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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
To be fair

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

Eric wrote:

TBF, not a shock to see cameras go on sale around the holidays.

I got my a7III+kit lens for $1700 through Amazon last month. Without the Amazon prime deal, it would've been $2000 for that kit for a kit that was normally $2200 earlier this year.

Without those Sony discounts, I wouldn't have bought the camera. I do think they need to put some sales on their lenses though, I think those a little overpriced.

Lenses by Nikon, Panasonic, Leica, Canon, Nikon et al are all overpriced. Why should Sony be any different?

Some brands are def more overpriced than others. You can't get a decent Sony branded zoom lens for less than $1200 for example.

Not sure what the point of the OP's post is.

I think it's pretty clear. Now that Canon is on sale and the lenses they want cost less then Sony is an overpriced villain

This topic has been written about a dozen times already.

Well and price points change with time

If he thinks Sony is overpriced, just go ahead and buy Canon then. Now's a great time to buy. Huge discounts on the EOS R and Mark IV. Have a happy life.

I am ok with it. It's competition and I don't feel like the subject is out of bounds. I do feel like they less wanted a "discussion" and more wanted to just get confirmation. I think it was a fair discussion when the R was introduced way too high for the market and ai think it is a fair discussion now that they are on fire sale

And to the couple that think the Sony forum is so bad I suggest bringing up the area's where Sony clearly has better performance on the R forum and watch the reactions you get. Some of it is because people usually end up prioritizing different things and some is that some people just need to rally to a flag

-- hide signature --
 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
liopleurodon Senior Member • Posts: 1,350
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

tqlla wrote:

If you let someone that is young borrow your camera, they will wonder how they can get pictures from your camera to their phone. That's a huge barrier in camera's and a big reason why the market is shrinking.

What barrier?  I can easily get photos from my a7 III to my Pixel 3.  Either I use a USB-C SD card reader; connect the camera to the phone directly via USB-C; or use Imaging Edge, which can quickly transfer files via WiFi.

Canon makes this even easier.  On an M50 I can activate wireless transfer via NFC touch and then the camera will transfer photos to my phone as I capture them.

 liopleurodon's gear list:liopleurodon's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Sony FE 35mm F1.8 Google Pixel 3 +3 more
MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 3,863
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

tqlla wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

LOL

I’d like nothing better than to see Canon become more competitive with Sony’s mirrorless offerings since we’d ultimately all benefit from that.

But this price slashing strategy isn’t it.

I know I put pricing in the title, but my post was also about ways that Sony has been improved on, that Sony should respond to.

  • We are on the 4th gen A7R, and still no fully articulating screen, even though Sony IMO has the best articulating design on the 2011 A77. And why is the screen bezel so big.

a number of people have stated that they don't want a fully articulating screen.

you keep re-posting things that you want, like it represents what everyone wants, but it doesn't.

  • Canon RF adapters is better and cheaper(Free with purchase) than the Sony LA-EA3/4 adapter

there are multiple adapters for ef-mount and f-mount to e-mount, but no rf adapters for a-mount lenses... e-mount is the best platform for adapting lenses, by a huge margin.

  • Touchscreen should be improved, SONY makes phones!

many of use don't use and don't want touchscreens on these cameras.

  • Camera Connectivity to Phones should be better, Sony makes phones!

I have zero need for that, but it has been improved.

  • I also think that Sony could bump the grip up, like the Z7. And since we are on the 4th gen, maybe a style update.

you must have missed the part where sony bumped the grip up on the latest bodies.

jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

MILC man wrote:

tqlla wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

LOL

I’d like nothing better than to see Canon become more competitive with Sony’s mirrorless offerings since we’d ultimately all benefit from that.

But this price slashing strategy isn’t it.

I know I put pricing in the title, but my post was also about ways that Sony has been improved on, that Sony should respond to.

  • We are on the 4th gen A7R, and still no fully articulating screen, even though Sony IMO has the best articulating design on the 2011 A77. And why is the screen bezel so big.

a number of people have stated that they don't want a fully articulating screen.

you keep re-posting things that you want, like it represents what everyone wants, but it doesn't.

  • Canon RF adapters is better and cheaper(Free with purchase) than the Sony LA-EA3/4 adapter

there are multiple adapters for ef-mount and f-mount to e-mount, but no rf adapters for a-mount lenses... e-mount is the best platform for adapting lenses, by a huge margin.

  • Touchscreen should be improved, SONY makes phones!

many of use don't use and don't want touchscreens on these cameras.

  • Camera Connectivity to Phones should be better, Sony makes phones!

I have zero need for that, but it has been improved.

  • I also think that Sony could bump the grip up, like the Z7. And since we are on the 4th gen, maybe a style update.

you must have missed the part where sony bumped the grip up on the latest bodies.

I didn’t get the part about needing better adapters either. I shoot video only, and practically every manufacturer makes cinema lenses for E mount, but zero for L mount, RF mount and whatever Nikon’s is called. hehe

-- hide signature --
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
149 yet?

MILC man wrote:

tqlla wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

LOL

I’d like nothing better than to see Canon become more competitive with Sony’s mirrorless offerings since we’d ultimately all benefit from that.

But this price slashing strategy isn’t it.

I know I put pricing in the title, but my post was also about ways that Sony has been improved on, that Sony should respond to.

  • We are on the 4th gen A7R, and still no fully articulating screen, even though Sony IMO has the best articulating design on the 2011 A77. And why is the screen bezel so big.

a number of people have stated that they don't want a fully articulating screen.

you keep re-posting things that you want, like it represents what everyone wants, but it doesn't.

  • Canon RF adapters is better and cheaper(Free with purchase) than the Sony LA-EA3/4 adapter

there are multiple adapters for ef-mount and f-mount to e-mount, but no rf adapters for a-mount lenses... e-mount is the best platform for adapting lenses, by a huge margin.

  • Touchscreen should be improved, SONY makes phones!

many of use don't use and don't want touchscreens on these cameras.

I kind of go both ways on this. Someone else pointed out that you are forced to learn the menus with button presses so you can change things while in EVF BUT I still feel like Sony should do better with their touchscreens. Give users the option

  • Camera Connectivity to Phones should be better, Sony makes phones!

I have zero need for that, but it has been improved.

It has. I don't see much criticism for the current software. Although they may update it next week........

  • I also think that Sony could bump the grip up, like the Z7. And since we are on the 4th gen, maybe a style update.

you must have missed the part where sony bumped the grip up on the latest bodies.

correct. Not going to do the whole breakdown. Obviously a lot of people here do not agree with Tequila. BUT this post was supposed to be about pricing. Not a battle royale of features.

Going back to pricing. Canon has had the lions share of most markets for a LONG time and their R hasn't outsold the a7iii when it was released at $2,300. There have been sales and promotions for a while putting it more on par with the a7iii which has largely stayed at original MSRP and SOny has continued to outsell them. Now they have to try and sell it even cheaper which they had already done with the RP. Another model that hasn't sold well........I think we should let SOny worry about Sony and let's go use our cameras

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,206
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

Eric wrote:

TBF, not a shock to see cameras go on sale around the holidays.

I got my a7III+kit lens for $1700 through Amazon last month. Without the Amazon prime deal, it would've been $2000 for that kit for a kit that was normally $2200 earlier this year.

Without those Sony discounts, I wouldn't have bought the camera. I do think they need to put some sales on their lenses though, I think those a little overpriced.

Lenses by Nikon, Panasonic, Leica, Canon, Nikon et al are all overpriced. Why should Sony be any different?

Some brands are def more overpriced than others. You can't get a decent Sony branded zoom lens for less than $1200 for example.

Not sure what the point of the OP's post is. This topic has been written about a dozen times already. If he thinks Sony is overpriced, just go ahead and buy Canon then. Now's a great time to buy. Huge discounts on the EOS R and Mark IV. Have a happy life.

You are here though, so clearly you must see some point in it the 13th time. I never understand the "these threads are overdone" complaints... how overdone could they be if you keep opening and replying to them?

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
unending criticism

jonpais wrote:

MILC man wrote:

tqlla wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

LOL

I’d like nothing better than to see Canon become more competitive with Sony’s mirrorless offerings since we’d ultimately all benefit from that.

But this price slashing strategy isn’t it.

I know I put pricing in the title, but my post was also about ways that Sony has been improved on, that Sony should respond to.

  • We are on the 4th gen A7R, and still no fully articulating screen, even though Sony IMO has the best articulating design on the 2011 A77. And why is the screen bezel so big.

a number of people have stated that they don't want a fully articulating screen.

you keep re-posting things that you want, like it represents what everyone wants, but it doesn't.

  • Canon RF adapters is better and cheaper(Free with purchase) than the Sony LA-EA3/4 adapter

there are multiple adapters for ef-mount and f-mount to e-mount, but no rf adapters for a-mount lenses... e-mount is the best platform for adapting lenses, by a huge margin.

  • Touchscreen should be improved, SONY makes phones!

many of use don't use and don't want touchscreens on these cameras.

  • Camera Connectivity to Phones should be better, Sony makes phones!

I have zero need for that, but it has been improved.

  • I also think that Sony could bump the grip up, like the Z7. And since we are on the 4th gen, maybe a style update.

you must have missed the part where sony bumped the grip up on the latest bodies.

I didn’t get the part about needing better adapters either. I shoot video only, and practically every manufacturer makes cinema lenses for E mount, but zero for L mount, RF mount and whatever Nikon’s is called. hehe

correct. The OP has so much criticism for everything Sony I don't see why the price matters.

As for adapters. They are an absolute necessity when you have no lenses and you have some existing customers and product. m4/3 did it, Canon EF did it, Sony E. Now Z and RF. Sony is now at the critical mass I wouldn't be surprised to see adapter support disappear in a generation or two

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

Eric wrote:

TBF, not a shock to see cameras go on sale around the holidays.

I got my a7III+kit lens for $1700 through Amazon last month. Without the Amazon prime deal, it would've been $2000 for that kit for a kit that was normally $2200 earlier this year.

Without those Sony discounts, I wouldn't have bought the camera. I do think they need to put some sales on their lenses though, I think those a little overpriced.

Lenses by Nikon, Panasonic, Leica, Canon, Nikon et al are all overpriced. Why should Sony be any different?

Some brands are def more overpriced than others. You can't get a decent Sony branded zoom lens for less than $1200 for example.

Not sure what the point of the OP's post is. This topic has been written about a dozen times already. If he thinks Sony is overpriced, just go ahead and buy Canon then. Now's a great time to buy. Huge discounts on the EOS R and Mark IV. Have a happy life.

You are here though, so clearly you must see some point in it the 13th time. I never understand the "these threads are overdone" complaints... how overdone could they be if you keep opening and replying to them?

You must see a point in my comment, otherwise why respond? LOL

-- hide signature --
Trollmannx Veteran Member • Posts: 6,044
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
2

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Some are obviously not fully satisfied with the brand they have. Why else pop into another forum just to ignore a brand war?

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

Nonsense.

So this is how you feel when trying to transform the Sony forum into a Canon forum?

Well - have and use Sony cameras (which is fun and rewarding to use) and Canon cameras (which are becoming more and more a drag to use).

Could well defend Sony in a Canon forum and whine about beeing attacked, but waste enough time in this forum already.

I was being sarcastic, not sure if you got that

So they all say... 

But you have inadvertently taken my post as an edict. Apparently this forum has got to the point where my joke is true

If you want to interpret my post that way, ok.

Am happily using my Sony cameras. Seems like some Canon users are not - why else visit a Sony forum just to whine and complain...?

jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
1

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Some are obviously not fully satisfied with the brand they have. Why else pop into another forum just to ignore a brand war?

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

Nonsense.

So this is how you feel when trying to transform the Sony forum into a Canon forum?

Well - have and use Sony cameras (which is fun and rewarding to use) and Canon cameras (which are becoming more and more a drag to use).

Could well defend Sony in a Canon forum and whine about beeing attacked, but waste enough time in this forum already.

I was being sarcastic, not sure if you got that

So they all say...

But you have inadvertently taken my post as an edict. Apparently this forum has got to the point where my joke is true

If you want to interpret my post that way, ok.

Am happily using my Sony cameras. Seems like some Canon users are not - why else visit a Sony forum just to whine and complain...?

Canon is so weak now that even when they have to practically give away their latest bodies, forum members are still undecided. It’s rather comical. Sony is crushing Canon. 😂

-- hide signature --
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,206
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
1

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Some are obviously not fully satisfied with the brand they have. Why else pop into another forum just to ignore a brand war?

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

Nonsense.

So this is how you feel when trying to transform the Sony forum into a Canon forum?

Well - have and use Sony cameras (which is fun and rewarding to use) and Canon cameras (which are becoming more and more a drag to use).

Could well defend Sony in a Canon forum and whine about beeing attacked, but waste enough time in this forum already.

I was being sarcastic, not sure if you got that

So they all say...

But you have inadvertently taken my post as an edict. Apparently this forum has got to the point where my joke is true

If you want to interpret my post that way, ok.

Am happily using my Sony cameras. Seems like some Canon users are not - why else visit a Sony forum just to whine and complain...?

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.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

This thread is getting too long. The question is not whether Sony is better than Canon, but whether Sony is getting too expensive. Sony has already made it clear they’re not going to compete at wholesale clearance prices like Canon. Their strategy has paid off. All camera manufacturers charge too much according to the balance in my checking account! hehe

Some are obviously not fully satisfied with the brand they have. Why else pop into another forum just to ignore a brand war?

Any mention of Canon is an attack that must be defended against.

Nonsense.

So this is how you feel when trying to transform the Sony forum into a Canon forum?

Well - have and use Sony cameras (which is fun and rewarding to use) and Canon cameras (which are becoming more and more a drag to use).

Could well defend Sony in a Canon forum and whine about beeing attacked, but waste enough time in this forum already.

I was being sarcastic, not sure if you got that

So they all say...

But you have inadvertently taken my post as an edict. Apparently this forum has got to the point where my joke is true

If you want to interpret my post that way, ok.

Am happily using my Sony cameras. Seems like some Canon users are not - why else visit a Sony forum just to whine and complain...?

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. 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.

-- hide signature --
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,206
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

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.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
Mr_Win Regular Member • Posts: 337
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

Canon is way undercutting Sony at this point, the R is down to 1199, and RP down to 799...... that R2/A6600, and A72 category, those cameras have no chance of outselling Canon's newer offerings, simply because they are newer, and have polished UI.  Call it a loss leader or whatever, Canon is putting up a fight.

OP tqlla Veteran Member • Posts: 5,394
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Trollmannx 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. 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.

$50 and $100 arent a big deal, but thats at MSRP.  Canon often discounts lenses significantly, and they drop over time.  Sony lenses tend to stick near their original MSRP prices.

 tqlla's gear list:tqlla's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a99 II Sony a7R III Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

Mr_Win wrote:

Canon is way undercutting Sony at this point, the R is down to 1199, and RP down to 799...... that R2/A6600, and A72 category, those cameras have no chance of outselling Canon's newer offerings,

Oddly enough we heard the same thing about the Canon RP. The almost twice expensive a7iii continues to outsell it in most markets and the a7ii show up occasionally in higher sales rankings than the RP

simply because they are newer, and have polished UI. Call it a loss leader or whatever, Canon is putting up a fight.

They are. It's good for us.

The one place that they are having trouble claiming "value" is Canon has a whopping three RF lenses that are less than a grand. Then the price skyrockets to over two grand. Meh

I am curious to see where this all goes.......my personal prediction is prices drop for a bit until manufacturers acquiesce to the realities of the current market and prices climb drastically for all of us

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

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.

I'm so glad you asked. LOL

Video is a big deal, whether you personally shoot it or not.

Lots of shooters are finding they can increase their income by shooting both stills and video. Photographers are seeing the value in video for promoting their work, for creating tutorials, for selling work to clients and promoting workshops and on and on.

As far as 4K video goes, and this pertains to practically every single mirrorless camera on the market, shooting 4K results in a more detailed image than shooting 1080p. Even downscaling from 4K to 1080p in post results in a more detailed image as well as fewer noise artifacts.

In-camera 4K results in less moire than 1080p. Videos uploaded to YouTube in 4K look nicer than 1080p, especially if you're watching on a 55" OLED.

Regarding file sizes and computational power, editing 4K ProRes files in Final Cut Pro on any ordinary MacBook is a breeze, since Final Cut has been optimized. 4K files from the a7 III are ridiculously tiny because of the crazy low bit rate, so they take up very little storage space on my hard drives. Nothing compared to the huge 400 Mbps files of my GH5!

Perhaps most importantly, neither 1080p or 4K are truly 1080p or 4K to begin with! Downsampled 6K results in a much more detailed image than 4k, just as downsampled 4K is more detailed than 1080. Something to do with the Nyquist theorem. Look it up.

And then, 4K allows filmmakers to punch into the image in post without any noticeable softening of the image. Being able to punch in or slowly zoom in or out can be a very powerful tool. It can be - and is - often done in 1080p, particularly with a lot of 120p video, but it is without question mushier than 4K. In fact, 1080 120p Sony footage is mushy as heck, which is why filmmakers are demanding Sony include 4K 60p at a minimum in the a7s III.

Smoke, fog, vapor, mist, dust particles and other effects you can purchase from sources like Rocketstock are shot in 4K or higher on Red cameras because they have greater detail and can be more easily manipulated in post production.

So the answer to your question is that whether you're delivering in UHD or HD, shooting at a higher resolution will result in greater detail, less noise, fewer moire artifacts and allows more creative freedom in post.

And all this time, I've heard about stills, but not sure why we really need them. LOL

-- hide signature --
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 3,412
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
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 3,412
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

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.

Regarding file sizes and computational power, editing 4K ProRes files in Final Cut Pro on any ordinary MacBook is a breeze, since Final Cut has been optimized. 4K files from the a7 III are ridiculously tiny because of the crazy low bit rate, so they take up very little storage space on my hard drives. Nothing compared to the huge 400 Mbps files of my GH5!

When I upgraded my computer and could handle beefier files I actually hate the low bit rate on the A7III, if you do advanced color grading the low bit rate files on the A7III fall apart so easily.

 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
jonpais
jonpais Senior Member • Posts: 1,896
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

GrapeJam wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

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.

Regarding file sizes and computational power, editing 4K ProRes files in Final Cut Pro on any ordinary MacBook is a breeze, since Final Cut has been optimized. 4K files from the a7 III are ridiculously tiny because of the crazy low bit rate, so they take up very little storage space on my hard drives. Nothing compared to the huge 400 Mbps files of my GH5!

When I upgraded my computer and could handle beefier files I actually hate the low bit rate on the A7III, if you do advanced color grading the low bit rate files on the A7III fall apart so easily.

Yes, 8-bit and low bitrate both suck. However...

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads