I agree. Looks like Sony didn't succeed in getting such a sensor's relatively complex, crowded architecture out of the way of the presumably smaller photodiodes. So those diodes can't collect as much light as the ones of a conventional sensor. Pretty sure that Canon will still stick with the more conservative sensor tech to offer better IQ, what is a smart decision from a photographer's perspective.
At least, Sony's marketing works with many spec oriented guys. It is a bit like selling deodorants. I once learned from marketing people that if you want to introduce a new deodorant for male customers successfully, you need to connect it with a lot fancy pseudo high-tech blurb stuff.
Thumbs-down the fastest and most accurate AF point selection method I've used. On DLSRs it didn't matter as much, since there were only a few 10's of AF points so a regular joystick worked well. But with MILCs, the whole field is available. Eye-controlled AF works for me, but the Smart Controller is just as fast and more accurate.
What is weird is that most of the people Sony invited to their event do not need a global shutter and those people are now trying to explain what a global shutter is and why we all need one.
It is already that way with stack sensors.
The 1Dx3 completely underwhelmed me shooting it side-by-side with my RP, but that IR controller impressed me. I hope it shows up in lower tier models as well. The touchscreen corner thing is nice, till you start wearing gloves
The "disappointing" R and RP were still better to use than what Nikon had up until the Z 9.
Same here!
I really like Canon as a brand, and one of my favorite Canon cameras is the R. For example, the R6 was an extremely bad experience for me and I sold it after having it for a little over a year. One of my two R's is still with me after almost 5 years and will be for a long time it seems. It's an excellent camera if you know what you need it for and if you're not blinded by those who baselessly speak against this camera, without ever having seen it live, let alone tried it or used it for a long time.
I like mine too, as reliable as the 5 D III and IV! Never a single issue or freezing!
But I thought Canon was d00med because of Sony's dynamic range advantage?! What now?!
The R from an "output" perspective was functionally identical to the 5D MKIV, which was great. It was missing some of the features of that body such as dual card slots that were later incorporated into the R5, but those don't impact outputs. And the R5 was released less than 2 years after the R.
Among my gripes with the R are that the EVF doesn't have automatic brightness adjustment (although I noticed this was more of a problem for me who wears glasses), that I couldn't find any use for the touch-bar (despite quite a bit of effort, will and the desire to use it somehow), the fact that in Servo AF it sometimes likes to "wander" on the background if the background is relatively close to the main subject and if it is rich in contrast, the diopter adjustment wheel moves too easily and does not have any indication of the zero position, complicated connectivity, poor implementation of the review of captured photos... And that's it, more or less. Great camera, just as I'm sure the R5II and R1 will be regardless of the fact that neither of them will likely have a global shutter.
The R had the sensor of the 5DIV, the Z7 that of the D850. For birds in flight, both the R and the Z7 are not as good as their DSLR counterparts and birders recommend the DSLRs because of their better AF. I used the the 5DIV as my main body for several years and the D850 for a year or so. The D850 is what the 5DV should have been. The D850/Z7 sensor is much better than the 5DIV/R, and it took the R5 for Canon to match it.
