Both of my orders say Processing on the left and Order Placed in the center. I don't recall that before.
But the batteries are being sent Expedited rather than Overnight, I suppose due to air safety restrictors.
EB-1 wrote:
Both of my orders say Processing on the left and Order Placed in the center. I don't recall that before.
But the batteries are being sent Expedited rather than Overnight, I suppose due to air safety restrictors.
1bwana1 wrote:
Exactly. As I posted earlier performance issues are sometimes licensing based, not hardware based.
I have not used modern Canon or Nikon bodies. Currently shooting an A9iii and just traded my A7Rv for an A1ii. I don't shoot BIF, but do shoot sports, street, architecture, events and landscape.
For those of you who shoot or have extensive experience shooting other systems, how does the supposed lack of processor speed actually impact your camera experience? Just wondering because for many of **my** shooting scenarios, the A7Rv isn't significantly faster / better than the A9iii.
I saw a mini review with Taylor Jackson on YouTube where they mentioned the camera coming with a charger and two batteries. Can anyone else corroborate this? That would mitigate the switch to a new battery a lot if true in my opinion.
40Driggs wrote:
I saw a mini review with Taylor Jackson on YouTube where they mentioned the camera coming with a charger and two batteries. Can anyone else corroborate this? That would mitigate the switch to a new battery a lot if true in my opinion.
No that statement is wrong. It comes with a dual charger and ONE battery.
Currently shooting an A9iii and just traded my A7Rv for an A1ii. I don't shoot BIF, but do shoot sports, street, architecture, events and landscape.
Was that a deliberate choice to get an A1ii rather than the A7R6 or was the decision already in the pipeline? If it was, what swung your choice? (If you would be happy to share)
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I have not used modern Canon or Nikon bodies. Currently shooting an A9iii and just traded my A7Rv for an A1ii. I don't shoot BIF, but do shoot sports, street, architecture, events and landscape.
For those of you who shoot or have extensive experience shooting other systems, how does the supposed lack of processor speed actually impact your camera experience? Just wondering because for many of **my** shooting scenarios, the A7Rv isn't significantly faster / better than the A9iii.
You don't expect the A7r5 to be significantly faster than the A9iii do you - surely you mean it the other way around ?
If you shoot sports have you not noticed that the a9iii is much faster than the A7r5 and has blackout free EVF which makes tracking a moving subject much easier ?
rob_ww wrote:
Was that a deliberate choice to get an A1ii rather than the A7R6 or was the decision already in the pipeline? If it was, what swung your choice? (If you would be happy to share)
Wouldn't the A1ii be the obvious choice for shooting sports and events ?
duncangr wrote:
You don't expect the A7r5 to be significantly faster than the A9iii do you - surely you mean it the other way around ?
If you shoot sports have you not noticed that the a9iii is much faster than the A7r5 and has blackout free EVF which makes tracking a moving subject much easier ?
Oh yes - when shooting nearly any moving object, without a doubt the A9iii is very noticeably faster. Plus the EVF is always refreshing fast at high speed.
Perhaps I didn't ask my question very well. According to threads here on FM, it seems that older cameras, notably Nikon Z9/Z8 seem to keep up quite well with the mostly challenging fast moving and erratic photography like BIF. I am guessing there is a similar behavior for sports, although I haven't personally compared hit rates with the A9iii with people shooting other systems.
But BIF and fast field sports played at a high level are the most challenging things to shoot. I picked up a Sony A7V at a Sony "on the road event," and for shooting a slow moving model and buildings, it seemed plenty fast. The startup time was quick, it cleared buffers into the CF-A card I brought with me quite quickly and it generally seemed more than adequate for < 95% of what I shoot. So if the current state of CPU power on Sony really that much of an advantage versus other systems for non-sports / non-BIF use cases? Because I am guessing since most of the FF camera market is not driven by sports or BIF, CPU speed doesn't matter much. But I haven't shot with other systems, so I don't know what the overall experience is like.
rob_ww wrote:
Was that a deliberate choice to get an A1ii rather than the A7R6 or was the decision already in the pipeline? If it was, what swung your choice? (If you would be happy to share)
Very deliberate. And I waited to make the decision after the A7Rvi was announced.
I was getting quite irked by the haptics / ergos differences between the two different style of bodies. Especially the lack of the left dial which forced me into slightly different setups for each body. I totally get the advantage of the new battery type, but I have been saved by the "lots of the same battery" situation on more a few occasions, so I would prefer the older inferior battery because it is the same versus the newer improved version.
The body differences and the fact I can't use the same L-bracket on the A7Rvi also pushed things in the direction of the A1ii.
The final two things for me were the faster mechanical shutter flash sync which would enable using the A1ii for indoor event shooting and the faster CPU speed. The latter I am using for lazy run and gun macro with the 100GM and I realized that faster CPU would be better for shooting bees in flight and flowers blowing in the breeze.
Interestingly, since I don't shoot BIF, faster sensor readout only came into play for shooting flash.
They have shipped the first batch of orders in AU - some went out last week apparently. Looks like nothing available now until July with 60 on back order by just one chain of stores.
Seems like a hot seller so don't expect discounts any time soon.
"Just wondering because for many of **my** shooting scenarios, the A7Rv isn't significantly faster / better than the A9iii."
seems to imply the A7rv should be faster/better than the A9iii
You're right - my bad. I should have used slower / worse. Thanks for clarifying for me!
I occasionally do get frustrated with the A7Rv hit rate. This year, it happened when only one of six shots of snow monkeys coming at me were in focus in Japan and almost failing to capture attacking seagulls at the seafood market in Venice a few weeks ago. I managed to get the shots, but these high speed situations while traveling are not the norm. For sure, either the A7Rvi or the A1ii would have been better in both situations.
neekon123 wrote:
Canons RAW is compressed, the Zr using compressed RAW, and ProResRAW is compressed. if Sony really wanted to put RAW video in their cameras they have options that have nothing to do with RED. They either dont have the power in their chips to do it, dont want to pay licensing fees to ProResRAW or they dont want to put it in cameras that aren 25k and up(Burano and Venice 2)
I am very well versed in the cinema and codec space. CinemaDNG, ARRIRAW and Sony full X-OCN are all uncompressed, but ProResRAW, Canon CinemaRAW LT and any RAW format the Zr use are all compressed.
Canon has raw because of an agreement to license the RF mount for the Komodo. Nikon has raw because it acquired Red. Everyone else is stuck with Braw or licensing Prores - which itself required a license from Red to even allow it to exist after Apple backed down from its challenge to Red's patents. Canon raw will likely go away once that agreement expires unless Nikon is willing to license it, but my bet is they won't. If Red didn't agree to any of this, nobody would have internal compressed raw other than Red and Braw or some old Cinema DNG like the OG Pocket.
But that's beside the point - Raw is not processor intensive as demonstrated by an 18-year-old camera that can record raw in the 5d2 - especially compared to 10-bit h265. Compressing all of that raw data in real time requires an incredible amount of processing. Canon's processors can't handle it, all of its oversampled 4k modes cause rampant overheating. Most have a varying degree of noise reduction as well. Just look at how bad Nikon's own h265 is with the Zr and Z6III. It's comical to think Sony cameras lack the power to do raw video when its h265 absolutely crushes Nikon's - especially with the Zr and Z6III. It's just a licensing issue - they're not paying for one.
