SONY A99 ii VS Canon 5div

Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Sdiver2489 said:
I keep looking at the A7RII as a potential switch option and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Sony doesn't have lenses that are equivalent to what I have on Canon and/or aren't of the same quality. Until they fix this issue...I just can't switch.

actually the FE mount is in far better shape with the GM lenses.

But.. on the A-mount? so they release a lens that can be used for sports.. they have what .. a 300 and a 500? both of which are outclassed by canon and nikon primes .. AND are more expensive than the canon and nikon primes.


fun fact ..
Sony 500mm is 13K at bh, A99 II is 3.2K = 16.2K
Canon 500mm is 9K, 1Dx Mark II is 6K = 15k
 
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
of course here's some other fun ..

sony 24-70mm - 2K
sony 70-200mm - 2.9k
sony 16-35mm - 2.2k
You must add two A99II's to this to get into Sony's "PRO" service. they do not accept APS-C as valid for their "pro" support requirements. So you have to pony up for two full frame Alphas, otherwise you are stuck with non-Precision Camera service. (lol)

canon 24-70mm II 1.75k
canon 70-200mm II 2k
canon 16-35mm III 2.2K
** this is enough by far to get into Canon Gold CPS program (36 points, 20 points required)

And Sony wonders why they are never taken seriously, not to mention they are literally schooled on performance for the professional trinity zooms (comparing the 16-35 mtf's .. it's not going to be pretty for Sony).
 
Upvote 0
rrcphoto said:
Sdiver2489 said:
I keep looking at the A7RII as a potential switch option and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Sony doesn't have lenses that are equivalent to what I have on Canon and/or aren't of the same quality. Until they fix this issue...I just can't switch.

actually the FE mount is in far better shape with the GM lenses.

But.. on the A-mount? so they release a lens that can be used for sports.. they have what .. a 300 and a 500? both of which are outclassed by canon and nikon primes .. AND are more expensive than the canon and nikon primes.


fun fact ..
Sony 500mm is 13K at bh, A99 II is 3.2K = 16.2K
Canon 500mm is 9K, 1Dx Mark II is 6K = 15k

I know! Isn't that sad when I find even those options sub par? The "typical" lenses I use (i.e. 35mm, 24-70, 16-35mm) are not nearly as good as the Canon equivalents and they are on par if not more expensive.

I like my A6000...it does a good job for what it is. There are some things it does better than my 5D Mark III. But those things are definitely not related to fast and intuitive control and lens selection.
 
Upvote 0

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
50
Switzerland
neuroanatomist said:
pokerz said:
ritholtz said:
dilbert said:
Canon 5D Mark IV burst: 21 @ 7fps = 3 seconds
Sony A99 II burst: 54 frames @ 12fps = 4.5 seconds

Both represent raw images.
Problem is with the Canon there is high probability of getting subject in focus for all 21 frames. With Sony you are only guaranteed to get 1st image in focus. Can you check few posts above where someone posted continuous shooting limitations with aperture setting. How does it affect in real life shooting?
Sony also has in built black hole active during video shooting. Any lens with f/1.8 or any faster aperture is going to work like f/3.5 during video. Black Hole eats rest of the light.
We keep talking about photo buffers.
We have to accept that 5d4 cannot handle that much data than sony a99M2

True. But data quantity ≠ data quality. For example, would you consider a buffer filled with 1 in-focus image followed 53 out-of-focus frames to be useful? I wouldn't...I'd far prefer only 21 images with most or all of them in focus.

What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?
 
Upvote 0

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
50
Switzerland
unfocused said:
deadwrong said:
LOL, the whole idea here is too debate the real value of the 5div and how long this camera has before its totally obsolete within 2 years. If you dont like this post, then i suggest you dont read it and keep blind to what other manufacturers are doing to better Canon. I want to buy the 5d too, but shelling out 5k on a this camera, i am sitting on the fence for abit. I am not a Sony fan boy, thats forsure. There is no denying that Sony has the better camera body these days, just a matter of time before the lenses catchup.

If the whole idea really was to debate the real value of the 5D IV, then I suggest you actually read the 10 pages of responses because contained within those posts are any number of good arguments as to why the 5D IV is a better camera.

"Totally obsolete within 2 years" What does that even mean? Will it still take pictures? Will it still use cards that are readily available? Will you still be able to download, edit and print the photos? Then it's not obsolete.

"There's no denying Sony has the better body these days." Except a lot of people do deny that. Again read the thread if you actually want to learn something, instead of just trolling. There are many good reasons people believe Canon is superior and that's based on people who actually use cameras instead of sitting in their Mom's basement reading spec sheets,

"Just a matter of time before the lenses catch up." It's good that you are willing to risk your money on blind faith in Sony, but others look at past performance and what is available today and would rather not take that risk, especially since Canon doesn't sit still as far as lens development. Sony may someday catch up with what Canon offers today, but will they ever catch up with what Canon may offer in the future. Past performance says "no."

You say you wanted a debate. You got it. You just can't live with the fact that your side lost the debate.

If,you still want the Sony, go ahead. I think Canada is still a free country for the time being, so go ahead. Just know that in the objective world of the marketplace, you are in a small minority in thinking it is a better camera.

i'd love this forum if there were 10 pages of good arguments - yet there is plenty of trolling from the canon end too... (including this particular post)
 
Upvote 0

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
50
Switzerland
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?

Context. The situations in which buffer depth is a relevant spec frequently involve fast-moving subjects. If a camera locks focus at the first frame of a high-speed burst, the buffer depth is irrelevant.

hence nothing! yet it just has to be irrelevant, because otherwise a non-canon camera would actually have a better spec than a canon camera, which cannot be, at least not here...
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,857
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?

Context. The situations in which buffer depth is a relevant spec frequently involve fast-moving subjects. If a camera locks focus at the first frame of a high-speed burst, the buffer depth is irrelevant.

hence nothing! yet it just has to be irrelevant, because otherwise a non-canon camera would actually have a better spec than a canon camera, which cannot be, at least not here...

Plenty of non-Canon cameras have certain individual specs that are better than Canon, and vice versa. Point being, it's important to consider those specs in the context of their use.
 
Upvote 0

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
50
Switzerland
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?

Context. The situations in which buffer depth is a relevant spec frequently involve fast-moving subjects. If a camera locks focus at the first frame of a high-speed burst, the buffer depth is irrelevant.

hence nothing! yet it just has to be irrelevant, because otherwise a non-canon camera would actually have a better spec than a canon camera, which cannot be, at least not here...

Plenty of non-Canon cameras have certain individual specs that are better than Canon, and vice versa. Point being, it's important to consider those specs in the context of their use.

where only canon is finding the sweet spot... stupid me.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,857
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?

Context. The situations in which buffer depth is a relevant spec frequently involve fast-moving subjects. If a camera locks focus at the first frame of a high-speed burst, the buffer depth is irrelevant.

hence nothing! yet it just has to be irrelevant, because otherwise a non-canon camera would actually have a better spec than a canon camera, which cannot be, at least not here...

Plenty of non-Canon cameras have certain individual specs that are better than Canon, and vice versa. Point being, it's important to consider those specs in the context of their use.

where only canon is finding the sweet spot... stupid me.

If that's what you choose to believe. Feel free to ignore my frequent statements (prior to the 5Ds and Canon 11-24) that if I shot primarily landscapes, I'd use a D800/810 or a7R wtih a 14-24G.
 
Upvote 0

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
50
Switzerland
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
neuroanatomist said:
romanr74 said:
What does buffer have to do with the amount of pictures in focus?

Context. The situations in which buffer depth is a relevant spec frequently involve fast-moving subjects. If a camera locks focus at the first frame of a high-speed burst, the buffer depth is irrelevant.

hence nothing! yet it just has to be irrelevant, because otherwise a non-canon camera would actually have a better spec than a canon camera, which cannot be, at least not here...

Plenty of non-Canon cameras have certain individual specs that are better than Canon, and vice versa. Point being, it's important to consider those specs in the context of their use.

where only canon is finding the sweet spot... stupid me.

If that's what you choose to believe. Feel free to ignore my frequent statements (prior to the 5Ds and Canon 11-24) that if I shot primarily landscapes, I'd use a D800/810 or a7R wtih a 14-24G.

it's not what i believe, but what i constantly read here...
 
Upvote 0
Oct 26, 2013
1,140
426
deadwrong said:
dak723 said:
Refurb7 said:
deadwrong said:
5div killer?

Sony A99 II finally announced by Sony today, the camera features 42 megapixel CMOS sensor same as of Sony A7R II camera. The standard ISO range of the camera is 100-25600, expandable to ISO 50 – 102,400. And it can also record 4K at 100Mbps (using XAVC S) with full sensor read-out and no pixel binning, both stills and video supported by 5 axis image stabilization system. Sony A99 II Hybrid AF system with 399 + 79 AF points. The camera can shoot upto 12frames per second with continuous AF tracking.

http://thenewcamera.com/sony-a99-ii-announced-press-release-full-specification-and-more/

4000$ Canadian - as opposed to 4600$ for the Canon 5d iv............hmmmm did Canon just get blown out of the water?

If someone is interested in a Sony based on those specs alone, why would they bother posting that on a Canon forum? Just buy the camera you want ... no one cares what you buy. No one is getting "blown out of the water". What a dumb, useless phrase that is.


Exactly! If you think Sony makes a superior product, go buy one. Why post on a Canon forum unless you are basically trying to rile up people's emotions? This kind of post is nothing but a troll post. It asks no serious questions. It starts no meaningful discussion. Just buy the camera you want and let others do the same. Form whatever opinion you want on who makes the best camera for you - AND LET OTHERS DO THE SAME.


LOL, the whole idea here is too debate the real value of the 5div and how long this camera has before its totally obsolete within 2 years. If you dont like this post, then i suggest you dont read it and keep blind to what other manufacturers are doing to better Canon. I want to buy the 5d too, but shelling out 5k on a this camera, i am sitting on the fence for abit. I am not a Sony fan boy, thats forsure. There is no denying that Sony has the better camera body these days, just a matter of time before the lenses catchup.

Sorry, but your premise is ridiculous. The camera will not be obsolete in 2 years. It will not be obsolete in 10 years. There are still photographers using the original 5D and the 5D II and producing wonderful photos. If you can't understand this basic fact - and I am referring not just to you, but all those folks who seem enamored purely by specs - then all your arguments lose credibility.

I am not blind to what other manufacturer's are doing. I own non-Canon cameras. I bought a Sony A7 and also an A7 II to replace my Canon 6D. Turns out, I liked the results of the Canon pics better and the Sonys were returned. Yes, my preference of the Canon pics is just my individual interpretation - and so is your statement that "there is no denying that Sony has the better camera bodies these days..." I presume you actually mean "sensor" - but that doesn't mean that the end resulting photos are better. There are lots of elements involved in taking photos - color, contrast, sharpness, ability to focus accurately (and sometimes quickly). Lenses play a part. Some of these aspects can be measured and compared, such as focusing speed. Most are subjective - which camera (and lens ) give me "better" color, "better" contrast. So, yes, there is denying it. Because there is no better - too much of the analysis is subjective.

Point is - you cannot debate personal opinion and subjectivity. So, if you prefer the results of what Sony produces, get a Sony. If I prefer the results of what Canon produces, I will get the Canon. No debate. I welcome discussion comparing cameras, but that is not what normally happens on CR.
 
Upvote 0
Astonished about all this talk for video on this stills forum but if you want to talk video it's my play field.

The A99II doesn't add anything over current Sony's capability. It just fixes overheating (I hope and guess)

So what the hype? The A7rII had S-LOG2/3, peaking/Zebras/4K FF/4K S35/120p/etc.

And people were and are still shooting on Canon cameras, nikon cameras, panasonics.

Why? Specs mean SQUAD. ZERO. O.

So you like having S-log and crucify the 5Div for not having it? TRY the damn thing. Shoot a gig in S-Log and see how it renders colours on faces and highlights, absolutely horrible. A Canon 5DII would have shown better colours! People on S-log have jaundice or if you're a skilled colourist, you'll make them just anemic stage.

Canon 1DC 500Mbps 422 C-LOG footage DESTROYS anything this camera can give, based on the a7rII. The 1DC gives you what a cinematographer wants, a colour rendition to love, it gives you much much higher bitrate so zero artefacs and macroblocking as all these 100mbps do, and the 4:2:2 chromasamplinh simply gives the Canons much more fedlity. Lowlight performance is better on the Canon 1D because it doesn't apply heavy NR in-camera over 6400 ISO and squishes detail rather than the organic grain and detail the 1DC Retains.

The 5D MKIV is a s35 versio of that, and the 1DX is a newer DPAF version of that also.

When the hell did we cinematographers stopped caring about THE IMAGE.

See when it comes out, put this A99ii on it's highest quality video mode: S35 S-LOG3 100mbps XAVC-S and put the 5D IV on it's highest quality mode: S35(ish), Prolost, 500mbps 422.

Tell me what you'll see.

Hint, one will have a heavily compressed image with macroblocking, horrid skin tones that need hours to correct, and one will give you ProRes HQ quality files with RICH and faithfull rendition. And it will be soft because this one doesn't add artificial sharpening as an attempt to wow those who know no better and don't know RED 6k files are soft.

There are just KEY points in Canon system for me as a cinenatigrapher that makes me stay:

-COLOUR rendition
-IMAGE Robustness
-High-end codecs
-DPAF

and i am not giving uo on getting pretty images for zebras or peaking, I've learnt to deak eith the 5D a LOONG time ago.

And don't get me started about the headline in-camera stabilisation versus Canon optical IS in L and STM glass for video. A robot motion artefact is NOT acceptable by me in a frame. Canon IS, perfectly smooth. (it might be robotic to offer stronger stills IS)

So with a 5D IV + Zucoto loup + Zoom recorder what am I missing vs this? S-Log, 5axsis stabilization, 100mbps ff 4K? NO thank you. I'll take my beautiful images, not specs that in real life are no better than current technology.

Why are people buying more C100MKII (1080p only at 8 bit 4:2:0) than sony FS5 (4K, Slog, Raw out) at the same price?

Because the damn image looks better. No specs will change that.

When did we stop caring about the image produced and only cared for little cool toys in specs ?! I sure as hell didn't. And i'll be buying a mark iv for my video company over this camera.

An APS-C 4k Canon DSLR with DPAF and 500mbps and 4:2:2? That's exactly what checkx my boxes.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
pokerz said:
neuroanatomist said:
pokerz said:
ritholtz said:
dilbert said:
Canon 5D Mark IV burst: 21 @ 7fps = 3 seconds
Sony A99 II burst: 54 frames @ 12fps = 4.5 seconds

Both represent raw images.
Problem is with the Canon there is high probability of getting subject in focus for all 21 frames. With Sony you are only guaranteed to get 1st image in focus. Can you check few posts above where someone posted continuous shooting limitations with aperture setting. How does it affect in real life shooting?
Sony also has in built black hole active during video shooting. Any lens with f/1.8 or any faster aperture is going to work like f/3.5 during video. Black Hole eats rest of the light.
We keep talking about photo buffers.
We have to accept that 5d4 cannot handle that much data than sony a99M2

True. But data quantity ≠ data quality. For example, would you consider a buffer filled with 1 in-focus image followed 53 out-of-focus frames to be useful? I wouldn't...I'd far prefer only 21 images with most or all of them in focus.

1 in-focus image followed 53 out-of-focus frames to be useful? :p
Show us your 54 sample photos in your test if u have any

I'd be happy to test it, if you'll let me borrow your a99 II. Or your time machine. ::) :p

But, I do know what happens if your subject is changing distance during burst shooting, but your camera only focuses before the first frame and not continuously (between frames) during the burst (as happens in some cases with the a99 II). I trust you can work that one out for yourself...
So your conclusion comes from nth, no proof at all.
Not even reading menus. :-\
 
Upvote 0