patotts wrote:
I can't be the only one wanting something near top of the line, with the best body design, to compete with the Z8 and Canon R5 II?
From the pricing perspective I see where you're coming from. But from the perspective of capabilities, I do not. For context: I own the A7RV, A1 II and Nikon Z8.
Putting Nikon aside, the bodies of the A1 II and A7RV feel the same. I shake my head when people talk about the "ergonomic upgrade" offered by the A1 II and A9 III. What upgrade? It's the same body with tiny shaping differences. They are so subtle that I had to get different wrist straps to easily differentiate both bodies by feel during a photoshoot.
In the AF-S single-shot mode the Sonys and the Z8 are basically identical. The resolution advantage of the R is negligible in practice, and the IQ is essentially the same across all three.
Once you're in the AF-C continuous shooting mode, the R continues to hold its own for far longer than the Internet gives it credit for. It competently tracks focus and maintains a respectable 7fps in lossless RAW mode. This is more than anough for many, may types of moving subjects, and you can bump it to 10fps if 10-bit RAWs are OK (and they are for 99.9% use cases).
And only once you're in the serioiusly high-speed/sniping mode, the A1 II and the Z8 begin to show their muscle with 20fps+ bursts and pre-capture. I just don't see any other differentiating variables, and therefore there's not much room for a camera that sits above 7fps but below 20fps.
The A1 II and the Z8 are direct competitors. Just because the Z8 is cheaper, don't assume it leaves any capability room for another camera between itself and the A1 II. The Z8 is not "near the top of the line", it is THE top. People sometimes shit on its lower resolution EVF, but one needs to try one to see what Nikon's design goal was. This camera offers a substantial ergonomic differentiation from the Sonys that should automatically make it a winner for those who prefer its body design philosophy.
I believe the gap you see is caused by Sony's pricing. Evidently they enjoy enough demand to command a huge premium for the A1 II.
P.S. Everything above only applies to stills. Videos, as we all know, are not worthy of a discussion and should be banned from the Internet.
patotts wrote:
I can't be the only one wanting something near top of the line, with the best body design, to compete with the Z8 and Canon R5 II?
From the pricing perspective I see where you're coming from. But from the perspective of capabilities, I do not. For context: I own the A7RV, A1 II and Nikon Z8.
Putting Nikon aside, the bodies of the A1 II and A7RV feel the same. I shake my hand when people talk about the "ergonomic upgrade" offered by the A1 II and A9 III. What upgrade? It's the same body with tiny shaping differences. They are so subtle that I had to get different wrist straps to easily differentiate both bodies by feel during a photoshoot.
In AF-S single-shot mode the Sonys and the Z8 are basically identical. The resolution advantage of the R is negligible in practice, and the IQ is essentially the same across all three.
Once you're in the AF-C continuous shooting mode, the R continues to hold its own for far longer than the Internet gives it credit for. It competently tracks focus and maintains a respectable 7fps in lossless RAW mode. This is more than anough for many, may types of moving subjects, and you can bump it to 10fps if 10-bit RAWs are OK (and they are for 99.9% use cases).
And only once you're in the serioiusly high-speed/sniping mode, the A1 II and the Z8 begin to show their muscle with 20fps+ bursts and pre-capture. I just don't see any other differentiating variables, and therefore there's not much room for a camera that sits above 7fps but below 20fps.
The A1 II and the Z8 are direct competitors. Just because the Z8 is cheaper, don't assume it leaves any capability room for another camera between itself and the A1 II. The Z8 is not "near the top of the line", it is THE top. People sometimes shit on its lower resolution EVF, but one needs to try one to see what Nikon's design goal was. This camera offers a substantial ergonomic differentiation from the Sonys that should automatically make it a winner for those who prefer its body design philosophy.
I believe the gap you see is caused by Sony's pricing. Evidently they enjoy enough demand to feel like commanding a huge premium for the A1 II.
P.S. Everything above only applies to stills. Videos, as we all know, are not worthy of a discussion and should be banned from the Internet.
Oct 11, 2025 at 05:37 PM
Previous versions of old-gregg's message #16906786 « Speculation time: Sony a7V body design and... »
