EOS RP specs not found in A7 iii

SwedishPhoto said:

ProDude said:

With the exception of the stop and a half dynamic range and lightning fast eye focus and battery life the Sony doesn't have a lot more to talk about. It's amazing they slam the RP as bad as I see happening. It may not be the equivalent of a BMW but it ain't a Toyota either ;-)

Click to expand...

You're forgetting the 10 fps with full AF and metering, the faster AF, better video, and more. 3-4 times the battery life isn't to be scoffed at.

With that said. I'm actually about to sell my A7iii, and keep my Fuji X100F. I dunno what it is, but I don't like shooting with the Sony's (own the A7ii as well).

I'm for sure buying an EOS RP or R. Actually considering the RP for its low price and value (and I own a few Canon lenses). Can't really beat the Canon lens line up and prices (both new and used).

Click to expand...

Yeah you're right....but indeed it can be said if a camera doesn't inspire one's use of it, it's NOT the right one for them. I played with a R for a week and I must say there sure were things that were very captivating. I didn't hate the touch bar as most have it seems. About the only annoying thing was the delay of the shutter vs. hitting the shutter button I don't tend to get on my other cameras I've used in lower light slower shutter speed scenarios. But the feel of the body along with that wonderful 24-105 lens is pure sex. The controls may be a tad different but I imagine once one is used to them it's no big deal. The screen is about the best there is let alone the menu.

I tested out the focus tracking at the highest speed with C-AF and ironically it nailed every frame in poor light as my wife walked fast across the kitchen at night with nearly no light, so that impressed me. There is always the Canon Color-Science to captivate. I've a few others to try out before I make my mind up.....so who knows it may end up back at the R. You're right about one thing. You can't touch their lens lineup....especially the group planned for the remainder of the year. Canon has their act together in that department for SURE. Now if they would only come out with their pro version we'd all be set.!

bullet1 said:

maadfw said:

Hi

Spec wise, A7 iii may be a better camera but there are features where RP provides that A7 iii lacks. Here are few that comes to my mind.

Again focusing only on specs/features, not the usability, better touchscreen, menu and colors.

Look, i am not saying RP is a better camera, it is not. The intent is address every camera brings its own unique features.

1). Rear screen resolution (1.04M vs 921k)

2) Intervalometer builtin

3) Focus stacking

4) Resolution (26.2 vs 24mp)

5) Flexible Value mode

Click to expand...

I heard a lot of good things about this.

bullet1 said:

6) Fully Articulating screen

Click to expand...

I really like the flip out LCD screen.

bullet1 said:

7) Battery Charger!

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about this. As a long time Canon user, I prefer not to charge the battery in camera. Besides, it can only charge one battery at a time, no different than the standalone single battery changer. For my A7III, I was able to buy an aftermarket USB powered battery charger which can change two batteries at a time. That is what I would want for the RP.

bullet1 said:

8) Video Bit rate (120Mbps vs 100Mbps for 4K, 60Mbps vs 50Mbps for 1080p/60)

9) Low light sensitivity (-5 EV at f1.2 vs -3 EV at f2 works about -3.66 vs -3)

10) Support for 4:3 ratio

Click to expand...

11) Less weight

12) Better grip

13) Fully touchable menu system that is lacking on the A7III.

I have the A7III and am interested in the RP. Due to its light weight, it would be a great travel FF camera. I might even take both the RP and the A7III with me on trips.

Click to expand...

Lighter body only makes sense with lighter lenses, otherwise it becomes pointless. And taking both of them to be lighter is like ... "wait, what?!"

The EOS RP is already almost 700 bucks cheaper than a Sony A7III and comes with an adapter which would cost you at least another 250 bucks for Sony (Sigma MC-11).
With an L-Glass lens its also just 200 bucks more than a Sony A7III without anything...

So if you compare cameras, you should compare against Sony 7II. Which gets beaten by the RP in almost everything but dynamic range.

Battersea said:

Miguel-C said:

ProDude said:

With the exception of the stop and a half dynamic range and lightning fast eye focus and battery life the Sony doesn't have a lot more to talk about. It's amazing they slam the RP as bad as I see happening. It may not be the equivalent of a BMW but it ain't a Toyota either ;-)

Click to expand...

I would take a toyota over a BM myself

Click to expand...

Ten million people choose Toyotas over BMW every year.

Click to expand...

Because they are cheaper. The same reason why the RP will outsell the A7III.

pyla said:

Battersea said:

Miguel-C said:

ProDude said:

With the exception of the stop and a half dynamic range and lightning fast eye focus and battery life the Sony doesn't have a lot more to talk about. It's amazing they slam the RP as bad as I see happening. It may not be the equivalent of a BMW but it ain't a Toyota either ;-)

Click to expand...

I would take a toyota over a BM myself

Click to expand...

Ten million people choose Toyotas over BMW every year.

Click to expand...

Because they are cheaper. The same reason why the RP will outsell the A7III.

Click to expand...

Cheap, reliable, adequate performance. Nothing to brag about but GREAT VALUE to get a job done.

Just like Ryobi tools, not contractor grade (although a lot of people I have hired use them) but nice options, tough enough at the right price point.

Anyone want to compare those specs, as the prices are closer?

Battersea said:

Anyone want to compare those specs, as the prices are closer?

Click to expand...

the A7II was announced Nov 20 2014.

Any camera of today is superior to one from 4.5 years ago, and once you've said that, you've not said much (unless you're clearly desperate and insecure about your gear). So let me reassure you: there is excellent gear in the R system but it won't make good photos if you spend your time comparing your camera specs with a model that's 4.5 years old.

I'd suggest you guys go out shooting instead.

I am sorry you don't like camera comparisons, and, for sure, on forums like dpr, they tend to be exercises in promoting one brand of camera over another. The problem is there really are some things that are unlikable about some of Sony's recent cameras, even though there is a lot to like about them as well. Having used both systems (tho new to the Rp and having ignored the R), I might disagree a bit here and there with the overall assessments, but in general they are more or less indicative of two different cameras that have different strengths and weaknesses. In that, the op's post I think started a decent thread, but as always here devolved into a "my camera is better than yours" type of thread. It is too bad because sometimes I think real comparisons could be helpful.

jay-A said:

Battersea said:

Anyone want to compare those specs, as the prices are closer?

Click to expand...

the A7II was announced Nov 20 2014.

Any camera of today is superior to one from 4.5 years ago, and once you've said that, you've not said much (unless you're clearly desperate and insecure about your gear). So let me reassure you: there is excellent gear in the R system but it won't make good photos if you spend your time comparing your camera specs with a model that's 4.5 years old.

I'd suggest you guys go out shooting instead.

Click to expand...

But they compete on price.

Selene said:

I am sorry you don't like camera comparisons, and, for sure, on forums like dpr, they tend to be exercises in promoting one brand of camera over another. The problem is there really are some things that are unlikable about some of Sony's recent cameras, even though there is a lot to like about them as well. Having used both systems (tho new to the Rp and having ignored the R), I might disagree a bit here and there with the overall assessments, but in general they are more or less indicative of two different cameras that have different strengths and weaknesses. In that, the op's post I think started a decent thread,

Click to expand...

No. It can not be a decent start for a good comparison thread when only the positives of the RP over the A7III are mentioned and not the other way around.

Selene said:

but as always here devolved into a "my camera is better than yours" type of thread.

Click to expand...

That risk is always there, but this risk increases dramatically when only the positives of one camera are mentioned without mentioning the positives of the other.

Selene said:

It is too bad because sometimes I think real comparisons could be helpful.

Click to expand...

Agreed, only stating the pros of one and not the other isn't helpful.

I'd say the RP and A7II are aimed at different photographers. The A7II may be better for those who care more about certain image quality advantages like dynamic range and image stabilization and having a compact kit with their native lenses. The RP will be better for those who want faster AF and ease of use (subjective) and don't mind a more limited native lens selection or adapting lenses. Even for video, the RP theoretically could do much better than the A7II, but due to Canon's ridiculous handicaps, those who don't need 4K or a selfie touchscreen, and want frame rate flexibility and IBIS may choose the A7II. I'd think the RP will appeal to more, especially since Canon has stronger brand power, but there are those that will also prefer the A7II.

Even for lens selection, their pros and cons are quite different. Sony has more native lenses that should help with portability and affordability. Canon just has more lenses that will AF natively. But if one only needs 'passable' AF performance, Sony has a larger selection as they can adapt Canon, Nikon, older Sony/Minolta, Leica and Sigma lenses too (though not all).

That being said, with Sony's extra $200 trade in bonus, the A7RII is essentially $1600 which also puts it at a similar price point and can appeal to more photographers since it has image quality, video, and autofocus advantages.

Another interesting factor for a very limited selection of people is that a Canon shooter could use a Sony body to add stabilization to their non-stabilized lenses (possibly at the compromise of AF performance).

Overall, I'd say those on a $1300 body budget should know whether or not the A7II or RP will be better for them as IMO, their pros and cons are quite different. Those on a $1600 body budget may find it more difficult to decide between the A7RII and RP though.

That seems like a thoughtful comparison to me. You are taking the glass aspect into consideration, that is a good thing. So basically you should ask yourself a view questions like:

1. what lenses would i prefer and/or do i own already?

2. what kind of AF performance do i need?

Regardless the answers on 1, for the landscape photographer the price point of the RP isn't that revolutionary as they where served by Sony already with those older bodies.

To my eye the RP is interesting:

1. If you own EF glass already or have EF glass high on your wish list

2. If you want good AF performance on full frame not spending so much on the body

In case 2 there is a black box if you would prefer RF glass over EF glass, as RF glass could be so expensive the advantage of the low price of the body will be vanished soon. This might be the reason for all these low priced bodies: a lot of customers forget they will buy more glass for it in the future and they will also have to pay a price for that glass. Sony plays the same game. The A7III is affordable, but one day you will want to add a 70-200 f/2.8 with native AF, and that day will be pay back time. Compared to this the RP + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 version II is good value for money.

DISCLAIMER: This is just a reply to thunder storm's comment, not meant to be a hijacking of the thread or anything else. Sorry if it's off topic.

Yes, Sony FE lenses can get expensive, which is why third-party involvement is so key. With support and used purchasing, one can get a pretty good kit without spending 'too much'.

Here's how I built my main kit:

• Sony A7RII ($1100 used)
• Rokinon/Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 ($450 used)
• Sigma 85mm f/1.4 + LA-EA3 adapter ($350 used)
• Sony 10-18mm f/4 [usable for full frame at around 14mm] ($450 used)
• Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ($800 new)
• Minolta 70-210mm f/4 + LA-EA4 adapter ($150 used)

As you can see, I don't use any native FE lenses in this (I have the 50mm f/1.8 but don't use it much anymore) but rather mainly rely on third-party support.

For the 'mirrorless advantage' of portability with fast AF, I use the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and Sony 10-18mm f/4. The Rokinon/Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 isn't tiny but still reasonably sized and autofocuses like native lenses. The other lenses are not used as much but still offer decent autofocus with the main sacrifice of size.

At $3300, I'd say this is quite a comprehensive kit. All of these lenses are sharp enough for me, even on the 42MP A7RII.

The main weaknesses here:

• The Sony 10-18mm f/4 isn't that flexible on full frame so I am hoping to rectify this with the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 if it's reasonably priced
• The Minolta 70-210mm f/4 + LE-EA4 doesn't have 'smart' AF features like eye-AF. There are lots of rumours of a Tamron f/2.8 telephoto zoom, which can hopefully fix this. Technically, one could get the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 with LA-EA3 for around $900 used or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with MC-11 for $1400 used and get eye-AF but I'm waiting for an affordable native option.

So yes, the Canon RP definitely has a potentially more affordable lens lineup with the EF lenses, but Sony has options too and the native options can sometimes (but admittedly not always) help keep the size down (though yes, many native mirrorless full frame lenses (from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, and Leica) are seemingly overpriced compared to their DSLR/DSLT counterparts).

Slaginfected said:

bullet1 said:

maadfw said:

Hi

Spec wise, A7 iii may be a better camera but there are features where RP provides that A7 iii lacks. Here are few that comes to my mind.

Again focusing only on specs/features, not the usability, better touchscreen, menu and colors.

Look, i am not saying RP is a better camera, it is not. The intent is address every camera brings its own unique features.

1). Rear screen resolution (1.04M vs 921k)

2) Intervalometer builtin

3) Focus stacking

4) Resolution (26.2 vs 24mp)

5) Flexible Value mode

Click to expand...

I heard a lot of good things about this.

Slaginfected said:

6) Fully Articulating screen

Click to expand...

I really like the flip out LCD screen.

Slaginfected said:

7) Battery Charger!

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about this. As a long time Canon user, I prefer not to charge the battery in camera. Besides, it can only charge one battery at a time, no different than the standalone single battery changer. For my A7III, I was able to buy an aftermarket USB powered battery charger which can change two batteries at a time. That is what I would want for the RP.

Slaginfected said:

8) Video Bit rate (120Mbps vs 100Mbps for 4K, 60Mbps vs 50Mbps for 1080p/60)

9) Low light sensitivity (-5 EV at f1.2 vs -3 EV at f2 works about -3.66 vs -3)

10) Support for 4:3 ratio

Click to expand...

11) Less weight

12) Better grip

13) Fully touchable menu system that is lacking on the A7III.

I have the A7III and am interested in the RP. Due to its light weight, it would be a great travel FF camera. I might even take both the RP and the A7III with me on trips.

Click to expand...

Lighter body only makes sense with lighter lenses, otherwise it becomes pointless. And taking both of them to be lighter is like ... "wait, what?!"

Click to expand...

There are no rules that light weight bodies must match light weight lenses or vice versa. For large heavy lenses such as the 600mm F4 IS, there is no body that is heavy enough to match the lens. One must hold the lens with one hand to balance the whole combo. The camera is just a little recording device for what the lens sees. For me, the total weight matters, IMHO.