p.2 #1 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
As per Sony leading the market share, I am not sure. I have recently read conflicting information. Some reports did indicate Canon is leading the market.
I like the Sony system and I want to stay in it. But I think if one looks purely at Camera/price performance and features, it seems Canon wins. Sony compensates in the lens ecosystem.
Here is one way to explain it: Canon blocks third party lenses (mostly) which forces its user base to buy Canon lenses. This allows Canon to reduces its camera prices effectively, subsidize its camera body. This lures many buyers initially because they may not pay attention to the secondary cost of the lenses which is higher for Canon users (no third party lenses).
Sony allows third party lenses which let users who are on budget to save quite a bit of money by buying third party lenses. However, since Sony is losing quite a bit of profit by this policy, it canot afford to sell its cameras at reduced price.
I personally don't mind pay the prices Sony is demanding for its camera. I do have another grip with Sony though which I may explain in another message.
p.2 #2 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
To me the A7V is not the problem. the $4000 difference in price between the A1II and A7V is. The older A1, a great camera I already own, only reduces that difference to $2800 but has no precapture so you have to really know if you want 50 Mpixels or precapture. The A9iI is also not a solution at $4488 since it also has no precapture and is only 24.2 Mpixels.
Also many YouTubers have begun to point out that less expensive third party lens also won’t pair well the 30 fps of these cameras so in fact Sony will maybe make up the revenue with increase sales of its first party G/GM lenses. Maybe that has been Sony’s strategy all along.
So we really need to price out a system with both bodies AND lenses that work together to achieve the frame rates we desire to shoot at. Realize that the Viltrox AF 85/2.0 EVO and AF 85/1.4 PRO will only offer maybe 15 FPS on the A7V but bought them to use on the A7CR/A7CII for the EVO and A7RV for the PRO.
p.2 #3 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
raminolta wrote:
I personally don't mind pay the prices Sony is demanding for its camera. I do have another grip with Sony though which I may explain in another message.
I do feel like the 'entry level' full frame model should be exceed $2000; but at the same time I'm not sure how much they can cut off this new A7V. It's already a bit lackluster with the EVF for example and the video features (according to some). It's no EOS RP of course but it's also not $3000 in my opinion.
What Sony needs is a $2000 camera with 2025 tech; and a new >75MP high resolution monster
p.2 #4 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
raminolta wrote:
This color rendition is one of those supernatural beliefs some want to keep repeating without no supporting evidence; pure superstition.
Now challenge me.
It's pointeless to challenge someone not willing (or able) to see...
p.2 #5 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder. Only thing I give Canon is the edge on out of Camera colors. But who cares about that? I don’t shoot in jpgs. I find Sony files way more malleable in post — and way more dynamic range without a doubt.
The blue line on the chart below is the Canon... please explain how the Sony cameras have "way more dynamic range" using this actual measured data...
As for the colours, I don't ever shoot in JPEG, but I find it takes a great deal more work to get pleasing landscape/nature/wildlife colours out of the Sony RAW files than it does from the Canon files, but that's obviously subjective. However, if you're wiling to put in a little extra work, the Sony files are certainly good enough.
p.2 #6 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Cliff L. wrote:
Sony has a slight edge in resolution; Canon has a slight edge in dynamic range and a large edge in colour rendition. Different things are important to different people, obviously.
"colour rendition" - you mean OOC jpegs?
"Canon has a slight edge in dynamic range"
It's called baked-in noise reduction. Canon sensors are worse than Sony so they cover it up with NR.
p.2 #7 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Cliff L. wrote:
The blue line on the chart below is the Canon... please explain how the Sony cameras have "way more dynamic range" using this actual measured data...
As for the colours, I don't ever shoot in JPEG, but I find it takes a great deal more work to get pleasing landscape/nature/wildlife colours out of the Sony RAW files than it does from the Canon files, but that's obviously subjective. However, if you're wiling to put in a little extra work, the Sony files are certainly good enough.
For quite a while I’ve uses Colbalt Images color profile to give almost identical colors from RAW images from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. It cost a little and the profile is typically camera model specific but it gives me the flexibility to use the different cameras without concern.
p.2 #8 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
swldstn wrote:
For quite a while I’ve uses Colbalt Images color profile to give almost identical colors from RAW images from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. It cost a little and the profile is typically camera model specific but it gives me the flexibility to use the different cameras without concern.
p.2 #10 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
That’s not a Sony problem if:
1. 3rd party lens is not fully licensed by Sony
2. 3rd party lens software is faulty and not properly optimized
3. 3rd party manufacturing flaws
So how do we know the 3rd party lens company is not at fault?
Agreed, and most likely we will never know exactly where the issue falls. But to give credit where credit is due, earlier this year, a Z8 firmware update broke some third party Z lenses, and Nikon ended up putting out a fix. For example, I highly doubt the megadap ETZ is officially licensed by Nikon, so I was pleasantly surprised to see Nikon fix the issue. It will be interesting to see if Sony ends up pushing out a fix or not. I am also curious to see what happens with the Viltrox TC 2x. The understanding was that Sony would not allow third party TC's.
On paper, the E mount currently has the lenses that interest me the most to add to my kit, such as the Sigma 300-600mm f4 and Sony 28-70mm f2. But between the third party lens limitations and the lack of a high speed camera at a competitive price, it has kept me waiting on the sidelines. Admittedly, it may be my own hang up, but I find it hard to justify spending 7k on an a1ii to then not be able to fully take advantage of the camera or lenses I would like to use with it. Now if Sony would allow Sigma lenses to work at 30fp and use TC's I would definitely be considering committing to E mount and picking up an a1ii, even though I do feel it's overpriced compared to Nikon and Canon.
p.2 #11 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Vento wrote:
At least in terms of the European market, the price difference between a Nikon Z8, Canon R5 II, and Sony A1 II is so high that you still have several thousand left over to buy OEM lenses.
The Sony A1 II costs a whopping €4,000 more than a Nikon Z8, which is enough to buy a few nice lenses.
That's enough for a new Z 24-70/2.8 S & Z 135/1.8 S Plena before you reach the price of the A1 II.
Or, to put it another way, for the price of one A1 II, you can get two Z8s and still have some money left over.
With a Canon R5 II, you're left with €3,700 ≈ US$4300 compared to a Sony A1 II, which is also enough for a nice basic lens setup.
If price is a factor, and it is for the majority of buyers in the R5II/Z8 category, then the A1 II is not a real alternative, as it is in a completely different price category.
The closest alternative from Sony is primarily the predecessor model, the A1.
However, I would agree that Sony is sufficiently well positioned there with the now significantly reduced A1 and the new A7V, so there is no need for a directly competing model....Show more →
1. R5ii is not the same class as the A1ii.
2. A1 original used is very cheap.
3. OEM lenses by Canon are pretty limited compared to even Sony's oem, let alone the 100s of third party. It isn't just about price, it is about options of focal lengths/etc.
p.2 #12 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Cliff L. wrote:
The blue line on the chart below is the Canon... please explain how the Sony cameras have "way more dynamic range" using this actual measured data...
As for the colours, I don't ever shoot in JPEG, but I find it takes a great deal more work to get pleasing landscape/nature/wildlife colours out of the Sony RAW files than it does from the Canon files, but that's obviously subjective. However, if you're wiling to put in a little extra work, the Sony files are certainly good enough.
I don’t care what a chart shows, I’m talking real world. Slightly off topic but related, any good accountant can make the books slant any way he/she wants to. Like I said, I’ve lived with both platforms fully loaded (not one lens or two), and I know what I know having used them both extensively. There’s way more dynamic range in the Sony files compared to my Canon. In many instances I shot events with both platform cameras, and similar lenses to to see the results. That I am now just in the Sony camp is all you need to know.
p.2 #13 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
lightskyland wrote:
"colour rendition" - you mean OOC jpegs?
"Canon has a slight edge in dynamic range"
It's called baked-in noise reduction. Canon sensors are worse than Sony so they cover it up with NR.
---------------------------------------------
swldstn wrote:
For quite a while I’ve uses Colbalt Images color profile to give almost identical colors from RAW images from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. It cost a little and the profile is typically camera model specific but it gives me the flexibility to use the different cameras without concern.
---------------------------------------------
Cliff L. wrote:
What's a jpeg? I've only ever shot RAW.
Whatever you call it, it certainly works better than whatever manipulations Sony does...
It's funny how some people get so attached to a brand that they will say truly outlandish things to defend it...
For the Nth time— I shot both Canon and Sony in parallel since 2009 — All Canon since the early 1980s… so I am not a fanboy just spewing fan’isms (just made that word up 😂.
And just for giggles, here’s what ChatGPT has to say on the subject:
p.2 #15 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
Cliff L. wrote:
Canon has a slight edge in dynamic range
Cliff L. wrote:
It's pointeless to challenge someone not willing (or able) to see...
Cliff L. wrote:
Whatever you call it, it certainly works better than whatever manipulations Sony does...
Except there is nothing supporting your point to be seen in the plot you supplied. The only conclusion that can be arrived from the plot is that it's a wash even if not considering the NR Canon is known to do. There is no slight edge by Canon shown in that plot. BTW, you also conveniently omitted the curve for A1ii.
So yourself is making an outlandish point to start with as the other guy you accuse of.
p.2 #18 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
guidostow wrote:
I hope after seeing the success of the photo only Hasselblad X2D II 100C, Sony offers a photo only high resolution camera.
I think the rumored A7RVI is targeted here but even if you only shoot stills you might need multiple cameras. One that emphasizes high resolution with lots of dynamic range and other that emphasizes high shooting speed and fast sensor readout for action. That is how historically I have positioned the cameras Of mine with the A7RV and A1 I own now. Just wish the A1II wasn't so much more than the price a used A1 attracts so I could get pre-capture added.
p.2 #20 · Sony’s missing camera. There is a hole in the lineup.
swldstn wrote:
I think the rumored A7RVI is targeted here but even if you only shoot stills you might need multiple cameras. One that emphasizes high resolution with lots of dynamic range and other that emphasizes high shooting speed and fast sensor readout for action. That is how historically I have positioned the cameras Of mine with the A7RV and A1 I own now. Just wish the A1II wasn't so much more than the price a used A1 attracts so I could get pre-capture added.
The A1/A9 cameras handle the speed and fast sensor read space just fine just fine.
?