Sony Announces the Sony A7 V

[DhlcadR6]

I regularly shoot at 3FPS and I'd rather have more lens choices than less

Is millions of 35/50/85mm what you want.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.

RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

That might work for you but with the Chinese ramping up the quality of their lenses in the recent years I doubt that will be the same for most people.

Let's say you want to pick up an 85mm for portraits on lower end. On Canon your option would be Canon RF 85 f/2 at $690 that has no aperture ring and no programable button. Meanwhile 3rd party Viltrox offers a 85mm f/2 at $275 with the features Canon left out. If you step up to the f/1.4 you're paying $1650 on the Canon side and $600 from Viltrox. So you're talking $1050 less for a lens with the same features and a pro metal body.

We'll see from a business side who made the right choice but from a potential customer perspective 3rd party lens options are clearly benefitial.

Sorry for this political OT.

My personal horizons exclude lenses made in China,
I'm afraid China is already good enough at destroying companies located in democratic countries, and it doesn't need my help.

If I had been alive in the 1930s, I wouldn't have bought a German car, knowing it was built in factories that exploited political prisoners or Jews etc. as slaves.

But one can legitimately complain about the lack of Sigma lenses for Canon full-frame mirrorless cameras.

 

[roby17269]

Is millions of 35/50/85mm what you want.

Millions? Overstating much?

Well, I would be perfectly content with Canon opening just to Sigma FF lenses. But there are other manufacturers that make unique lenses that may appeal to others.
Sigma specifically for the 35 1.2 and the 200 2. And maybe the 135 1.4.
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think Canon is making those for RF. And 2 of those were never made for EF too.
If Canon was to offer them, I'd prefer to buy their ones. But they do not make them now. Maybe they will but I am taking photos in the present.

I can see how opening the mount could affect Canon... I fail to see how that would threaten consumers though

 

[roby17269]

I’d be also fine with 3fps for most things (however pre shooting and tens of fps opens new doors).
But I prefer better choices rather than more choices. And this is different for every photographer.

Yes of course, I always state my own wants and desires, I have no problems with others having different priorities...

If I were in Africa on a safari I would most likely up fps to > 3... but the first time I was there I had the original 5D and I managed with 3fps.
Of course there are circumstances with moving subjects when high fps and pre-capture can be beneficial... but at the same time I am not a fan of having to sift through a lot more photos after.

Better choices are even better, but a) Canon is not currently making some lenses that Sigma offers... and b) I would not call the latest Sigma offerings "bad"
If Canon was to offer, say, a 35 1.2 I would be the very first to pre-order it. But they do not yet. Sigma does.

 

[CJaurelius]

I can see how opening the mount could affect Canon... I fail to see how that would threaten consumers though

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

 

[Del Paso]

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Agreed!
I wonder which percentage of lenses mounted on Sony bodies are actually made by Sony...

 

[roby17269]

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

The EF mount was open - kind of maybe but people could mount Sigma and other lenses on their EF DSLR cameras and that did not prevent Canon from remaining the #1 manufacturer for decades.

I understand that the market is different now and that there could be the side effects you mention but a) one could argue that Canon could see more camera sales with a more open mount and b) if "long run" means years / decades do we really care? and c) action cameras are not as "sticky" as system cameras and if GoPro are not innovating (I have one and it has a lot of issues) and if the competition offers something better, then why not jump?

If the "unthinkable" was to happen and Canon went bankrupt, we could still use our cameras and lenses for quite some time. I use a dead system (Hasselblad HC) and that does not prevent me from capturing photos I like with it. I am aware that this is not something that can last indefinitely, but I do have enough time to take the necessary remediating actions (update to a X2D II) when I want and / or if needed.

Life is short and this is my hobby... I do not buy camera gear with the aim to support or to hurt companies. I want to buy the best stuff I can afford that helps me achieving my photographic goals, which in turn makes me happy-er.

 

[roby17269]

It's hard to find a different slot when all the other cameras are becoming increasingly more capable.

So far Canon does not have a Z9 equivalent, so there are slots.

The Sony A7 has been at 33 MP for over 4 years now. Canon mailnly increased the MP to match Sony. Sony has a 61MP A7R series and it's really not that beneficial. When you factor in the file size 45-50MP is basically as high as you need to go. That's why you see the flagship A1 at 50MP even though the lower tier A7R is 61MP. The 33MP allow you to get to 7k which is plenty for a 4k camera and 45MP allow you to get to 8K which is why the R5mii is in that range.

I am not saying that it will happen overnight, but eventually we will see higher-mp cameras. The new capabilities will either be the answer to heightened demand or they will eventually create new demand.

I'm sure someone out there could use it but it's just not that useful to be commercially viable. For most people 4k60 is good enough for slo-mo and 4k120 is the upper limit that most people can use.

You're making a lot of assumptions for a lot of people....

I don't think so. The obvious reason being that at normal viewing distances their just isn't a perceivable difference for most people. Currently options above 4k are used primarly to be able to reframe/crop and still have a 4k image. As a result 8k displays aren't really a thing. Sure you can buy a $5k 6k Apple pro display but the use case for that is to be able to edit a 4k image while still haveing UI on the display.

Again you are making a lot of assumptions. Cutting edge is always a niche of a niche, but it gradually trickles down. Eventually 8K will be the new 4K and 8K screens will be the norm and cameras will shoot 12K for reframing. 12K cameras exist already by the way

Sure technology marches on but advancements come in different areas. One of the latest innovations has been precapture. Alowing you to have multiple photos up to 1 second before you actually take a picture is a technological advancement but it doesn't increase the quality of the pictures you can take.

So sure SSC Tuatara can make a street legal car that goes 295 mph, but 99.99% of cars don't go anywhere near that speed because there's no market for it. The top speed of most cars hit a limit and then advancements moved to a differnt area.

If there was no market for it then things would not be made. Cutting edge / luxury are different markets than consumer. But it is not infrequent that those markets end up driving innovation that trickles down to consumers once commoditized

 

[Etnaphele]

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Sony manufactures everything in China and Thailand, so they already try to exploit the lower costs there (compared to Canons mid to high end which is made in Japan, with lower tiers in Taiwan and Malaysia): if Chinese companies are offering more and more compelling lenses, they will sooner or later offer great cameras probably undercutting in price the current main manufacturers (look at Hasselblad, ok no price undercut but great tech). Keeping them out of the RF mount won't avoid it from happening - but I agree that it is wise of Canon of not opening the mount, but they should for sure compete with them on price/performance because they risk of being detached from the actual market and when a Chinese camera system will rise, they will have blunt weapons.

 

[AlanF]

Sorry for this political OT.

My personal horizons exclude lenses made in China,
I'm afraid China is already good enough at destroying companies located in democratic countries, and it doesn't need my help.

If I had been alive in the 1930s, I wouldn't have bought a German car, knowing it was built in factories that exploited political prisoners or Jews etc. as slaves.

But one can legitimately complain about the lack of Sigma lenses for Canon full-frame mirrorless cameras.

For the historical record, the Nazis used slave labour during WWII, possibly starting in 1939 but primarily 1940-45. In the 1930s, the Nazis were throwing out Jews from their jobs and depriving them of work and their businesses. Hugo Boss was active in the 1930s making uniforms for the Nazi Party, and he was an ardent Nazi.

 

[Premetheus]

that's a REALLY good option form Sony. LOVE the new screen design, that's the way it should be going forward. I'm glad to see it on affordable models.

 

[Del Paso]

The EF mount was open - kind of maybe but people could mount Sigma and other lenses on their EF DSLR cameras and that did not prevent Canon from remaining the #1 manufacturer for decades.

I understand that the market is different now and that there could be the side effects you mention but a) one could argue that Canon could see more camera sales with a more open mount and b) if "long run" means years / decades do we really care? and c) action cameras are not as "sticky" as system cameras and if GoPro are not innovating (I have one and it has a lot of issues) and if the competition offers something better, then why not jump?

If the "unthinkable" was to happen and Canon went bankrupt, we could still use our cameras and lenses for quite some time. I use a dead system (Hasselblad HC) and that does not prevent me from capturing photos I like with it. I am aware that this is not something that can last indefinitely, but I do have enough time to take the necessary remediating actions (update to a X2D II) when I want and / or if needed.

Life is short and this is my hobby... I do not buy camera gear with the aim to support or to hurt companies. I want to buy the best stuff I can afford that helps me achieving my photographic goals, which in turn makes me happy-er.

Ok, but there was far less competition then, the Chinese optical companies were still producing cheap crappy lenses.
I think you underestimate what is at stake for western companies, namely survival for many of them. Opening one's mount has, in my opinion, become a larger risk than when only Sigma and Tamron were 3rd. party lens suppliers.
That's why, even if I fully understand why many would appreciate a wider choice, I still believe that Canon made the right decision. Maybe not for you and others, but for their company.
I would also dislike buying from companies brazenly copying products and illegally using patents by others. (This is not about Sigma or Tamron).

 

[roby17269]

Ok, but there was far less competition then, the Chinese optical companies were still producing cheap crappy lenses.
I think you underestimate what is at stake for western companies, namely survival for many of them. Opening one's mount has, in my opinion, become a larger risk than when only Sigma and Tamron were 3rd. party lens suppliers.
That's why, even if I fully understand why many would appreciate a wider choice, I still believe that Canon made the right decision. Maybe not for you and others, but for their company.
I would also dislike buying from companies brazenly copying products and illegally using patents by others. (This is not about Sigma or Tamron).

To be clear, I agree that unfair competition (e.g. stealing IP, governments' interference, etc.) is bad, and it should be prevented and punished.
But honest competition? that's perfectly fine in my view.
Artificially protecting a business line has an history of long-term failure.

 

[Del Paso]

To be clear, I agree that unfair competition (e.g. stealing IP, governments' interference, etc.) is bad, and it should be prevented and punished.
But honest competition? that's perfectly fine in my view.
Artificially protecting a business line has an history of long-term failure.

Sure, honest competition is absolutely ok, but I'm not sure it would be beneficial for Canon in a shrinking market.Companies have to make money, not to make us happy!
Apple is also a closed system, do they suffer from being so?
Also, I must confess I'm not really interested in current 3rd. party offers. Of course, I know that needs, wishes and bank-accounts can differ.
In the past, I had some 3rd. party lenses in focals Canon didn't sell, from Zeiss, but didn't find Tamron or Sigma mechanically very convincing. Especially Tamrons still feel a bit on the cheap side.

 

[roby17269]

Sure, honest competition is absolutely ok, but I'm not sure it would be beneficial for Canon in a shrinking market.Companies have to make money, not to make us happy!

Sure, but if they do not make me happy while they make money, then they do not make money out of me. I know I know I matter not in the grand scheme of things... I can only vote with my wallet. This year it has been the first year in a long time that I haven't spent a single dollar on Canon gear. DJI got my money and Hasselblad will get my money. I spend my money for my photography's sake, not for Canon's sake.

Apple is also a closed system, do they suffer from being so?

Apple has a critical mass that Canon can dream about... and their system is much more diversified than Canon's... and more importantly they have achieved a "status" that Canon hasn't. I do not think they are a good comparison.

Also, I must confess I'm not really interested in current 3rd. party offers. Of course, I know that needs, wishes and bank-accounts can differ.
In the past, I had some 3rd. party lenses in focals Canon didn't sell, from Zeiss, but didn't find Tamron or Sigma mechanically very convincing. Especially Tamrons still feel a bit on the cheap side.

On the other side... In DSLR times, the EF mount was almost 100% complete and I was not looking at Sigma or others because I could always find the lenses I wanted in Canon's inventory. Nowadays not so much: the RF lens line-up is not at EF level of completeness yet and Sigma has a few interesting offerings which are of much better quality compared to a few years ago.

 

[CJaurelius]

So far Canon does not have a Z9 equivalent, so there are slots.

The Z9 is essential a Z8 in a larger body. They are both direct competitors to the R5mii. If you want the larger body on the R5mii then just add the battery grip. All three of these cameras are 45MP.

I am not saying that it will happen overnight, but eventually we will see higher-mp cameras. The new capabilities will either be the answer to heightened demand or they will eventually create new demand.

You're making a lot of assumptions for a lot of people....

Again you are making a lot of assumptions. Cutting edge is always a niche of a niche, but it gradually trickles down. Eventually 8K will be the new 4K and 8K screens will be the norm and cameras will shoot 12K for reframing. 12K cameras exist already by the way

If there was no market for it then things would not be made. Cutting edge / luxury are different markets than consumer. But it is not infrequent that those markets end up driving innovation that trickles down to consumers once commoditized

I don't see this as the case for resolution. 8k tv sales peaked in 2022 and have declined ever since leading companies like Sony exited the market. 12K cameras are used in high end filmaking in order to be able to stablize and reframe the content later. Again you can buy an SSC Tuatara that is street legal and goes 295 mph. But this is an incredibly niche market, as will anything more than 8k will likely be.

The human eye can only see so much detail. It's hard to commoditize something you cant see or use, which is exactly why companies like Sony stopped making 8k tvs. For a 75" tv you would need to be sitting 3 - 4 feet away from the tv to even be able to notice a difference. But sitting that close to that size TV would be uncomfortable. Meanwhile in the real world most people are viewing content on their 6" smartphone.

 

[CJaurelius]

Sony manufactures everything in China and Thailand, so they already try to exploit the lower costs there (compared to Canons mid to high end which is made in Japan, with lower tiers in Taiwan and Malaysia): if Chinese companies are offering more and more compelling lenses, they will sooner or later offer great cameras probably undercutting in price the current main manufacturers (look at Hasselblad, ok no price undercut but great tech). Keeping them out of the RF mount won't avoid it from happening - but I agree that it is wise of Canon of not opening the mount, but they should for sure compete with them on price/performance because they risk of being detached from the actual market and when a Chinese camera system will rise, they will have blunt weapons.

Sony seems to be using the lower pricing of the 3rd party accessories to build a more robust ecosystem to where they can charge more for their bodies. Canon seem to be charging less for their bodies to sell more accesories. Take the R6miii which Canon has priced at $2,800. Sony releases the direct competior A7V AFTER Canon with LESS features and prices it at $2,900.

Canon releases the R5mii at $4,400 and then put in on sale for $3,900. Meanwhile Sony releases the A1II AFTER the R5mii, doesn't update much, adds precapture and increases the price to $7k.

Sony spent years trying to put out camera bodies with more tech that are priced aggressively to make up for their lack of historical customer base. Its clear they now feel they have enough people tied to their ecosystem that they no longer need to compete on price and specs. So now Canon is saying hey we have the better specs per price buy our camera and then when they need a new lens they makeup the extra money. Sony is saying pay more upfront for our bodies because you'll have cheaper options for accessories that we wont make money from later.

Sony seems to be focused on being a premium product. The Chinese may be able to attack the budget and eventually the midrange but they will probably always have trouble branding luxury products. This seems to be the same lesson they've learned in the TV space. Companies like TCL and Hisense make the best TV's for the money and have gobbled up market share. Sony focuses on the high end luxury tvs and makes more per unit due to that image.

While Canon is primarily an imaging and printing company Sony is an electronics company. If smartphones were to replace cameras then Sony would just either make smarthones or sell the sensors to the companies who are. If the Chinese start making apsc or full frame cameras, they'll just sell them the sensors. They sell more sensors to car makers then they put in cameras.

Camera are about 5% of Sony's revnue so if they completely lost that entire market to the Chinese and picked up some sensor sales that wouldn't be that impactful. Meanwhile Cameras are 20% of Canon's revenue and they aren't a major seller of sensors. As a result Canon seems to be more invested in Cameras as an actualy product that is key to their business where as Sony seems to treat cameras as a means to an end.

 

[Etnaphele]

Sony seems to be using the lower pricing of the 3rd party accessories to build a more robust ecosystem to where they can charge more for their bodies. Canon seem to be charging less for their bodies to sell more accesories. Take the R6miii which Canon has priced at $2,800. Sony releases the direct competior A7V AFTER Canon with LESS features and prices it at $2,900.

Canon releases the R5mii at $4,400 and then put in on sale for $3,900. Meanwhile Sony releases the A1II AFTER the R5mii, doesn't update much, adds precapture and increases the price to $7k.

Sony spent years trying to put out camera bodies with more tech that are priced aggressively to make up for their lack of historical customer base. Its clear they now feel they have enough people tied to their ecosystem that they no longer need to compete on price and specs. So now Canon is saying hey we have the better specs per price buy our camera and then when they need a new lens they makeup the extra money. Sony is saying pay more upfront for our bodies because you'll have cheaper options for accessories that we wont make money from later.

Sony seems to be focused on being a premium product. The Chinese may be able to attack the budget and eventually the midrange but they will probably always have trouble branding luxury products. This seems to be the same lesson they've learned in the TV space. Companies like TCL and Hisense make the best TV's for the money and have gobbled up market share. Sony focuses on the high end luxury tvs and makes more per unit due to that image.

While Canon is primarily an imaging and printing company Sony is an electronics company. If smartphones were to replace cameras then Sony would just either make smarthones or sell the sensors to the companies who are. If the Chinese start making apsc or full frame cameras, they'll just sell them the sensors. They sell more sensors to car makers then they put in cameras.

Camera are about 5% of Sony's revnue so if they completely lost that entire market to the Chinese and picked up some sensor sales that wouldn't be that impactful. Meanwhile Cameras are 20% of Canon's revenue and they aren't a major seller of sensors. As a result Canon seems to be more invested in Cameras as an actualy product that is key to their business where as Sony seems to treat cameras as a means to an end.

I mostly agree, whereas I would never define anything by Sony as luxury, as they target high tech feature and not image (like Leica or Hasselblad) and they seem to disregard attractive design completely.

Canon has a big industry department, too, but for sure are more committed to the imaging dimension as OEM wrt Sony.

As for Chinese luxury, Hasselblad is already here to stay.

 

[Traveler]

but at the same time I am not a fan of having to sift through a lot more photos after.

Canon has a great management for that. You can map a button to “lock” and then press delete all files (except for the ones picked with “lock”) and you keep the one or two best.

Better choices are even better, but a) Canon is not currently making some lenses that Sigma offers... and b) I would not call the latest Sigma offerings "bad"

I didn’t mean the Sigmas are bad. I meant suitable for a person. I use the 14-35 f/4, 28-70/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 and other systems have worse variants FOR ME. I also use the 600mm f/11, also a lens that I like and don’t see in other systems.
I totally understand that other people have other preferences and therefore they choose different systems

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Care to name what plenty is?

I'm not sure if you are mixing up camera names as this comment make no sense.

Internal RAW video, 3:2 Open gate, DCI, True 24, False Color, 40 FPS electronic, 12 FPS mechanical, etc.