With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

OP's gear list has nothing but Sony gear. And all he did was ask a question... no complaints.

Sony is definitely the Tesla of camera brands in more ways than one.

But the price differences of some of the examples he posts are between $50 and $100.00! Seems petty to me. Many thought the EOS R should have sold for $1,500 at its release - while the a7 III was able to command list price for well over a year. And his complaints about the screen and adapters seem like nitpicking as well.

I agree that nitpicking over $50-100 is petty. At the high end for example I think all 3 manufacturers are within that bandwidth. But everyone's not buying L or GM glass. In the midrange is where it gets wonky. Again, what about the FE 24-105 + 35 1.8 are worth $500-1000 more (depending on where/how you get them) than the RF versions? What about the FE 24-70/4 is worth close to Nikon's Z version? Etc.

As far as I’m concerned, the EOS R is a sham. 1.8x crop, mushy 4K and mushy 1080p, softer than Fuji, Panasonic, Blackmagic, Nikon and Sony. And horrible rolling shutter.

I don't get the video thing. Good autofocus- I get. Nothing matters if your subject isn't in focus. Low light IQ- I get. Any camera can take photos in bright light. Etc. What exactly is the big win for 4K video for a primarily stills shooter? At full res, especially at normal TV viewing distances, the IQ difference is marginal. And that comes at a huge cost in space and processing power. What exactly does 4K enable you to do and why have I never seen the cinematographic masterpieces 4K has enabled so many Sony 4K advocates to create?

The whole 4K thing feels more like a spec Sony people rallied behind after the fact than something photographers actually need, like better AF, better IQ, bigger buffers etc. Not saying cameras shouldn't have video at all but in all the time we've had 4K cameras I've never heard why we all need it.

You have more room to do in post with 4K. When you upload 4k video to youtube your video doesn't look like poop thanks to youtube compression.

Also because the EOS R doesn't have IBIS, if you don't use stabilised lenses you're gonna have to use either electronic stabilisation or warp stabiliser in post, both are not ideal and further reduce video quality.

I don't mind the 4K quality on the EOS R, it's good enough and doesn't look "digital". Also now you can get a speedbooster on the EOS R that reduce the crop factor to 1.24x:

https://www.metabones.com/article/of/Introduces_Canon_EF_to_EOS_R_SpeedBooster

As for the 1080p, the lack of 120fps is a shame but the video quality it's actually surprisingly good, better than the A7III for sure.

The EOS R also has far higher bit rate that allow you push the color in post much further than the A7III without the color falling apart, even in 8 bit.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow