SONY A99 ii VS Canon 5div

[turtle]

quod, I am in a similar position to you, owning plenty of Canon and Sony gear. What I would say about your final point, is that not everyone wants lots of 'microcontrast pop'. I personally really like the gentler look of a lot of Canon lenses for certain applications (people, especially). For colour landscapes, I can see why people would more often prefer more contrast and saturation. However, in comparing my 85 1.2L II to the likes of the 'sharp everywhere, always' Nikon 105mm f1.4, I know which I feel it the better lens for shooting female portraits and it isn't the Nikon (for me). The difference is a lot of PP.

Where Canon has Sony smoked is in the consistency of optical construction of their lenses. Sony seems to produce an almost endless stream of decentered lenses and this makes buying lenses a frustrating affair. If only there were a company that was right in the middle of these two huge brands!

 

[turtle]

That's not always true. It can help add a few % which in a competitive marketplace is important. Over time that adds up, otherwise we would be seeing photographers shooting pro sports with D2XS and we don't (for a reason). Same goes for wedding shooters, who all benefit from quiet shutters, better tracking, more DR etc etc. Just look at the standard of images being shot today compared to ten years ago and there is no doubt that better cameras are helping, along with advances in PP.

For the average amateur, I would agree however.

Talking about photography will not get you better pictures. Switching bodies or brand will not either.

 

[candc]

I don't really see the advantage of this type camera with the translucent mirror. I suppose the mirror is not moving so its not slowing things down but if its in the way of the sensor its going to also block some of the light. How much? There are some advantages to a mirrorless camera in some situations but this thing? Maybe it has some of the advantages of mirroless and some of a dslr but I don't see it as better than either one.

Make a hot shoe evf for your dslr's canon.

I removed the mirror in my A99 because I was adapting manual 645lenses with a tilt adapter and did not need AF. That measure gained about 0,6 f-stops of light, which I could not afford to waste. But in that fashion, a Sony A99 served only as a sidekick to two other systems (Canon EF and Pentax 645), not as a replacement. This may be different with the A99II: I assume Sony now trusts the ISO-capacities of their current and future sensors enough to believe the loss of 0,6stops of light is eventually fully justified. The benefits: a continous phase-AF, more fps (not limited by mechnics) and the possibility to avoid viewfinder-blackouts (we'll see about that after the A99II has been properly reviewed).

What would be ideal imo is regular phase-AF with slapping-mirror and an optical viewfinder that can be exchanged into an electronic viewfinder as in the new Fujifilm GFX 50S with Dual-Pixel-AF or FUJI-AF, below a flippy as in Canon 80D.

12fps 42megapixel RAW for 2 seconds or 24 consecutive shots as in the A99II is nice. However I'd prefer an optional 8fps for 3 seconds.

"Dream on, Fussy!", some might say.

I guess .6 stops isn't "too" bad. I would try the camera if you could use canon lenses on it. Sony needs to get lossless raw. Right now on the a7rii you can choose lossy raw (40+ mp files) or uncompressed raw (80+ mp files)

 

[Loswr]

All this funny "neurotransmitter" in this forum running out of any constructive arguments...

As always, the market will decide. Sony fanbois will drool and salivate, DPR will fawn over it, and the 5DIV will outsell it by a huge margin.

 

[scyrene]

...
But if you forget about fps what really is pushing things further at photokina to me comes from Fuji.
EVFviewfinder-wise the new Fuji GFX did what I had long been argumenting for and been dreaming of. Fuji managers it seems are not only listening but creating art themselves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzR6f91AjWc

WOW WOW WOW

No need to get fussy here!!!
Guess I am in love.

You posted this precise reply in another thread (your much contested '5D4 is crippled' one). Bad form.

How and when did you to find out?

Um, I've been replying to that thread and recognised it? Also I clicked on your profile, and your last two posts were all but identical.

 

[scyrene]

No AA Filter - Nope, prefer no moire. Can always sharpen Post-Processing if I want.

If all of the big discounts are anything to go by, the 5DsR outsells the 5Ds. Nikon went with no AA in the D810 whereas with the D800 it offered people a choice. Clearly AA filter is not deemed necessary by those shooting with higher megapixel counts. Whilst some (like you) seem to remain scared by it, others clearly are not.

Or maybe lots of customers get suckered in by the promise of greater sharpness and/or don't know or care about moiré? My assertion has nothing to back it up, but neither does yours. Not to mention how people's precoceived notions can affect their judgment (e.g. 'the AA filter is making my images soft!' - how many people have actually quantified that?). The move towards AA filter-less cameras has been driven at least as much by marketing as anything else. I've seen arguments on both sides. Your 'it's the newer approach so it's obviously better' attitude ignores all of them.

Incidentally, the argument 'the one without the filter sells better, so it must be fine' is precisely the argument you accuse Neuro of making regarding Canon - they sell better so must be the best (that isn't actually what he argues, but I've seen it characterised as such)

(I've seen plenty of moiré in the 5DsR DPreview test shots; I've not noticed any 'softness' in my 5Ds shots; I wasn't going to spend £200 more for the difference, even if the -R *was* objectively better).

 

[scyrene]

...
Or maybe lots of customers get suckered in by the promise of greater sharpness and/or don't know or care about moiré? My assertion has nothing to back it up, but neither does yours. Not to mention how people's precoceived notions can affect their judgment (e.g. 'the AA filter is making my images soft!' - how many people have actually quantified that?). The move towards AA filter-less cameras has been driven at least as much by marketing as anything else. I've seen arguments on both sides. Your 'it's the newer approach so it's obviously better' attitude ignores all of them.
...

If moire is so bad, why aren't there posts on blogs, in this forum and others, of how big a mistake the purchase of the 5DsR was for them?

I think you're very much on the money with preconceived notions regarding AA filters and moire.

As to who has? Well here's one comparison:

https://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-d800-d800e-first-comparison/

Is the absence of the AA filter new? No. Phase One have been doing MFDB's without the AA filter for quite a while now. Somehow professionals that use them shooting models, etc, manage to get their work done without fear of moire. Go figure.

I think in truth the difference is small. AA filter softening can be ameliorated with judicious sharpening. Moiré can be mitigated by various means. I object to people claiming AA filters are terrible/any camera with one is crippled, as some on these forums have. Until the D800/D800E, who was even talking about this? The tyranny of small differences.

 

[rrcphoto]

...
oh .. and there's no new full frame lenses (outside of AF updates) for what.. the last 4-5 years? the SSM II lenses were just AF updates. no element / glass improvement.
...

According to:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_16-35_2p8_za_ssm_ii

... both an AF and optical update.

From 2015 there is this from:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_24-70_2p8_za_ssm_ii

and this from 2013:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii

devil is in the details, there were no differences outside of the AF and sealing updates.. i recall people quite annoyed at the price jump for the lack of betterment.

the 16-35 may have gotten an actual update - DxO shows a fairly different profile in between the SSM and SSM II or it could just be sample variation. overall the detail scoring is the same between the two.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-STAR-16-35mm-F28-ZA-SSM-II-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T16-35mm-F2-8-ZA-SSM-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99__1537_831_245_831

the 24-70 II shows no optical improvement as an example:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F28-ZA-SSM-II-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-versus-Zoom-Carl-Zeiss-T-24-70-mm-F2.8-ZA-SSM-SAL-2470Z-on-Sony-Alpha-900__1538_831_224_371
even the profiles are nearly identical - enough for sample variation.

however .. ONE lens (potentially) updated in 4+ years?

welcome to the world of Sony .. MAKE BELIEVE™

Sony hung onto it's lens laurels from the initial designs, especially when compared against ghte original 24-70, 16-35 2.8 and 100-400L .. however, canon (and nikon) have all been continually updating their lens lineup. Sony's no longer really "up there" as far as A-mount.

With Sony's continued push for FE lenses, just how much is the A mount going to get as far as credible updates?

even *IF* we assume that all three of them are new lenses .. that's three in 5 years.

and with examples like this:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-STAR-24-70mm-F28-ZA-SSM-II-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1538_831_886_795

sony isn't competitive at all with the better optics out there (or even it's very own GM lineup)

 

[dak723]

...
42 MP - Nope, much prefer keeping things around 20-24 MP. I can already print over 28" with pics form my 6D.

[quote author=dilbert]This is like back in the day, people with the Nikon D700 justifying 12MP when the Canon 5DII was doing 21. As soon as Nikon had a winner with high megapixels, people stopped justifying 12MP.

No, it is nothing like that. As I said (or were you too stupid to understand?) 20-24 MP is plenty for me to print at the largest sizes I will ever need. I also don't need bigger files. I also don't need more MPs which requires higher shutter speeds and/or using a tripod to take advantage of the higher MPS. This has nothing to do with comparing 12MP and 21 MP. I realize from previous posts that you always consider more MPs to be a positive. For many photographers, more MPs are not a positive. In fact, 42 MPS is a deal breaker as far as I am concerned due to the reasons given. As we've seen discussed many times on this forum, very high MPs is a niche market. I am not in that niche.

No AA Filter - Nope, prefer no moire. Can always sharpen Post-Processing if I want.

[quote author=dilbert]If all of the big discounts are anything to go by, the 5DsR outsells the 5Ds. Nikon went with no AA in the D810 whereas with the D800 it offered people a choice. Clearly AA filter is not deemed necessary by those shooting with higher megapixel counts. Whilst some (like you) seem to remain scared by it, others clearly are not.
[/quote]

Yes, some folks prefer more sharpness. I think offering the choice is a good one. I am not scared by it - in fact I own a camera with no AA filter. So once again, your assumption (and insult) are completely wrong. Given a choice, I prefer the filter. No fear involved, just don't need extra sharpness and the occasional problems that come with having no AA filter.

 

[LordofTackle]

Is the absence of the AA filter new? No. Phase One have been doing MFDB's without the AA filter for quite a while now. Somehow professionals that use them shooting models, etc, manage to get their work done without fear of moire. Go figure.

Well, that's exactly the point. These professionals know what they do and they work in a highly controlled environment. Thus they can (and most likely also actually know how to) avoid moiré in their pictures, using hi-res, AA-filter-less cameras. This might be not so easy in uncontrolled situations, i.e. photojournalists and the like.

 

[3kramd5]

Wow those specs are insane or we are just used to Canon milking the tech, i was planing to upgrade my 5D3 to the 5D4 now i feel like Canon is ripping us off. I was thinking well the 5D4 is close to what other companies are doing but i forget that Canon just caught up to them and now Sony is blowing them out of the water in specs.

42mp
12FPS
4K video 120FPS
4K full frame
SLOG
Clean HDMI

Camera is using 5K image then downsampling it to 4k with out pixel binning making the image even higher quality then directly recording 1:1 pixel 4k like Canon


not going to pay for the garbage Canon is selling maybe by the time 5D5 comes out they will get back to making products like the 5D2, i mean come on how long did it take for Canon to give us in camera intervalometer? something that almost any camera device had for years? and people are still bagging them for Zebras,focus peeking,SLOG,clean HDMI? well here but NO 4K for you because?? well just wait for 5D5 LOL

I agree. Seems like Canon is throttling their customers. I agree with the Lenses that Canon has and that its most powerful asset. Sadly most people that are with one line of cameras or another are pretty much married to that company since the investment in lenses is higher than the S___ty body they have to buy to be in a today camera. Within 1-2 years the 5div body will be outgunned badly by competitors. I can only imagine how badly the 6dii will be stripped down in 6 months.

Badly outgunned by...

On a percentage basis, how much better than 5d4 photos do you expect a99ii photos to be?

you miss the point, why buy a 5D4 when products like this come out that actually tries instead of Canons milking us, you don't feel like Canon does not give a crap and just wants to make money without trying. I want the 5DII Canon back, but second they seen how well DSLR video is selling, "good lets just now split that and not add any more features to the 5D line other then the utmost basic video capability".

And this really makes me mad i have a large collection of Canon glass i really l like their glass but now it feels like they are using us. Canon would never give us 12 FPS you have to buy the 1DX for that !! want 4K or video with SLOG well go buy our 1DC

and here comes Sony and other companies give the customer what they want, while we Canon glass users have to keep bagging for features

Canon isn't using anyone. They can't. All they can do is offer products for sale. Consumers decide whether they offer substantial value for the price. I didn't think 5D4 did, so I took that money and bought a slightly used 1Dx.

regardless, you say I miss the point, but I think it's a valid question. Canon cameras are badly ungunned. How does that manifest in making photos? Is it just a data sheet fight or do you expects you'd produce more/better photos with a competitors product?

 

[d]

Well, that's exactly the point. These professionals know what they do and they work in a highly controlled environment. Thus they can (and most likely also actually know how to) avoid moiré in their pictures, using hi-res, AA-filter-less cameras. This might be not so easy in uncontrolled situations, i.e. photojournalists and the like.

Correct. In my former studio we'd get moiré fairly frequently shooting fabric with the 5D3. If you noticed in and had time, you'd try to adjust your subject distance a little and take some more shots. Or...you just made it the retoucher's problem to fix

Actually, capture one has a reasonably effective tool for "painting out" moiré, in its later versions.

 

[3kramd5]

...
Or maybe lots of customers get suckered in by the promise of greater sharpness and/or don't know or care about moiré? My assertion has nothing to back it up, but neither does yours. Not to mention how people's precoceived notions can affect their judgment (e.g. 'the AA filter is making my images soft!' - how many people have actually quantified that?). The move towards AA filter-less cameras has been driven at least as much by marketing as anything else. I've seen arguments on both sides. Your 'it's the newer approach so it's obviously better' attitude ignores all of them.
...

If moire is so bad, why aren't there posts on blogs, in this forum and others, of how big a mistake the purchase of the 5DsR was for them?

I think you're very much on the money with preconceived notions regarding AA filters and moire.

As to who has? Well here's one comparison:

https://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-d800-d800e-first-comparison/

Is the absence of the AA filter new? No. Phase One have been doing MFDB's without the AA filter for quite a while now. Somehow professionals that use them shooting models, etc, manage to get their work done without fear of moire. Go figure.

Moire for stills shooters is a bit of a "ho hum" issue. For video I *imagine* it's a bigger concern. Are many videocentic people using 5DSR and D800e/D810 and Phase?

 

[3kramd5]

the camera features 42 megapixel CMOS sensor same as of Sony A7R II camera.

I'm surprised that sensor is capable of 12FPS.

Granted the new architecture should facilitate faster read, but the IMX094 (A7R, D800, D810, Pentax K1) maxes out at 4.7 full frame (per Sony). So it's writing out 17% more and doing it 155% faster. Color me skeptical.

Well if it can do full frame 60p 4K video, then it shouldn't even break a sweat at 12fps.

I'm just surprised it can do it. Sony discussed the advantages of BSI as it pertains to readout, but that's far more substantial than I expected.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

...
42 MP - Nope, much prefer keeping things around 20-24 MP. I can already print over 28" with pics form my 6D.

This is like back in the day, people with the Nikon D700 justifying 12MP when the Canon 5DII was doing 21. As soon as Nikon had a winner with high megapixels, people stopped justifying 12MP.

No AA Filter - Nope, prefer no moire. Can always sharpen Post-Processing if I want.

If all of the big discounts are anything to go by, the 5DsR outsells the 5Ds. Nikon went with no AA in the D810 whereas with the D800 it offered people a choice. Clearly AA filter is not deemed necessary by those shooting with higher megapixel counts. Whilst some (like you) seem to remain scared by it, others clearly are not.

Any hard data on 5DS/R sales? Do we know this for sure? I'd be curious.

In my (limited) shooting with the R I have not yet come across moire. Actually, I've seen it in only ONE shot through several years (taken with 5D3) - a bird at close-up range. If viewed at 100%, small amounts of false color can be spotted on sections of the feathers. Even then, to me it's not nearly enough to be distracting or anything.

 

[scyrene]

No, it is nothing like that. As I said (or were you too stupid to understand?) 20-24 MP is plenty for me to print at the largest sizes I will ever need. I also don't need bigger files. I also don't need more MPs which requires higher shutter speeds and/or using a tripod to take advantage of the higher MPS. This has nothing to do with comparing 12MP and 21 MP. I realize from previous posts that you always consider more MPs to be a positive. For many photographers, more MPs are not a positive. In fact, 42 MPS is a deal breaker as far as I am concerned due to the reasons given. As we've seen discussed many times on this forum, very high MPs is a niche market. I am not in that niche.

Just as a point of order, if you print at the same size, a higher MP camera will not require a higher shutter speed, because at a given output size any camera shake will be magnified by the same amount, regardless of resolution. It's when you view 100% that differences can become apparent (or if you crop more with the higher res image). I'm not advocating high MP for everyone, just thought it important to point that out (the extra storage and processing requirements of higher MP images are obviously a downside for some people, for instance).

 

[sdsr]

and here comes Sony and other companies give the customer what they want, while we Canon glass users have to keep bagging for features

I think by "they" and "the customer" you mean "people with preferences similar to mine." Sales figures suggest otherwise, as does the constant whining on Sony forums by A-mount fans furious at Sony for switching its, um, focus from A- to E- mount bodies and lenses.

I dare say the A99ii will be a good camera, but I have no interest in it, and will stick with my A7s and A7rii - in part because they're fully mirrorless and have no SLT light loss, but mostly because, thanks to the mount, I can use just about any lens ever made by anyone on them (including my Canon lenses). I also have zero interest in video and don't care how many shots a camera can take in a second. Those are some of my preferences, and I don't expect others to share them or companies to cater to them. For now Sony happens to do so, which is why I buy their camera bodies (Olympus too); but that could change.

 

[rrcphoto]

....
the 16-35 may have gotten an actual update - DxO shows a fairly different profile in between the SSM and SSM II or it could just be sample variation. overall the detail scoring is the same between the two.
...

Let me get this straight, DxO scores are important?

sub scoring, not the overall.

and out of all that you clip it down to nitpicking over that? okay..

 

[rrcphoto]

Moire for stills shooters is a bit of a "ho hum" issue. For video I *imagine* it's a bigger concern. Are many videocentic people using 5DSR and D800e/D810 and Phase?

not really.

if you're shooting an event and on a tight schedule, do you want to brush all the moire out of every single element of clothing that shows it up?

 

[deadwrong]

and here comes Sony and other companies give the customer what they want, while we Canon glass users have to keep bagging for features

I think by "they" and "the customer" you mean "people with preferences similar to mine." Sales figures suggest otherwise, as does the constant whining on Sony forums by A-mount fans furious at Sony for switching its, um, focus from A- to E- mount bodies and lenses.

I dare say the A99ii will be a good camera, but I have no interest in it, and will stick with my A7s and A7rii - in part because they're fully mirrorless and have no SLT light loss, but mostly because, thanks to the mount, I can use just about any lens ever made by anyone on them (including my Canon lenses). I also have zero interest in video and don't care how many shots a camera can take in a second. Those are some of my preferences, and I don't expect others to share them or companies to cater to them. For now Sony happens to do so, which is why I buy their camera bodies (Olympus too); but that could change.

Such a well spec'd camera, but i really wonder why Sony does an A camera with little interest in the A mount. Well, at least you know that they can do such a thing. The A7r3 should be a interesting camera i bet! Love that they are a listening to thier clients, rather than a company that throttles back the tech like Canon does.