. I guess Sony likes to milk its old models for revenue rather than launch new models.
If you want a Sony FF sensor body you can currently buy an A73, A74, A7R4a, A7R5, A7S3, A7C, A7C2, A7CR, A92, A93, A1, A1ii, and the ZV-E1... which leads into the FX series and another weird numbering system. And don't even get me started on the APS-C bodies, which sometimes seem like an afterthought -- at B&H you can currently buy an A6100, A6400, A6600, and A6700. At least the numbering makes a bit more sense, from oldest to newest, but what happened to the in between models?!
Take a look at the Canon lineup at B&H…is it really better? R1, R3, R5, R6 and R8 are full frame but the R7 is apsc…that makes a ton of sense. And why so many full frame models?
Sony uses the A7n designation to differentiate between versions of the same line. IE: A73 and A74.
Canon uses R5xx designation to differentiate between versions of the same line: IE: R5 and R5 mkii.
What makes Canon mirrorless lineup so different than Sony’s.
p.1 #10 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
chez wrote:
Take a look at the Canon lineup at B&H…is it really better? R1, R3, R5, R6 and R8 are full frame but the R7 is apsc…that makes a ton of sense. And why so many full frame models?
Sony uses the A7n designation to differentiate between versions of the same line. IE: A73 and A74.
Canon uses R5xx designation to differentiate between versions of the same line: IE: R5 and R5 mkii.
What makes Canon mirrorless lineup so different than Sony’s.
Yeah, but in Canon's case, the higher the number the further down the range you go (the R7 being the outlier in some senses), which makes sense. The R1 is the flagship, the R8 the most stripped down option. And the "Marks" (which is a naming system Canon invented IIRC) indicate the newest model. To me that's logical. And that's five FF models with distinct feature levels and sensor resolutions, which is arguably two less than Sony (A1, A9, A7, A7R, A7S, A7C, A7CR)
Compare this to Sony's 7 series -- you have the plain numbers, the S versions, the C versions, and the R versions (and the Ra version), all offering different tiers of sensor and features. We know what they all are, but logic suggests (to me at least) that they should be separately numbered series. The A7R series is IMO akin to the R5 (high resolution, general purpose, almost best AF), while the plain A7 models are equivalent to Canon's R6 or R8
p.1 #11 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
chez wrote:
I’m still rocking the ancient A7r3 and it’s an amazing camera that can be picked up for less than $1000…best bang for the buck bar none.
Not if you want to capture moving subjects. It is very frustrating and yes I own an a7r III. The a7r V was the first of that line to really track focus reliably including the 200-600, which I found was sub-par on the a7r IV.
To be fair the a7r III has a lot going for it including the noise levels which are very good for the MP.
p.1 #12 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Sony could use a 45MP body in the <$4000 range, but having a usable ES mode and 20 FPS. Somehow that has to be inferior enough to the a1 II, which is probably the problem. The a1 II is just too pricey for many amateurs yet the a7r V is too slow for many purposes.
p.1 #13 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
EB-1 wrote:
Sony could use a 45MP body in the <$4000 range, but having a usable ES mode and 20 FPS. Somehow that has to be inferior enough to the a1 II, which is probably the problem. The a1 II is just too pricey for many amateurs yet the a7r V is too slow for many purposes.
EBH
That's what speculation once had the A9 series morphing into but instead Sony went the high-priced global sensor route, effectively putting both the A1 and A9 series out of reach of many amateurs. And even if there was a "baby A1" what number would Sony give that series considering its two flagships are numbered at the opposite ends of the scale?!
p.1 #14 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Every company has a marketing function that changes numbering once in a while. I don't care what they call it though. I was expecting a new sensor in the a1 II that could better differentiate it from a 45MP new camera to come after it.
p.1 #15 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
The Z8 and Z6III are two powerhouses when it comes to video and hybrid shooting. I seriously can't think of a better pair of cameras to do everything for the next 5-8 years. The biggest caveat is one slot recording. Sony can't touch them.
p.1 #16 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Sony has more value for me than all the other camera brands because of the huge range of lenses made for the E-mount.
I especially appreciate all the Zeiss lenses made for E-mount.
I don't do anything fancy, just stills photography.
Then again, I'm not 20 or 30 any more, so the camera companies don't care what I think.
p.1 #17 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
EB-1 wrote:
Sony could use a 45MP body in the <$4000 range, but having a usable ES mode and 20 FPS. Somehow that has to be inferior enough to the a1 II, which is probably the problem. The a1 II is just too pricey for many amateurs yet the a7r V is too slow for many purposes.
EBH
Yes, from my point of view I would like an A7Cxx sized camera body, or slightly larger (say the size of the original A9, which was about perfect), that has a stacked sensor, 45mpix or more, and an improved EVF. I really am not interested in FPS or video. For under $5,000. Call it an A1C or an A8 or an A7CIII or A7CRIII.
Sony's current numbering system makes perfect sense to me, but really who cares what numbering system they use?
p.1 #18 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
chez wrote:
I’m still rocking the ancient A7r3 and it’s an amazing camera that can be picked up for less than $1000…best bang for the buck bar none.
Until you want to shoot things that move, or have rock solid eye detect, or shoot modern video, or a slew of other use cases that cause the A7R3 falls flat on its face.
It's the best value LANDSCAPE camera on the market still, that much is true.
p.1 #19 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
chez wrote:
I’m still rocking the ancient A7r3 and it’s an amazing camera that can be picked up for less than $1000…best bang for the buck bar none.
The A7RIII and the original A9 were two of the highest peaks in the Sony camera system. They work very well together as a two-camera outfit, one for still or slow subjects and the other for electronic shutter with a stacked sensor and a superb AF system whose tracking and eye-focus capacities changed how many people shoot. They are both the same great size. I still love using my A9.
p.1 #20 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
RoamingScott wrote:
Until you want to shoot things that move, or have rock solid eye detect, or shoot modern video, or a slew of other use cases that cause the A7R3 falls flat on its face.
It's the best value LANDSCAPE camera on the market still, that much is true.
I use it for street and cultural photography and find it does a wonderful job. I also use it for landscape and could not be happier. I don’t need the speed of the latest generation of cameras.
