Sony not even has a lossless RAW or the possibilty to shoot RAW together with very fine JPG. No useable weathersealing. No ergonomics. Expensive lenses. What exactly was the good thing? A good sensor... admittedly. But that's all.
Upvote
0
I guess "more or less equal" does not mean "equal". That is why in math and statistics we have "equal" and "significantly different" and nothing in between.jayphotoworks said:Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.
jayphotoworks said:We should give Sony some credit though. They went from creating awkward Cybershots (F707) using equally awkward memory sticks to being a competitive camera brand today that is exclusively compared against its more established peers at every corner. This isn't a company that got lazy and decided to ride out their brand name because they didn't really have one. Sony was once losing money in every segment other than their Sony Pictures and Playstation brands.
jayphotoworks said:Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.
Sony does offer completely lossless RAW. They introduced it about a year ago, as the customers asked for it. However, most users found out that they have not been losing anything noticeable with the compressed RAW and the size of files is much smaller. Lossless RAW is just another tick off point.vscd said:Sony not even has a lossless RAW or the possibilty to shoot RAW together with very fine JPG. No useable weathersealing. No ergonomics. Expensive lenses. What exactly was the good thing? A good sensor... admittedly. But that's all.
They don't offer the obvious Canon does: Lossless compressed RAW!Chris Jankowski said:Sony does offer completely lossless RAW. They introduced it about a year ago, as the customers asked for it. However, most users found out that they have not been losing anything noticeable with the compressed RAW and the size of files is much smaller. Lossless RAW is just another tick off point.vscd said:Sony not even has a lossless RAW or the possibilty to shoot RAW together with very fine JPG. No useable weathersealing. No ergonomics. Expensive lenses. What exactly was the good thing? A good sensor... admittedly. But that's all.
Jack Douglas said:I'm a weirdo for sure. 90% or my shooting is over ISO 1000 and ranges from 400 - 800mm but that's dependent on many factors and could change.
bhf3737 said:I guess "more or less equal" does not mean "equal". That is why in math and statistics we have "equal" and "significantly different" and nothing in between.jayphotoworks said:Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.
Precisely speaking, at the end of the day, we would like to conclude that there is no "significant difference" between a Sony body and a high end DSLR in terms features such as technology, build, user experience, price and end product they produce (i.e. pictures). But even if we get there, we will have yet another body capable of doing things alongside the others that are doing it for 20-30 years!!
On the contrary, bloggers and marketing guys want to promote mirrorless as a significantly different technology, user experience, etc., which is currently groundless and is not based on any valid evidence.
jayphotoworks said:bhf3737 said:I guess "more or less equal" does not mean "equal". That is why in math and statistics we have "equal" and "significantly different" and nothing in between.jayphotoworks said:Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.
Precisely speaking, at the end of the day, we would like to conclude that there is no "significant difference" between a Sony body and a high end DSLR in terms features such as technology, build, user experience, price and end product they produce (i.e. pictures). But even if we get there, we will have yet another body capable of doing things alongside the others that are doing it for 20-30 years!!
On the contrary, bloggers and marketing guys want to promote mirrorless as a significantly different technology, user experience, etc., which is currently groundless and is not based on any valid evidence.
I have to agree that the more or less equal really depends on what you shoot. For myself, the major compromise I had to live with shooting on Canon was the video feature-set or lack thereof. For most still shooters, I can fully understand why they would view Canon as the best solution. For hybrid or video work, I'm not so sure. Sony's feature set and ergonomics for video acquisition far outpace any of Canon's non-cinema line offerings. I mentioned all of these before, but the latest A7R3 and A7III have separate button configuration for stills vs video. Sony understands that many of the people buying their videos have specific video requirements and has catered the camera ergonomically to be dual-purpose, not just a stills camera with some video sprinkled on top. This extends to the intelligent hotshoe that has pins for various audio inputs like the XLR kit, etc. without separate cables. At the same time, they also understand the "people that need serious video buy a real video camera" mantra, by not throwing in a high bit-rate codec that burns through memory cards and requires transcoding to edit.
My hope is that the upcoming mirrorless bodies from Canon address some of these things. The fact the M50 has DPAF and 4K, although not together, is a good sign for things to come from an upcoming flagship from Canon. In addition, Nikon and Canon are both jumping into mirrorless this year, either as a reaction from Sony's push into this space or simply because they see the evolution of cameras being mirrorless rather than DSLRs. Once all of the manufacturers are more or less on the same playing field within mirrorless and we actually start to see the decline of traditional DSLRs, I feel the real innovation can start. Then it is simply a matter of what they put into the silicon whether that be AI, machine learning or computational photography.
Chris Jankowski said:The DPReview has just published comprehensive and detailed review of Sony a7 III:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review
This is well worth reading to know what is the current state of the aart in prosumer FF mirrorless.
It was surprising to me to find how far Sony has moved in the 5 years since the release of their first FF mirrorless - a7.
hmatthes said:Chris Jankowski said:The DPReview has just published comprehensive and detailed review of Sony a7 III:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review
This is well worth reading to know what is the current state of the aart in prosumer FF mirrorless.
It was surprising to me to find how far Sony has moved in the 5 years since the release of their first FF mirrorless - a7.
Very good review, factual and mostly unbiased. The A7-III may be tempting but needing a Metabones Model V to support my glass is rather off-putting. My friends tell me that using an adapter is far from optimal and I agree in principle. But selling their "L" lenses, they moan about the over-priced equivalent(?) Sony lenses!
CPS loaned me a EOS M5 with Canon's EF adapter and I found absolutely no problems with compatibility, focus, usage, and EXIF using my "L" glass. This is because the same manufacturer engineered the body, the adapter and the lens.
So I shall wait, impatiently, for Canon's FF Mirrorless -- hopefully aimed at the 5D-xx crowd.
I'm still shooting the original 6D and using a 5D-IV whenever possible. Oh, and a Leica Q which shows me how amazing 24mp is on full frame when the same manufacturer builds both body and lens!
Come on Canon, my savings are ready for depletion!
Talys said:hmatthes said:Chris Jankowski said:The DPReview has just published comprehensive and detailed review of Sony a7 III:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review
This is well worth reading to know what is the current state of the aart in prosumer FF mirrorless.
It was surprising to me to find how far Sony has moved in the 5 years since the release of their first FF mirrorless - a7.
Very good review, factual and mostly unbiased. The A7-III may be tempting but needing a Metabones Model V to support my glass is rather off-putting. My friends tell me that using an adapter is far from optimal and I agree in principle. But selling their "L" lenses, they moan about the over-priced equivalent(?) Sony lenses!
CPS loaned me a EOS M5 with Canon's EF adapter and I found absolutely no problems with compatibility, focus, usage, and EXIF using my "L" glass. This is because the same manufacturer engineered the body, the adapter and the lens.
So I shall wait, impatiently, for Canon's FF Mirrorless -- hopefully aimed at the 5D-xx crowd.
I'm still shooting the original 6D and using a 5D-IV whenever possible. Oh, and a Leica Q which shows me how amazing 24mp is on full frame when the same manufacturer builds both body and lens!
Come on Canon, my savings are ready for depletion!
The adapters are a nightmare, because they seem good until you miss a whole bunch of shots because of slow AF, AF hunting, strange voodoo or outright crash. Don't use one except for lenses that you use only very infrequently, in my opinion.
The review has a lot of pros/cons that are fact-based, and remarkably, actually looks like someone tried to use the camera. The list of what they didn't like for sports/wildlife photography is actually pretty close to what I don't like -- and those are kind of a deal-killer for me.
It does mention that AF in continuous is at the aperture you set, not the widest aperture; it doesn't mention that AF is always slower than a modern PDAF DSLR that's same-priced or higher, and it also doesn't mention that AF in single-shot is contract detect and annoyingly hunts even when you have tons of light.
I too look forward to a Canon mirrorless, as the M5 simply feels like a better photography experience than the A7/A9 series. If they can carry that over to the full frame offering, I'll be pretty happy. Oh, as long as there is a flippy screen, too!
hmatthes said:CPS loaned me a EOS M5 with Canon's EF adapter and I found absolutely no problems with compatibility, focus, usage, and EXIF using my "L" glass. This is because the same manufacturer engineered the body, the adapter and the lens.