old-gregg wrote:
Fun fact: for my film scanning work the A7RV actually outperformed the 100MP GFX, again, because of better glass available for the E-mount.
This was my experience with the Hasselblad X2D II. Their 20-35E couldn't compete with the 16-35 GM II in the corners. And I was using an A1 II, not a 60+ MP body.
Add to that the size, price and speed advantage of the Sony and it was hard to keep the Hasselblad system for what I wanted it -- landscape. The colours were marginally better, but I had to use Phocus for that which was clunky for someone who uses Lightroom predominantly, and it wasn't enough of an improvement to compensate for the resolution.
May 31, 2026 at 11:40 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
deepDEEPpurple wrote:
From the conversation above I can imagine what kind of conversation happened in each company.
Nikon: "Our cameras are timeless."
Translation: "Our flagship is old enough to start school."
Canon: "Look at our amazing 100-500!"
Everyone: "Cool. What comes next?"
Canon: "...a much larger credit card bill."
Sony: "Here's a 100-400, a 200-600, a 400-800, teleconverters, pre-capture, and an EVF that feels like IMAX."
Canon and Nikon: *nervously checking product roadmaps*
Although it is true that at the moment Sony has some really nice cameras for wildlife (A9 III, A1 II, and A7r VI) and some really nice lenses (100-400 f/4.5; 400-800 f/6.3-8; 200-600 f/5.6-6.3, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, and 600 f/4) all three companies have strong offerings for wildlife.
Sure, Nikon needs to develop a Z9 II and a Z8 II, but their lens lineup is great. The 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 PF, and 800 f/6.3 PF and their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 both with built-in TC is a fantastic lineup of primes. The 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 is of course similar to the Sony offering and the announced 120-300 f/2.8 with the built-in TC will be bigger than the 100-400 f/4.5, but also have more capability. All they really need is something to compete with the Sony 400-800.
Canon is a bit further behind, but the R5 II is a great camera and competes very well with the Sony A7r VI trading off resolution for faster read out speed. Not a bad tradeoff at all, and it is cheaper. They need to develop their lens lineup but they have a 400 f/2.8, 600 f/4, a really nice 100-300 f/2.8 and 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, and a useful 200-800 f/6.3-9. There have been rumors of a 300-600 for some time and that would begin to flesh out their lens lineup well and Canon has the advantage that there are a lot of the DSLR lenses still around and they work very well on their mirrorless cameras. This gives them a bit of time to develop their mirrorless lineup. They were clearly late to the mirrorless party and still need to catch up, but I don't see any reason they won't do so in time. If they added a 300 and a 500 (and maybe an 800), to the expected 300-600 they would have a very strong lens lineup.
Bottom line is i expect these companies to be leapfrogging one another for years and the competiton is good, and reasonable people can prefer any of the systems. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
After many debates with myself, I decided to upgrade my A7Rv to an A1ii. Since I added an A9iii 18 months ago, the slight difference in ergos has grown to be increasingly irksome. Although the A7Rvi has some great innovations, the following is what sealed the deal for the A1ii for me as a hobbyist photographer who primarily shoots travel, street, Milky Way landscapes, downhill alpine action and après-ski music with my primary body:
- same ergos: The only thing I will probably program differently is making C5 a toggle for shutter type
- same batteries
- same L-bracket
- faster flash sync speed: I think the diffference between 1/250 and 1/400 is pretty meaningful when shooting live events
I don’t think higher DR with electronic shutter will make much difference when shooting snowboarding action shots, but I figure it can’t hurt.
And as for the whole “this system or that system” question, we’re married to our lenses and just date the bodies, right? There is unique glass on e-mount that I love, so I don’t see getting a system divorce to switch to Nikon or Canon in the short or medium term.
We're in the gap between the "chosen few" and the "real users" getting the A7Rvi. There are some with handling time, limited "raw" editing available. Right now most of us might as well just wait on broader use and reporting instead of getting worked up by every splash in the punch bowl.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
After many debates with myself, I decided to upgrade my A7Rv to an A1ii. Since I added an A9iii 18 months ago, the slight difference in ergos has grown to be increasingly irksome. Although the A7Rvi has some great innovations, the following is what sealed the deal for the A1ii for me as a hobbyist photographer who primarily shoots travel, street, Milky Way landscapes, downhill alpine action and après-ski music with my primary body:
- same ergos: The only thing I will probably program differently is making C5 a toggle for shutter type
- same batteries
- same L-bracket
- faster flash sync speed: I think the diffference between 1/250 and 1/400 is pretty meaningful when shooting live events
I don’t think higher DR with electronic shutter will make much difference when shooting snowboarding action shots, but I figure it can’t hurt.
And as for the whole “this system or that system” question, we’re married to our lenses and just date the bodies, right? There is unique glass on e-mount that I love, so I don’t see getting a system divorce to switch to Nikon or Canon in the short or medium term....Show more →
I decided to finally buy a mint used A1 II for the some of the same reason you gave. So now I have an A1II, original A1, A7RV, A7V, and the A7CII and A7CR. Trying to decide if I keep the A7CR and/or the A7RV. May also sell the A1 if it makes sense.
bwcolor wrote:
Ahh.. someone that loves degraded images at all but fast apertures. Time for you to move to medium format.
I don't need an 8mm lens, but I like to see the option being available. Same with a 100MP body. It would be just another option. For now, personally, I'm quite OK with my 50MP A1. But there are certainly subjects that would benefit from higher resolution. For wildlife, cropping is part of the game, for example.
And that being said, 60MP to 100MP is not as big a jump as it may seem. 100MP is not really pushing the limits. Sure, you may need better glass and use more optimal apertures, but we'd still like to have that 100MP+ option. If you don't like it, Sony has many other bodies of various resolutions from 24 to 60MP.
bwcolor wrote:
Ahh.. someone that loves degraded images at all but fast apertures. Time for you to move to medium format. I’m hoping that they not go to higher resolution. There are so many other aspects that make up an image, or shooting experience. But seriously, full frame is not the right vehicle for higher resolution. I should add, that I’m one that loves high resolution and for most of what I shoot it isn’t FF. So, I’m not suggesting that you are off regarding your interest. On the other hand, there probably is a niche f/1.2-f/4.0(5.6) community where ultra high resolution FF would be perfect....Show more →
Higher resolutions allows me to carry less lenses and still get the images I want. I don’t always need to make 30x40 prints…but during travels if the resolution allows me to leave a longer lens behind…it’s a win.
Medium format is too big and bulky for my travel needs.
Manu-K1 wrote:
I don't need an 8mm lens, but I like to see the option being available. Same with a 100MP body. It would be just another option. For now, personally, I'm quite OK with my 50MP A1. But there are certainly subjects that would benefit from higher resolution. For wildlife, cropping is part of the game, for example.
And that being said, 60MP to 100MP is not as big a jump as it may seem. 100MP is not really pushing the limits. Sure, you may need better glass and use more optimal apertures, but we'd still like to have that 100MP+ option. If you don't like it, Sony has many other bodies of various resolutions from 24 to 60MP....Show more →
It isn’t a matter of liking. I haven’t a problem with Sony coming out with a new series.. maybe the UR.. for Ultra Resolution, but what I don’t want is the R series going in this direction unless the A1 series takes over the 60-67 MPIX duties. This upgrade (R5 to R6) was well thought out. At 67Mpix with FF we should still be aware of diffraction degradation with progressively small apertures, but increasing dynamic range and reducing sensor read times came without major downsides. It is still the case that the A7Rvi will probably be less adept at high ISO compared to your A1, so future high ISO and sensor readout speed improvements are still on the table for the R series. Regarding 100 MPIX not pushing the limits, this is certainly the case, but again.. perhaps the limits are better pushed with IQ4 class sensors.
Just an FYI for anyone looking for an A7R VI, as of Saturday 05/30, Camera West SoHo, in New York City had one in stock, Just ask for Festa.
They arent open Sundays, so I imagine it's still there.
chez wrote:
Higher resolutions allows me to carry less lenses and still get the images I want. I don’t always need to make 30x40 prints…but during travels if the resolution allows me to leave a longer lens behind…it’s a win.
Medium format is too big and bulky for my travel needs.
Absolutely.. that makes sense and I completely agree. My primary use for high resolution is to negate the need for large longer focal length lenses. I also have weight/size savings by using slower lenses, but with a 100Mpix full frame camera diffraction begins around f/5.6. Macro lenses would be even more limited and we would then need great focus bracketing performance. So, the whole thing is one big compromise. I guess like everything else, there will be a lot of different approaches to this compromise.
swldstn wrote:
I decided to finally buy a mint used A1 II for the some of the same reason you gave. So now I have an A1II, original A1, A7RV, A7V, and the A7CII and A7CR. Trying to decide if I keep the A7CR and/or the A7RV. May also sell the A1 if it makes sense.
That's a nice collection of bodies! I don't want to suggest you Marie Kondo your bodies down to a non-overlapping set, but it would be a way to fund an A9iii. It is a unique and occasionally magical Sony shooting experience and would be a great addition to your stable.
deepDEEPpurple wrote:
From the conversation above I can imagine what kind of conversation happened in each company.
Nikon: "Our cameras are timeless."
Translation: "Our flagship is old enough to start school."
Canon: "Look at our amazing 100-500!"
Everyone: "Cool. What comes next?"
Canon: "...a much larger credit card bill."
Sony: "Here's a 100-400, a 200-600, a 400-800, teleconverters, pre-capture, and an EVF that feels like IMAX."
Canon and Nikon: *nervously checking product roadmaps*
I'll take Nikon's long lens line-up any day oif the week if forced to choose between the two. I have the Nikon 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 and that will soon have 3 lenses with built-in 1.4x TCs. Until Sony announced the 100-400 f/4.5 only the 200-600 was of interest. 400-800 is just too slow being f/8 from 600mm. If it had been f/6.3 @ 600mm then it would have replaced my 200-600 and I would then add the 100-400 f/4.5 to pair with it. I'm holding my breath for a GM 200-600 f/5.6 or a 150-600 f/4.5-6.3 whose IQ with the 1.4x@840mm matches the 400-800 @800mm.
Unfortunately Nikon is still stuck on the same resolution they had in 2017 with the D850.
Who knows when and if they will get a better resolution sensor made eventually.
And with primes you are so often too close or too far, so youi want more resolution for cropping.
I'm really hoping for more and better tele zooms.
EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately Nikon is still stuck on the same resolution they had in 2017 with the D850.
Who knows when and if they will get a better resolution sensor made eventually.
And with primes you are so often too close or too far, so youi want more resolution for cropping.
I'm really hoping for more and better tele zooms.
EBH
Everyone concentrates on sensors when it comes to why Nikon is lagging Sony so badly. It is true that Nikon is a couple of generations behind when it comes to sensors. But Sony is willing to provide Nikon more current sensors just as they always have. Sony will not manufacture anyone a custom core analog design despite the Nikon myths. But does allow modifications above that level.
However, Sony is not willing to provide Nikon or any other camera company with the processors that Sony manufactures to optimize sensors for Sony’s cameras.
Nikon like all the other Sony camera sensor customers have been forced to use Fujitsu ARM processors. These are not able to keep up performance wise with high resolution stacked sensors. That is one of the primary reasons for Nikon's lower RAW performance numbers. Nikon does keep pushing the Fujitsu processors through frequent updates, but there are limits. Given the current state of the processor industry Fujitsu is not willing to prioritize the camera industry. This is creating a huge problem for camera manufacturers as they consequently remain behind Sony and the future is looking to be even worse. This problem is the reason for the delay in the next generation Z9/Z8 cameras among others like the Leica M12.
The industry sees a more advanced processor supplier as an extesential need at this point. They are all trying to port a Qualcom processor to replace the Fujitsu. So far, no one has been successful in that effort. Maybe Sony will relent and sell some customers a processor some day. But for now this problem is giving Sony an increasingly obvious advantage.
1bwana1 wrote:
Everyone concentrates on sensors when it comes to why Nikon is lagging Sony so badly. It is true that Nikon is a couple of generations behind when it comes to sensors. But Sony is willing to provide Nikon more current sensors just as they always have. Sony will not manufacture anyone a custom core analog design despite the Nikon myths. But does allow modifications above that level.
However, Sony is not willing to provide Nikon or any other camera company with the processors that Sony manufactures to optimize sensors for Sony’s cameras.
Nikon like all the other Sony camera sensor customers have been forced to use Fujitsu ARM processors. These are not able to keep up performance wise with high resolution stacked sensors. That is one of the primary reasons for Nikon's lower RAW performance numbers. Nikon does keep pushing the Fujitsu processors through frequent updates, but there are limits. Given the current state of the processor industry Fujitsu is not willing to prioritize the camera industry. This is creating a huge problem for camera manufacturers as they consequently remain behind Sony and the future is looking to be even worse. This problem is the reason for the delay in the next generation Z9/Z8 cameras among others like the Leica M12.
The industry sees a more advanced processor supplier as an extesential need at this point. They are all trying to port a Qualcom processor to replace the Fujitsu. So far, no one has been successful in that effort. Maybe Sony will relent and sell some customers a processor some day. But for now this problem is giving Sony an increasingly obvious advantage. ...Show more →
Very interesting. Do you work in the industry to have such knowledge? I was of the opinion that Canon's TI (Texas Instruments) based ARM SoC was the basis of their Digic X/Accelerator processors and are also more advanced than Nikon's EXPEED7.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Very interesting. Do you work in the industry to have such knowledge? I was of the opinion that Canon's TI (Texas Instruments) based ARM SoC was the basis of their Digic X/Accelerator processors and are also more advanced than Nikon's EXPEED7.
The above information of course doesn't apply to Canon because they do not buy the majority of their sensors from Sony.
I think that Nikon being the third largest maker of cameras, and the biggest one that doesn't have it's own sensor/processor manufacturing ability is the most obvious to suffer from these problems. The smaller ones each have their own issues. This problem is the reason that some are now pursuing alternate sensor and processor suppliers with new urgency.
1bwana1 wrote:
Everyone concentrates on sensors when it comes to why Nikon is lagging Sony so badly. It is true that Nikon is a couple of generations behind when it comes to sensors. But Sony is willing to provide Nikon more current sensors just as they always have. Sony will not manufacture anyone a custom core analog design despite the Nikon myths. But does allow modifications above that level.
However, Sony is not willing to provide Nikon or any other camera company with the processors that Sony manufactures to optimize sensors for Sony’s cameras.
Nikon like all the other Sony camera sensor customers have been forced to use Fujitsu ARM processors. These are not able to keep up performance wise with high resolution stacked sensors. That is one of the primary reasons for Nikon's lower RAW performance numbers. Nikon does keep pushing the Fujitsu processors through frequent updates, but there are limits. Given the current state of the processor industry Fujitsu is not willing to prioritize the camera industry. This is creating a huge problem for camera manufacturers as they consequently remain behind Sony and the future is looking to be even worse. This problem is the reason for the delay in the next generation Z9/Z8 cameras among others like the Leica M12.
The industry sees a more advanced processor supplier as an extesential need at this point. They are all trying to port a Qualcom processor to replace the Fujitsu. So far, no one has been successful in that effort. Maybe Sony will relent and sell some customers a processor some day. But for now this problem is giving Sony an increasingly obvious advantage. ...Show more →
Do you have any evidence or sources that supports your claim that Sonys processor are so so far ahead of everyone else? Feels like conjecture on your part. The A7rVI is a brand new camera, with state of the art tech. The Nikon Z9/Z8 are 5-6yrs old now, you’re comparing tech thats generations ahead.
Also keep in mind, there isnt a single Sony Mirrorless E-Mount camera that does internal RAW, and this new magic A7RVI and the flagship A1II, only do 8K30 whereas the inferior processor of the Z8/Z9 does 8K/60 internal RAW video
Manu-K1 wrote:
And that being said, 60MP to 100MP is not as big a jump as it may seem. 100MP is not really pushing the limits. Sure, you may need better glass and use more optimal apertures, but we'd still like to have that 100MP+ option. If you don't like it, Sony has many other bodies of various resolutions from 24 to 60MP.
The rule of thumb used to be that a 2.1 improvement was meaningful, though there few situations in which you will be able to see a deference between 60MP and 100MP.
