Should Sony develop an R5-like camera?

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts. Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video, even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2. Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes. And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) , but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

So, let also add my reply - yes, I think Sony should really develop such a camera. I would seriously consider buying it, but only if Sony was able to keep its size in the dimensions of the current bodies - the R5 is too large for me. I would actually accept a bit more heat limitations for a smaller body, say 20 minutes of 4K/60p sounds still very usable to me.

There was an interesting poll over in eos r about how people plan on using their r5 and the vast majority, I believe is it was 90%+ or so at the time, chose 90% photo/10% video. So that tells me that people are spending big money for features they have no interest in which is unfortunate.

Personally I would like to see a new a7r3 version type camera. Keep the megapixels in the 42 range while improving the overall camera. I don't feel 8k is needed. I feel it's a novelty thing and I certainly don't want to not only pay for it in the camera but also have to buy a new computer just to post process the footage. It's possible the a7iv will be this camera.

In the end I like what sony is doing by having video and photo centric cameras. Choose one that suits your needs.

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts. Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video, even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2. Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes. And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) , but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

Click to expand...

The R5 does offer a faster burst rate than that found in the a7Riii and a7Riv. But its usefulness is limited by rolling shutter and other progressive readout artefacts. So it's a poor competitor to the a9 in that regard, and not necessarily a great option for high speed action (and where else do you need ~20fps?).

Unless Sony are able to do what the R5 doesn't and offer high burst rates that don't undercut the moment with rolling shutter issues, there is not much point in them trying.

Similar issue regarding the video. Unless Sony can do what Canon did not, and create a camera that will shoot 8K without overheating, then there is not much point.

Then there's IBIS. I think Canon has over-hyped their IBIS, but reviews do seem to suggest it may be about half a stop better than Sony in practice (nowhere near the 2.5 to 3 stops they imply).

Do I think Sony should try to squeeze out an extra half-stop of stabilization to compete? Maybe - if they can do it without compromising on other fronts. For me, the 5.5 stops they already provide is not a limiting factor (I can fairly reliably shoot down to nearly 1s hand-held at shorter focal lengths, and I'm totally happy to reach for a tripod beyond that).

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts. Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video, even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2. Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes. And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) , but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Sony has taken the approach to split their enthusiast lines into resolution and sensitivity (video) models. They are not going to go backwards in resolution for the r series.

It sounds to me that youre just after a high MP body with improved features and basic video. Your best bet is to simply wait 2 or so years for the a7 Mark V or Mark VI By then 42MP will be the norm and youll have the obligatory IBIS and electronic shutter improvements that come with every new gen. Basic 8k recording should be sorted out by then too.

I really like my A7RII but some things can benefit from improvements and I skipped the A7RIII and also the A7RIV so maybe I would buy an A7RV if the price was right.

Except a good price I want a 42-ish Mpix sensor with the best possible DR, noise and color and black and white gradients and tonality on the sensor and best possible autofocus in low light and good light. Also a fully articulating screen since I like to shot in odd angles. And the high eyepoint 10 Mdots EVF from the A7SIII and the new menu and full touch screen. And finally in a fourth generation body.

If it can do video as well, then that is ok if it doesn't cost extra or limits or hinders my stills photography.

Ah when will the photographically-challenged be satisfied with what is available now? Never.

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The R5 is useless for professional filmmaking. In the first place, the 8K files are massive and will crash your computer. Sony's ProRes RAW can be edited on a laptop. With the R5, you can't save all of your important commercial work because you'll need enormous amounts of storage. R5 high frame rate options are line-skipped rubbish, whereas the Sony shoots full pixel readout. The Sony has greater dynamic range than the R5. The tiny mini HDMI port on the Canon is a joke. The a7s III's got an industry standard HDMI port that won't snap in half the very first time you use it. The IBIS on the Canons is awful, with hideous looking warped corners that can never be fixed in post. R5 and R6 overheating is unacceptable for any job. Sony is light years ahead of Canon when it comes to high-end productions. Choosing a video camera solely based on Ks is foolhardy.

kolyy said:

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts.

Click to expand...

Why would any photographer want to downgrade from 61 megapixels to 45?

kolyy said:

Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video,

Click to expand...

What exactly does 'much more advanced video' mean? The Sony shoots the same codecs as their $12,000 FX9 and has 4K 10-bit 120fps, which not even the cinema camera can do.

kolyy said:

even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2.

Click to expand...

The a7s III already shoots unlimited 4K 24p 10 bit 4:2:2. It also has more accurate color than the R5.

kolyy said:

Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes.

Click to expand...

The Sony can already shoot for much longer than that! And like I said, it's not rubbish line-skipping crap.

kolyy said:

And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) ,

Click to expand...

Why is 8K so important to you? The S1H oversamples from 6K and has the cleanest readout of any mirrorless camera on the market.

kolyy said:

but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

Click to expand...

Canon is the one playing catch up to Sony, not the other way around. Canon deceived the public by making exaggerated claims and now they are suffering the consequences.

As a photography tool, the a7R IV is by far the better camera.

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts. Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video, even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2. Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes. And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) , but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

Click to expand...

Technically if Sony took the A7R IV, then add 8K and 4K120p/60p (probably line skipped and limited recording for those frame rates) and oversampled 4K30p, then add some of the typical generation-to-generation improvements like AF, IBIS and rolling-shutter and maybe a deeper buffer courtesy of the CFExpress A cards, and call it the A7RV then they already have a contender against the R5.

I guess what I'm saying Sony doesn't need to create another family line to compete with the R5, the A7RIV is nearly there, it just needs a little push and called A7RV.

To my taste, the R5 is two cameras in one:

1. Good high-resolution stills camera.
2. Flawed video camera with loads of click-bait stuff, which is mostly aimed at reviewers, magazine headlines and Walmart salesmen. Not so good for real life work.

Remember that a camera THAT expensive is clearly aimed at pros, who need not the big numbers, but reliable working tool. So Canon failed there.

To me it's quite obvious that making an all-good 8K hybrid camera at $4000 price point is impossible by this moment. We'll need waiting until technology evolves further, and until then we'll be served by 4K/60.

Also the number of RAW sensor pixels matters, when we record the oversampled video. The bigger the number, the more processing power (and heat) it drains. I think that in future Sony A7RV there'll be a choice between oversampled 4K with overheating time limit and pixel-binned 4K without overheating.

Sony noe has three FF lines - video and lov light centered, a standard workhorse, and a high resolution wonder - each one reliable and doing the specific job extremely well.

Why settle for a half baked Jack of all trades, master of none?

Think Sony has hit the target market pretty well. Why change that?

Trollmannx said:

Sony noe has three FF lines - video and lov light centered, a standard workhorse, and a high resolution wonder - each one reliable and doing the specific job extremely well.

Click to expand...

Four if you include the a9x - the high end speed demon action line.

Tristimulus said:

Why settle for a half baked Jack of all trades, master of none?

Think Sony has hit the target market pretty well. Why change that?

Click to expand...

Agreed.

For the most part, the R5 doesn't match up all that well to Sony's individual existing products. The a9 has less rolling shutter (and other silent shooting artefacts), the a7Siii is more versatile and has far fewer overheating issues and more DR, the a7Riv is higher resolution and the a7iii is far cheaper (and lighter and more compact, FWIW).

Aside from the hypothetical (or just 'pathetical', perhaps) bragging rights (if any) that 8K might offer, there's not a lot for Sony to chase --- and several downsides for them to stay well away from, IMO.

jonpais said:

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The R5 is useless for professional filmmaking. In the first place, the 8K files are massive and will crash your computer.

Click to expand...

This is false. I've edited the 8k raw files on my old laptop. I've seen many accounts of people doing the same.

To make it even easier, the R5 creates small proxy files while recording 8k raw. Maybe you do not understand the concept of proxy files.

One YouTuber had to issue an apology for saying the files were hard to edit after many people pointed out it was easy.

I just don't get this misinformation campaign.

Pascal F said:

jonpais said:

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The R5 is useless for professional filmmaking. In the first place, the 8K files are massive and will crash your computer.

Click to expand...

This is false. I've edited the 8k raw files on my old laptop. I've seen many accounts of people doing the same.

To make it even easier, the R5 creates small proxy files while recording 8k raw. Maybe you do not understand the concept of proxy files.

One YouTuber had to issue an apology for saying the files were hard to edit after many people pointed out it was easy.

Click to expand...

Nobody has to apologize for anything. You CANNOT edit the 8K files on a computer. You have to make proxies. NOT the same thing. Working with files that are 16 times smaller (1080p) is a JOKE.

Pascal F said:

I just don't get this misinformation campaign.

Click to expand...

Additionally, the file sizes are MASSIVE, meaning none of us are going to want to keep the files when we're through editing, which is a huge problem not only for wedding photographers and journalists, but for independent filmmakers and just about everyone else as well. Professionals keep backups of all their files, just as I do, meaning double the amount of already insane amounts of storage! LOL

Aside from which, we've already heard from dozens of professionals who've said that the R5 is unusable for professional work. Even Jordan Drake said he would never use either of these cameras for paid work.

Professionals don't choose a camera based solely on the number of megapixels.

Exactly why do you think you need 8K, anyhow?

The Sony will find itself on lots of paid jobs. The Canon, not so much.

--
https://daejeonchronicles.com

kolyy said:

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts.

Click to expand...

So this is what you are looking for?

Try to pan with electronic shutter with slower readout speed than the A9 (which is almost on pair with a vertical mechanical shutter). Not quite good for moving subjets or action, since this is what you get:

Sony should introduce A9R - 42mp, 20+fps and 9mpix evf. 4k 120fps, no overheat and no 8k needed.

500 or 600mm f8 lens would be also nice.

cyberpi1 said:

Sony should introduce A9R - 42mp, 20+fps and 9mpix evf. 4k 120fps, no overheat and no 8k needed.

500 or 600mm f8 lens would be also nice.

Click to expand...

Agree...the Canon R5 is basically an almost Sony A9R. Sony will probably go all the way soon with their new processor. I think now that they see what the target is, they can respond appropriately with the right specs.

Sony was aggressive early on as the challenger but now as the leader, it can wait and see to respond. Canon had to be aggressive to ensure it's not a loser in the mirrorless full frame market. Hopefully, Sony responds adequately...

I hope the R5 motivates Sony to push for higher MP for their A7iv and A9 cameras, and for faster speed in the A7rV camera.

I would love an A9iii with 36mp, or an A7rV with 61mp but much improved speed.

I think Sony is already headed in that direction. I don't personally need 20fps, so I don't think that's a big deal but I'm sure Sony will get there eventually though. I wouldn't be surprised if the RV is 61mp and 14fps, and eventually an RVI around 80mp and 14/15fps. By then I'd expect the A9III to be around 30-36mp too, with 20+fps.

At the moment, Sony is still the king of DR, and from what I've seen high-ISO too. So I think they can hold their own until they get fps higher to match the high resolution of the R5.

As for 8K video, I'm one of the few that would have loved to have it. The same people who say you don't need 8k, yet shoot 61mp RIV's to post 1000px wide images online aren't really looking at it from the same standpoint they use for photography: you can always use that 8k footage to downsample to amazing 4k (which is now the standard for viewing online and on televisions). You can also punch in to shoots or do digital pans with 8k and still keep a sharp image.

Apparently a lot of people spend $15k on photography gear but have a hamster on a wheel running their pc's...because editing 8k is nothing nowadays. You can buy a 16-core/32 thread 3950x for $650 (less than the cost of the memory you'd spend on a video cam) and chew through just about anything and not even need to use proxies. Once you factor in proxies it's even less of a concern. HDD storage is even cheaper. It's not 2001 and 300gb hard drives are selling for $200. You can get a 1tb NVMe for $100, and a 10tb 7200rpm drive for long term storage for $280. Hell, for less than the cost of an R5 I could probably do a Threadripper 3970x build with multiple NVMe drives, 128gb ram, and a 2080 Super.

SilvanBromide said:

kolyy said:

The motivation for this poll is that I see some Sony users to be heavily critical of the R5 in the discussions. While on the other hand I think Sony should introduce a direct competitor, which the A7S III is not, in my opinion.

What I mean by an R5-like camera? Around 45Mpx, so more like A7R III, not R IV, but sporting a significantly faster and usable electronic shutter, paired with high speed bursts. Add much improved IBIS, compared to current Sony cameras. And much more advanced video, even if heat limited in some cases. So a heat unlimited standard 4K/30p, but 10 bit 4:2:2. Then 4K/60p for 30 minutes and 4K/120p for 15 minutes. And a highly oversampled 4K (from roughly 8K) , but also limited to around 30 minutes. As for 8K or internal raw - I don't care, that's not the point, in my opinion. But let's say some of that might be in the mix as well,

Click to expand...

The R5 does offer a faster burst rate than that found in the a7Riii and a7Riv. But its usefulness is limited by rolling shutter and other progressive readout artefacts. So it's a poor competitor to the a9 in that regard, and not necessarily a great option for high speed action (and where else do you need ~20fps?).

Click to expand...

I don't claim the R5 is an A9 competitor. However, the usefulness of electronic shutter depends on the situation and a faster e-shutter than the one in the A7R IV, e.g. 1/60s instead of 1/10s, could be useful in many situations for some people, even if it is not as fast as the one in the A9 (1/160s). It's not just about sports, but all situations where a quiet shutter is advantageous, like press conferences or ceremonies.

SilvanBromide said:

Unless Sony are able to do what the R5 doesn't and offer high burst rates that don't undercut the moment with rolling shutter issues, there is not much point in them trying.

Click to expand...

That's the question I am asking. Would you value a faster e-shutter than is present in the A7R IV, even if it meant sacrificing resolution a bit?

SilvanBromide said:

Similar issue regarding the video. Unless Sony can do what Canon did not, and create a camera that will shoot 8K without overheating, then there is not much point.

Click to expand...

I am not asking if you want 8K. Would you like a high resolution camera with 4K/60-120p, oversampled 4K/30p and 10bit 4:2:2 codecs, even if some of those modes would be heat limited?

SilvanBromide said:

Then there's IBIS. I think Canon has over-hyped their IBIS, but reviews do seem to suggest it may be about half a stop better than Sony in practice (nowhere near the 2.5 to 3 stops they imply).

Click to expand...

I haven't seen such reviews yet, but I might have been more specific and stress what is clear now - that the IBIS in the R5 is much better for video. Would you like Sony to concentrate on better stabilization in video?

SilvanBromide said:

Do I think Sony should try to squeeze out an extra half-stop of stabilization to compete? Maybe - if they can do it without compromising on other fronts. For me, the 5.5 stops they already provide is not a limiting factor (I can fairly reliably shoot down to nearly 1s hand-held at shorter focal lengths, and I'm totally happy to reach for a tripod beyond that).

Click to expand...