There are not "winners" of that sort. Some products are better for various purposes than anothers and that should be emphasized, letting the consumer decide what is best for their purposes. Personally I'm not interested in any of those in between cameras that are too expensive just as a toy, but not up to the higher standards. Sony has the biggest gap with no 45MP body and only the pro A1 II that is not affordable for many.
Of course the full systems are more important than a specifc body or so.
EB-1 wrote:
There are not "winners" of that sort. Some products are better for various purposes than anothers and that should be emphasized, letting the consumer decide what is best for their purposes. Personally I'm not interested in any of those in between cameras that are too expensive just as a toy, but not up to the higher standards. Sony has the biggest gap with no 45MP body and only the pro A1 II that is not affordable for many.
Of course the full systems are more important than a specifc body or so.
EBH
I actually think A7V is a great all-rounder. It has significantly higher DR compared to the fast cameras (A1, A9), albeit only in mechanical shutter. It also has reasonably fast readout speed, which should be enough for most action. It also has improved battery life.
So, photo-wise it seems a great camera to me. Of course, there are still some things missing compared to the competition, like eyeMF aids, but those will probably never gonna happen.
This guy owns all 3 main systems and his evaluations are very vague, supoosedly starting with an attempt to name "the best" and then naming one of everything. I don't find much depth to the few videos I have watched from him - mostly about super tele primes.
j4nu wrote:
I actually think A7V is a great all-rounder. It has significantly higher DR compared to the fast cameras (A1, A9), albeit only in mechanical shutter. It also has reasonably fast readout speed, which should be enough for most action. It also has improved battery life.
So, photo-wise it seems a great camera to me. Of course, there are still some things missing compared to the competition, like eyeMF aids, but those will probably never gonna happen.
I don't subscribe to the Googles U-Tube, but it seems to me mostly the a7V is useful for Sony folks at that mid-grade and not really into having a bunch of cameras. Today I'd rather get a used Z8 or R5 or even A1 with latest FW, though the latter is more expensive for a lightly used copy.
I suppose that all three brands sell more from that 33MP segment than the high grades, but 33MP just seems so 2013. We would have loved to have the high FPS and AF performance back then though.
EB-1 wrote:
I don't subscribe to the Googles U-Tube, but it seems to me mostly the a7V is useful for Sony folks at that mid-grade and not really into having a bunch of cameras. Today I'd rather get a used Z8 or R5 or even A1 with latest FW, though the latter is more expensive for a lightly used copy.
I suppose that all three brands sell more from that 33MP segment than the high grades, but 33MP just seems so 2013. We would have loved to have the high FPS and AF performance back then though.
EBH
I hear you — sort of — about the MP. However, I think that it isn't so much a matter of a camera being dated (2013? Really?) is it is about aligning with a different set of priorities. In truth 33MP is plenty (more than enough, really) for the great majority of users, so the MP alone doesn't make a camera dated.
It seems o me (as. non-Sony shooter who tracks this and other brands) that Sony prioritized a somewhat lower price point and faster operation in this camera — and that's likely to be a very good fit for a lot of people.
He is obviously a very skilled photographer and educator, but still, I agree, he has a Canon preference (which is completely OK). Personally, I think one has to factor in value as well. You can get a Nikon Z6 III + the excellent 24-120/4 for the same price as a Canon R6 III or Sony a7V body alone. Add than they Nikon 180-600 is $600 cheaper than a Canon RF 100-500. And don't get me started on the Canon closed lens mount.
I kind of agree that there is no clear winner. It depends on which features you value the most, and your overall philosophy, as well as your budget.
EB-1 wrote:
I suppose that all three brands sell more from that 33MP segment than the high grades, but 33MP just seems so 2013. We would have loved to have the high FPS and AF performance back then though.
EBH
Tell that to A9 buyers .
Seriously though, A7V has some advantages even over A1II, so it comes down to what's important to you...
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not seeing that any of those cameras are enough for a system changer.
EBH
Well, the only reason would be budget. If you have e.g. a $3K budget, it is might be worth selling whatever Canon or Sony set-up you have to get a Nikon Z6 III with a 24-120/4, add a 40/2 when you scraped together some more money. With Sony or Canon, you can only get that R6 III or a7V body for that budget.
There's so much of this crap on Utube. I have to ignore all of these 'experts' just to get through a day. Posting this here is not doing anyone a service.
Jeffrey wrote:
There's so much of this crap on Utube. I have to ignore all of these 'experts' just to get through a day. Posting this here is not doing anyone a service.
Yes, I fully agree. We join forums to get away from the noise of these videos.
Posting a review video when it’s a new release is fine, but here we’re just giving someone a platform and letting him set the premise for discussion on this forum, unless the OP is the guy in the video.
He did a good job at pointing out what he perceived as each cameras strong points and weak points. The fact that he didn't pick a winner has no value to me as it is just opinion. And, most photographers who are moving up to mirrorless Full Frame from aps-c or dSLR etc. will go for an entry level FF model. In this case the Nikon Z5ii is the clear winner.
P.S. I still shoot with a D850/D500 because they meet all my needs.
I find Jan's videos to be some of the very few useful ones for what I shoot.
Jan is similar to me in that he shoots all three systems off and on.
The reason I trust his opinions on cameras and lenses I haven't used is that whenever he does a video about the cameras or lenses that I do own his opinion mirrors mine to a tee.
I know his primary system is Canon but the pros he brings up with Canon cameras are legit. And the pros and cons he brings up about all three systems are legit.
I don't see why someone would want him to pick a winner? If one camera dominated in 80-90% of the categories then he would probably declare a winner. But I think when these three cameras each have their different strengths and weaknesses then it is more useful to hear about which features each camera excels at over the others.
If one excels at video then I don't have to prioritize that one as I rarely shoot video. If one excels at BIF, yet I rarely shoot BIF, then I can instead prioritize the one that excels at perched bird subject recognition.
I have no issue with people sharing videos like this on here. I'm glad the OP posted this for people that weren't aware of it. Someone looking to buy into a mid-range MILC will surely benefit from this video to help them decide on which brand to buy.
- The Nikon wins in read out speed….. buy my guide
- The R6 III wins in initial focus……. take my course
- The Sony has better tracking…… buy my book
Meh, if I wanted you’re guide I’d go to the links in your description lol
Feel free to make some deep value videos comparing all cameras so we can watch and get more value from it
For me his videos has value and it shows all cameras will do the job.. Sometimes better sometimes not.
No-one push us to buy camera and take a course. Good photographers get great results with almost all cameras (+ $10,000 Lens )
.
)
.