wow wow wow wait a second - did Canon just overtake Sony?

[joger]

The Empire Strikes Back

you know me - I am a huge fan of technological superior solutions independent from manufacture. I like the recent Hasselblad H2D for the sensor and the Alpha one for it's PhotoJournalist approach and the A7R IV for it's leadership in resolution and the GM lenses for being 2nd to none in the market.

What Canon just did with the R6 II is nothing but a clear competition note to all other MILC manufactures.

Not only did they bring a new camera but also my most beloved focal length with built in IS

So what did we get?

1. R6 II - A7 IV competition on steroids
   • 40 fps in electronic shutter mode and 12 fps in mechanical shutter mode
   • advanced AF
   • ISO 204 k
   • 4k60p video
   • battery life + 50 %
   • price level of the A7 IV
2. RF 135 f/1.8
   • built in IS
   • 935 g
   • price level of the GM 135
3. Rumors for a 90 MP camera

Out of a sudden Canon seem to have eliminated most of my critique points and delivers lots of interesting products that are not only similarly attractive in specs but nothing short but outstanding in specs.

YES - reviews will proof the real world quality but from what I am seeing Canon did just deliver an amazing firework of nice things at a reasonable pricing level.

Now let's wait for the high res body and I might be tempted to swing back again - will have an interesting discussion with the photo dealer of my least mistrust whether I could trade in my Sony gear next year in case we'll get a high res body from Canon.

Not really my intention but I did not think Canon would tick most or all of the boxes that interest me.

Looks like the Canon engineers have not been sitting on their hands for the past two years.

What do you guys think?

I guess I am not the only one that had switched from the lazy Canon guys to the innovative and fast moving Sony team. Their recent slow down in comparison is visible for me - it's not day and night as before with Canon vs. Sony but within that short period of time Canon proofs that things can change eventually.

Especially the RF 135 is a really attractive offering

--
__________________________________
... having is better than needing

 

[QuietOC]

We will see what Canon can do with FSI again. History is pretty clear about what to expect.

 

[Dave Oddie]

Its two years late. This is the spec the Mk 1 should have had.

When I got my A7 IV (pre ordered so one of the first) I had no tie to Sony. I had a few A mount lenses but was prepared to sell those and I seriously considered the R6 but the 20mp sensor killed it. Just not enough crop flexibility.

24mp is still not good enough in a new mid range body in 2022/3 in my opinion and that 40fps is just going to appeal to those who read spec sheets because with that sensor rolling shutter is guaranteed.

I would imaging its a by-product of the increased video performance but will be of little practical use for stills. To be honest I am not sure what use 40fps is even if it didn't have any rolling shutter. How quick before the buffer fills up in RAW?

The video specs are better than the A7 IV but then I don't shoot video so that's a moot point to me.

Would I have chosen this camera if it had been available when I bought my A7 IV? I might have just in order to try something different but with hindsight I would probably be regretting it because of Canon's restrictive practices over 3rd part lenses.

 

[georgehakim]

Compared to the A7iv, it has faster burst speed (12 vs 10), but that is on 24mp images compared to the Sony 33mp. Other than that, there isn’t much that tempt switching.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

The only thing Canon has brought to the table that is of any interest to me is their Eye Controlled Focus, which I begged them for 20 years to bring to a digital camera. Now it's too late.

 

[mattviki]

IMO: now that Canon banned 3rd party lenses for the RF line, it could do 1000 fps and I wouldn't care...

 

[SilvanBromide]

Its two years late. This is the spec the Mk 1 should have had.

When I got my A7 IV (pre ordered so one of the first) I had no tie to Sony. I had a few A mount lenses but was prepared to sell those and I seriously considered the R6 but the 20mp sensor killed it. Just not enough crop flexibility.

24mp is still not good enough in a new mid range body in 2022/3 in my opinion and that 40fps is just going to appeal to those who read spec sheets because with that sensor rolling shutter is guaranteed.

I would imaging its a by-product of the increased video performance but will be of little practical use for stills. To be honest I am not sure what use 40fps is even if it didn't have any rolling shutter. How quick before the buffer fills up in RAW?

The video specs are better than the A7 IV but then I don't shoot video so that's a moot point to me.

Would I have chosen this camera if it had been available when I bought my A7 IV? I might have just in order to try something different but with hindsight I would probably be regretting it because of Canon's restrictive practices over 3rd part lenses.

Yes - it's hard to see how a 24.2MP camera could be characterised as "overtaking" a 33MP camera, notwithstanding a marginal/incremental edge in some of its other specs.

Lots of things (burst rates etc) are far easier to do with a significantly smaller data set. The R6 II would be big news if it came out the same month as the a7iii. It's still a decent/credible offering by all appearances, but hardly basis for a "wow wow wow wait a second" response.

Also, being Canon, it is always wise to wait to see what "gotcha" issues may emerge once real world users report in.

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
https://500px.com/raycologon
https://www.instagram.com/raycologon

 

[joger]

IMO: now that Canon banned 3rd party lenses for the RF line, it could do 1000 fps and I wouldn't care...

I use purely GM and G lenses for quality reasons - I could easily live without any 3rd party lens now - I keep the old ones bacause they basically have no significant used value.

I'd buy many of the Canon primes immediately since they offer a similar value as the GM lenses - I am not interested in pricing but in cashflow.

3rd party lenses always offered a bad cashflow with very few exceptions.

But I guess that's pure brand loyalism - I am completely open to whatever suits best - looks like Canon is getting attractive again

P.S. I have switched companies many times and every time I got a very very nice bonus in extra income on top - would have missed a lot in terms of income and most of all experiences in the past three decades

--
__________________________________
... having is better than needing

 

[Mr_Win]

werent you just complaining about megapixels?

I like the canon approach and I talked about it in the other thread, stick with multiples of 25/ 50/100/200mp and work on the rolling shutter. Canon doesnt have as advance tech as sony, so they stay focused and efficient.

a fast and robust 24mp is arguably better than a 33mp that's slow......... that said, the camera looks like a lot of canon gimping with firmware and in case you havent used canon before, you should be aware of this.

 

[joger]

Compared to the A7iv, it has faster burst speed (12 vs 10), but that is on 24mp images compared to the Sony 33mp. Other than that, there isn’t much that tempt switching.

in my discussion about the lackluster A7R V many keep telling me that resolution does not count?

102 MP is useless compare to 60 MP but the tiny step from 24 to 33 matters?

I don't get it - I thought fps is the morst important acc. to the A9 and Alpha One owners?

Looks like you guys don't know what you want?

I know what I want - a high megapixel flagship around 100ish MP but I find it interesting to see that Canon basically offers an entry level that runs circles around the latest entry level of Sony and we're not about to see any overhauling of the A7 IV any time soon

 

[Dave Oddie]

Compared to the A7iv, it has faster burst speed (12 vs 10), but that is on 24mp images compared to the Sony 33mp. Other than that, there isn’t much that tempt switching.

in my discussion about the lackluster A7R V many keep telling me that resolution does not count?

102 MP is useless compare to 60 MP but the tiny step from 24 to 33 matters?

I don't get it - I thought fps is the morst important acc. to the A9 and Alpha One owners?

Looks like you guys don't know what you want?

I know what I want - a high megapixel flagship around 100ish MP but I find it interesting to see that Canon basically offers an entry level that runs circles around the latest entry level of Sony and we're not about to see any overhauling of the A7 IV any time soon

I knew exactly what I wanted when I bought an A7 IV and it was neither 20mp (what the R6 had at the time) nor was it the 60mp of an R IV. I still don't want 60mp and does 33mp offer something over 24mp? Yes it does without getting into the large file sizes of the R IV/ V. I often crop just a small amount and I get the added flexibility.

The only reason to go for 60mp is if you need 60mp resolution not so you can crop even more (though of course you can do so).

I am surprised Canon has not gone for 32/33 mp as they did on the EOS APS-C DSLR'S but then that would not allow them to offer 12fps / 40fps so they went 24.

It's still the same trade off. Do you want high fps or higher resolution but if you really want high fps you need something different than an R6II anyway to do away with roiling shutter. An OM-1, A9 or A1 (or maybe a Fuji if they brought one out with a high speed sensor).

 

[Barugon]

...sell all your Sony gear and buy Canon!

 

[joger]

...sell all your Sony gear and buy Canon!

Once they’ll have a 100 MP camera that’s a valid option.

GM lenses hold their price pretty well and cameras are disposals in technology terms - for me the average usable time is less than 5..6 years before the value is close to nothing.

--
__________________________________
... having is better than needing

 

[trungtran]

I paid $1300 back in 2016 for my new gray market a7ii when Ebay didn't charge tax yet.

What could I get for $1500 that would be an upgrade in IQ?

Canon is releasing some great products, but hardly worth swapping systems for.

 

[Sundre]

I don't really care for Canon's current offerings (the R3 is the only camera of theirs capable of doing what I want, and way too expensive for me), but I'm happy for whatever keeps Sony on their toes and innovating.

The worst thing that can befall any industry is a lack of real competition, and therefore no need for industry leaders to innovate and stay sharp. I love how AMD's Zen CPUs kicked Intel in the nuts and forced them to wake up, after being way too dominant and complacent for way too long.

As a company producing their own FF sensors, Canon is better positioned to challenge Sony than other manufacturers. I really hope they keep fighting hard and forcing Sony to invest and improve.

And I want my A9 III =D

 

[SilvanBromide]

Compared to the A7iv, it has faster burst speed (12 vs 10), but that is on 24mp images compared to the Sony 33mp. Other than that, there isn’t much that tempt switching.

in my discussion about the lackluster A7R V many keep telling me that resolution does not count?

102 MP is useless compare to 60 MP but the tiny step from 24 to 33 matters?

I don't get it - I thought fps is the morst important acc. to the A9 and Alpha One owners?

Looks like you guys don't know what you want?

I know what I want - a high megapixel flagship around 100ish MP but I find it interesting to see that Canon basically offers an entry level that runs circles around the latest entry level of Sony and we're not about to see any overhauling of the A7 IV any time soon

I don't see anyone telling you that "resolution doesn't count".

What people are telling you is that resolution isn't THE ONLY THING that counts.

Big difference. So big, and so obvious that it is hard to believe you're serious with the above post.

 

[Bassman2003]

I agree with the earlier poster, it is too late, at least for me. When I was looking to upgrade from my 5DMKIII I was really looking forward to the R5/R6 and had not really considered Sony cameras. I shoot both stills and video but really wanted high end features for the video. Almost went with the Lumix FF cameras as my GH5 is a good performer. Canon released the cameras and they were both limited from a working/job perspective for video. So I went with the A7sIII & A7IV.

The R6 v1 is imho Canon's true personality. The R6 vII is Canon being forced to keep up with the competition (A7IV etc...). They probably did not want to do this camera but competition made them do it. But they still included the micro HDMI just let everybody know they are still in charge of their own decisions!

Now that I have worked with the Sony images for over a year, I have no regrets leaving Canon behind. Watching the DPR video shows the images are nice but this quality is obtainable from all of the major brands these days. So I do not think anybody was overtaken with this release. Canon just exercised some demons.

 

[ahaslett]

More expensive and less featured than an OM1, with less lens choice. Lot bigger and heavier too.

More expensive and lower resolution than a used A7Riv, with less lens choice.

If it excites you, buy it. Sony are always going to be ahead of Canon on sensor technology. Canon will probably edge ahead of Sony on very expensive and high performing lenses, if that’s what excites you. Sony might win on naked AF speed.

There are already 100Mpix bodies, if you need one. Sensor resolution has diminishing returns as image capture gets caught between depth of field and diffraction. If you view large enough for 100Mpix to really impact composition, then composition technique has to change.

Andrew

 

[Mattitude V1]

I have no interest in a 90MP camera. Everyone has a 135mm 1.8 now. Nikon is making one as well.



And I’m not sure what the big selling point of the R6 II is supposed to be. The additional 4MP?



The R6 II is the ultimate spec sheet camera.

 

[paul cool]

The Empire Strikes Back

you know me - I am a huge fan of technological superior solutions independent from manufacture. I like the recent Hasselblad H2D for the sensor and the Alpha one for it's PhotoJournalist approach and the A7R IV for it's leadership in resolution and the GM lenses for being 2nd to none in the market.

What Canon just did with the R6 II is nothing but a clear competition note to all other MILC manufactures.

Not only did they bring a new camera but also my most beloved focal length with built in IS

So what did we get?

1. R6 II - A7 IV competition on steroids
   • 40 fps in electronic shutter mode and 12 fps in mechanical shutter mode
   • advanced AF
   • ISO 204 k
   • 4k60p video
   • battery life + 50 %
   • price level of the A7 IV
2. RF 135 f/1.8
   • built in IS
   • 935 g
   • price level of the GM 135
3. Rumors for a 90 MP camera

Out of a sudden Canon seem to have eliminated most of my critique points and delivers lots of interesting products that are not only similarly attractive in specs but nothing short but outstanding in specs.

YES - reviews will proof the real world quality but from what I am seeing Canon did just deliver an amazing firework of nice things at a reasonable pricing level.

Now let's wait for the high res body and I might be tempted to swing back again - will have an interesting discussion with the photo dealer of my least mistrust whether I could trade in my Sony gear next year in case we'll get a high res body from Canon.

Not really my intention but I did not think Canon would tick most or all of the boxes that interest me.

Looks like the Canon engineers have not been sitting on their hands for the past two years.

What do you guys think?

I guess I am not the only one that had switched from the lazy Canon guys to the innovative and fast moving Sony team. Their recent slow down in comparison is visible for me - it's not day and night as before with Canon vs. Sony but within that short period of time Canon proofs that things can change eventually.

Especially the RF 135 is a really attractive offering

No the sony is cheaper £400 for the body £700 for the lens and the samyang 135 is a third of the price of the canon,so no win here if you are talking price options at least in the uk

Paul Stuart

Explore Paul Stuart’s 7,232 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com