DPReview TV: Sony Alpha cameras - The good and the bad

They need affordable and decent apsc lenses like canon efs and m. Or rocking dedicated apsc lenses like Fujifilm. They rely on Sigma to flesh our their lack

Could have been 3rd party 100-400s or 150-600s. I only noticed the "SONY" on top of the body. BTW when I shot football with a Sony A77II, I used a silver 70-400 sliver lens.

there were estimates that 30% of the cameras being used at the olympics were made by sony.

and of course that would include all of the biggest press agencies that switched to sony exclusively.

Oh no. I think you hurt TRU’s feelings. His ears always perk-up when someone disparages Canon or says anything positive about Sony lol.

@Thoughts R Us

"The only camera that I saw in use at the F1 race that wasn't a Canon was a Nikon"

Sony supplies cameras to multiple press outfits from the NY Times, to Associated Press, Press Association and others. If you can't see their cameras at sporting events you're not looking or in denial.

@TRU, I could not agree more. I would not mind if it pleases Sony users, but it obliges other companies to spend money where it does not matter, and the whole market itself is drawned in a useless competition.

@Thoughts R Us

The Canon cropped 4K was at 25/30p on a full frame sensor and it was just four years ago.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r/10

The A7IV has cropped 4K/60 not 4K/30 and it's off a higher MP sensor, but don't let facts get in the way of your astroturfing. The Sony 4K/30 is subsampled from a 7K image, the EOS R is not oversampled at all - it's 1-1. When you're talking about the R5 4K being subsampled from 8K it's the greatest thing since slice bread, but the A7IV 4K subsampled from almost the same pixel mass is apparently nothing to write home about.

And it's Canon and Nikon users who decreed that IBIS didn't matter, not Sony users - until they had it. You even told me that you couldn't tell the difference between a Z7 image with IBIS turned on or off. Now you claim it's better than Sony. You're a hypocrite and an obvious PR troll. You should be removed from this forum for your endless gaslighting of Sony users alone.

@RubberDials: LOL. Cropped video is cropped video; the problem is the same regardless of what frame rate. And of course a camera 4 years ago isn't going to be as advanced as one today.

But Sony promoters crucified Canon for having cropped video but now with the A7IV it's no big deal. If anything it's worse that Sony would have it today than Canon having it 4 years ago, since tech has advanced. Sony could offer it on their A7IV but didn't because they wanted to save cost and protect their higher end units. Now that's no different than most companies but let's not pretend that Sony doesn't do that.

As to IBIS, I'm not arguing my own feelings about the feature, but merely that Sony promoters were very vocal on IBIS when Sony held the advantage and now don't even want to talk about it because Sony is lagging.

My overall point is that Sony promoters love to decide for others what to pay attention to, and that it changes according to what makes Sony look good.

@Thoughts R Us

"The problem is the same regardless of the frame rate"

Of course it isn't. You do understand the difference between 4K30 and 4K60 don't you? There are only two cameras on the market that offer un-binned/skipped 4K60 from the full width of the sensor and one costs $3.5K and the other $6K. Neither has anything like the pixel density of the A7IV. Uncropped 4K/30 on the other hand was available in 2018 from every vendor.

"Sony could offer it on their A7IV but didn't because they wanted to save cost and protect their higher end units."

The trouble is you don't understand the things you're talking about. The A7IV has a 33MP sensor. 4K requires only ≈8MP. To sample the entire 33MP sensor and output at 8MP 60 times a second is beyond the capacity of any camera on the market. The R3 has only a 24MP sensor and it's stacked, the only other camera that does 4K60 full width non binned/skipped is the A7sIII, which is only 12MP.

@Thoughts R Us

Sony IBIS isn't 'lagging'. It's competitive with other FF systems. It doesn't perform as well as M43 systems when walking at the same time as shooting video, but it is comparable to other FF systems which do not excel at this one scenario.

Who are these Sony promoters that you are referencing? Please name them so that the Youtubers can respond to you smearing them as paid shills.

RubberDials: if one is a videographer, then a crop facto is a crop factor, regardless, and to most it is a limitation.

Canon offers a very slight crop of 4K60 in the R6 for the same price as the Sony with a very heavy crop. As you note 4K is only 8MP; why would a videographer care about the extra MP of the A7IV?

My point is that Sony promoters scream when anyone else offers a crop in any video mode but are very ready to overlook it when Sony does it.

And if Sony had put a sensor with faster readout in the A7IV, then they could have delivered a better 4K 60 mode. But they saved money by putting in a slower readout sensor, even slower than the A7III sensor.

Same with IBIS. Sony IBIS underperforms the competition. The artificial tests you love to cite show this, but many real world tests show this as well. So Sony promoters don't talk about IBIS any longer.

RubberDials: my point isn't to relitigate the A7IV but merely to show how Sony marketing and promoters want to control the terms of the debate. A feature matters if it is advantageous to Sony, but not so much when others have the edge. And it shifts all of the time, proving that Sony is not the absolute leader in every feature.

@Thoughts R Us

Your posts never had a great deal to do with reality but these last months they've said goodbye entirely.

The speed of the A7IV sensor is not the real issue for full frame read out at 4K60 - it's heat. Canon couldn't even do it with a 20MP sensor. The Sony sensor is 33MP.

Incidentally the R6 doesn't have oversampled 4K/60 even in crop - the camera doesn't have enough pixels to do it, it has to upscale the image!

What artificial tests? Here's a test of the R5 and A7IV IBIS from Cameralabs, one of the most trustworthy and consistent sites on the internet. Both cameras achieve 5 stops which is below what either manufacture claims. The Sony is the closest at 5.5stops. Canon claims 8 stops for their combination but Gordon could only get 5, like the Sony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5GeNH3Ip0&t=608s 10:08 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mil4Jn51Fc 14:22 in

Contd.

Here's a bonus test with the A1 and 135/1.8 which has no in-lens stabilisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazLXO3oLS4 17:43 in

Gordon got four stops which is what he got with the Canon 50/1.2 on the R5 which a lens that also has no OIS. Your claims that Sony's IBIS is somehow lagging is BS, like most things you say about Sony.

And once again - who are these Sony promoters you keep talking about? Name them.
You can't because they don't exist.

“Incidentally the R6 doesn't have oversampled 4K/60 even in crop - the camera doesn't have enough pixels to do it, it has to upscale the image!”

What are you talking about? The crop in 4K60 on the R6 is 1.07× which, taking the unavoidable 16:9 crop into account, still leaves 16.8MP/(1.07²) ≈ 14.7MP (~5.1K), more than the 8MP you need for 4K. And indeed, the 4K60 on the R6 is more detailed than the 4K on the α7S III:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=canon_eosr6&attr29_1=sony_a7siii&attr72_0=4k_60&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=200&x=0.38316488158093215&y=0.4767806073811793

In APS-C mode, sure (it’s 3.4K), but your use of “even” seemed to imply that it would be the case in all modes.

Once again, my point isn't to debate all over again the relative technical merits of these cameras, but to note that Sony marketing and promoters try to shift consumer attention towards whatever features that will make Sony look the best and avoid those features where Sony is lacking.

Hence they can always win the tech spec argument because it's always only those specs and features where they have the advantage.

And funny enough, Rubber Dials proves this over reliance on spin-worthy tech spec arguments over and over with his posts.

@spider-mario

You need to think about what I've written a bit more before you post. Of course I'm talking about the aps-c crop in the R6, why would I suggest a 20MP sensor with a 1.07 crop doesn't have enough pixels for oversampled 4K when I already stated that 4K only needs ≈8MP?

The 1.07 crop in the R6 is DCI to UHD, which I don't really count, it's so minor.

@Thoughts R Us

Video is not really area to criticise Sony marketing. Canon created a PR disaster with it's marketing around the R5 and R6, which it initially promoted for cinema and high-end production work.

Who are these Sony promoters that you keep talking about - I keep asking you and you say nothing. Name the names of these youtubers who you claim Sony is paying.

@RubberDials, then why did you write “even” for crop, since they do it in non-crop? You gave zero acknowledgement that there was any oversampled 4K60 mode.

@spider-mario

The 4K/60 in the R6 is not oversampled. It is not even 1-1 as can be seen by the much better rolling shutter of 4K/30.

https://www.cined.com/canon-eos-r6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

The A7IV along with almost all cameras on the market does not have 4K/60 from the full sensor width either 1-1 or oversampled, but it does have oversampled 4K/60 in super 35 crop.

I said 'even' because whilst it might be seen as unreasonable to have oversampled 4K/60 full width in the R6, it's not unreasonable to have it in super 35/aps-c. The R6 however is such a low resolution camera that it doesn't even have enough pixels in crop to give a 1-1 readout, let alone an oversampled one.

@Thoughts R Us

You are the one who dances around specs to present a false narrative, not me.

Your posts are essentially rhetoric versus facts, as befits an astroturfer with no knowledge or interest in photography.

There are multiple factors that are important in an EVF - magnification, refresh rate, resolution, brightness.

Nikon and Canon don't 'win out over Sony'. There is no clear cut 'win' or 'lose'. The Z9 EVF out performs it's paper specs - which are very lowly but it's still lower in resolution than the either the R3 or A1 and both have a lower magnification than the Sony. The Sony can run at 240 fps at almost the magnification of the Canon. These are just numbers to you but both magnification and resolution are essential functions of an EVF and make a big difference in use in terms of framing, recording and reviewing the shot.

Contd.

The Z9 may or may not deal with lag better than the R3 or the A1 - we don't know because there are no reliable tests to look at - all we have is anecdotal information and the specs. I would welcome some comparative test or at least more detailed information but this is hard to present, even for professional reviewers because the way the EVFs work is complicated, not disclosed by the manufacturers and dependent on multiple factors. The A1 EVF may be influenced by lens depth of field for example.

“The 4K/60 in the R6 is not oversampled. It is not even 1-1 as can be seen by the much better rolling shutter of 4K/30.”

That article only *speculates* that the R6 must be using line subsampling to achieve its faster readout at 60fps. But evidence against that hypothesis includes the fact that DPReview found the image quality to be the same at 30fps and 60fps https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-review/8#:~:text=What%27s%20interesting,slower%20modes%2E (have you considered that the readout at 30fps might just be slower than necessary?) and the fact that, as my link above showed, that level of detail is higher than the non-subsampled 4K of the α7S III.

@RubberDials: still in denial about the EVFs? LOL.

Face it: both the Nikon Z9 and Canon R3 outperform the Sony A1 EVF in real world user experience. Nikon and Canon both went beyond the simplistic resolution number and considered what actually matters to the end users.

Sony once again tries to win out in some simplistic numbers game, whereas Nikon and Canon both actually deliver in the EVF experience. The Sony engineers need to up their game next time with their top level EVFs.

@TRU:
Stop make it sound like its a fact that Nikon/Canon EVF performs better than Sonys. It’s not a fact, it’s just an opinion some might have and others don’t. Simple as that.

I believe I have already told but go read fredmiranda/bcgforums what people that actually used all three cameras in an area where a good EVF experience is very important, fast moving BIF. They don’t share your opinion about the superior Nikon/Canon EVFs.

I will say that Sony colors have gotten better, but their latest menu system, though improved, still needs some work.

There were / are no problems with menu system. Its just bunch of canon and nikon users complaining that sony menus are not what they are used to.

For people like me who never use canon and nikon sony menus are just fine. I obviously find canon and nikon menus to be nonesene.

If someone is picking up the cameras for the very first time, the Sony menu will seem more obtuse than a Canon or Nikon one.

@Thoughts R Us

"I will say that Sony colors have gotten better, but their latest menu system, though improved, still needs some work."

If I showed you x-rite sample images from a range of cameras I guarantee you could not tell any of them apart. How have Sony colours 'gotten better?' What were they like before? You haven't got any idea - you're just repeating something you read on the internet.

As for the menu system - I asked years ago to list three things that were bad with Sony menus that were better on other cameras. You never responded. Let's try again - list three aspects of the old Sony menus that were inferior to other cameras' menus? You said they still need work - how? Give an example.

@Thoughts R Us

"If someone is picking up the cameras for the very first time, the Sony menu will seem more obtuse than a Canon or Nikon one.'

In pure design terms all cameras and software interfaces are more alike than unalike. There is a term for lack of familiarity with an unfamiliar product, be it software or hardware - it's called 'prior learning'. Whether you realise it or not, you learned to use the products you use and require an orienting and discovery period with anything new.

@Thoughts R Us

"If someone is picking up the cameras for the very first time, the Sony menu will seem more obtuse than a Canon or Nikon one."

I lived in kobe and 20 minutes from yodobashi. That means have tried all these cameras for years. Yodobashi has them on display all the time.

Canon is not easy to figure out even for basic shooting.

@bigshledge

I do some UI/UX prototyping in my job and Canon isn't better - you've just learned it and are familiar with it. What zxaar says is right.

Canon cameras don't even have the 'on' switch in the same place across the bodies. A beginner would be confused by Canon's use of TV (time value) for shutter priority - they'd probably think it was a mode for shooting the television. Similarly 'servo AF' which makes no sense and is better formulated as 'continuous AF'.

UX is a moving target and should always be tested amongst as large a group of users as possible, but companies definitely cut corners there, Sony isn't worse than other manufacturers for that.

@JPM29

Guy who writes posts that begin 'the problem with Sony fan boys' accuses me of trolling. 😂

@bigshledge

"They objectively have vastly better UI/UX than Sony, especially for beginners. Sorry, but your views don't line up with reality."

They are not. Can you show me study and proof for your assertion if it is so objective.

I shot in manual mode and if i pick up a camera and can not figure out how to change exposure apperture then the UI is not good, all the other brands i could while on the same time.

Anyway since you brought the word "objective;y" into it, back it up with links etc to research that shows they have better UI.

Funny how there are thousands of posts on Dpreview forums with photographers who desperately need to tell that the Canon R3 and Nikon Z9 has better specs than the Sony high end cameras ... so yes, some really are concerned about numbers! LOL!

@ ThoughtR Us: You get more for the money with Canon R3 and Nikon Z9 - more bulk and mass. At least some think such design looks more professional, finesse, taste, etc. Hard to accept that many prefer less weight and bulk when lugging the gear around all day long?

Well I visited the Societies of Photographers show in London yesterday and was able to have a proper play with A1, R5 and R3. Not a Z9 unfortunately as Nikon had zero presence at the show which was a shame (Fuji had a stand also). Both the R5 and A1 seemed a little toooo compact to me however the R3 felt perfect 🤷‍♂️ . It weighs about the same as my 5DSR and yet has a very comfortable and flexible form factor. The sensor and therefore overall versatility is not a patch on the A1 (or R5) of course…..(imho)

The key to winning any debate, and marketing and politics are just really forms of debating as to which "product" is better...is to not just win the argument, but to actually decide in people's minds what the argument is.

So for instance, in a political campaign, we often see the two sides try to emphasize different issues, hoping to make the issue that voters care about the one that they are perceived strongest on.

In marketing it's the same way. The idea is to try to direct attention towards areas of perceived advantage. For instance, if you have IBIS and others don't, then have all of your social media influencers focus on that. When others catch up and even surpass, have it be that iBIS is no longer a big deal.

The other point that Sony got right was relying on social media and YouTube. Voices perceived as impartial always have more credibility with consumers. If you look back at many YT reviews of Sony cameras, they are almost reading from the same script.

We don't just follow the masses. When was the last time you changed your political standpoint after a discussion, or jumped ship with after discussing cameras and lenses on the forum here, or after reading ads or viewing YouTube videos? We don't fall that easy for arguments from others.

Maybe the bestselling brands just make very good cameras that people want to have?

Nikon z9 is virtually Sony a1 specwise and it exposed hypocrites on dpr forums who had no word of praise for a1 but acting as if z9 is the greatest thing ever while it is just A1.

It may have similar specs to an A1 (so does an R5) but it has a different form factor and different lenses - I think that people can appreciate these as important - $1000 cheaper as well........

Magnar: you seem to be saying that marketing has no impact, and that even individuals have no persuasive impact on others. I would submit to you that there is a huge amount of evidence that says otherwise.

Marketing works. Companies know that and hence spend big money on it. Of course some marketing works better than others.

Social media has influence. Companies know that and hence spend big money on it.

Our own individual discussions with others, and indeed what others do and use, does have some impact. Again, there is a substantial body of evidence showing that.

Now the extent of that influence differs from person to person, and depends on the subject. Of course you and I in these discussions are probably not going to change each other's minds because we are already very opinionated coming in and want to have fun debating.

But that's no basis to say that in essence marketing doesn't work, and social media doesn't influence.

I actually enjoy the photos that Chris has taken during his reviews. He's a good photographer.

Thoughts R Us, the claims about the relation between the size of the mount and the performance of the IBIS have the same basis as the size of the mount and the 1.2 lenses...

Someone just decided to claim that without any fundament....

@whitelens

Ha ha, indeed! And the two narratives are promoted by exactly the same people with exactly the same agenda - to spread FUD about the Sony system.

They also have a another thing in common. They know as little about IBIS as they knew about f1.2 lenses.

@Joe Niepce Photographer

"You can wh!ne as much as you want"

It seems to me that it's you doing the whining. You've now criticised Sony's IBIS FOUR times in your last SIX posts. It's like you're on a mission.

I wonder why you're so concerned since you're not even a Sony user.

No one here really knows about the effect of lens mount size on IBIS. So one cannot definitively say that the lens mount doesn't impact IBIS. It seems reasonable to assume that it does,

Even WRT to the fast f1.2 lens...my guess is that the lens mount size does have an impact. Larger lens mounts make that easier to design and give greater flexibility in design. But Sony still found a way, to their credit. But I bet if you talk to their lens designers, they would say that a wider mount would have made that easier.

@TRU;
"No one here really knows about the effect of lens mount size on IBIS. So one cannot definitively say that the lens mount doesn't impact IBIS. It seems reasonable to assume that it does"
That is typical for you. By your own words above, nobody really knows but let's assume Sony sucks.
I don't even know why I am answering your silly posts!

Strange claims, since real world stabilization tests with newer models from Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras shows pretty much the same results. Dependent on lens, focal length and shutter speed, they alternate between getting the highest score. But of cause, for many brand warriors specs on the paper is way more important than real world results. The same for more or less wise assumptions.

A simple real world exercise: Put your eye where the lens mount is, and look around. Is there plenty of space? Just a fool would place the eye away from the mount and then conclude: It must be too narrow.

The same people that explained that the FE mount was too small for f1.2 lenses, totally ignoring that they'd been proved wrong years ago by the simple fact you could use canon EF 1.2 lenses on Sony cameras, are now explaining how the mount affects IBIS...

Not really the kind of people I'd call experts...

Joe Niepce Photographer Of course it does.. and the mount is too small for 1.2 lenses. Let’s ignore reality if that makes you happy.

@ Joe Niepce Photographer: Pretty much the same level as Canon R5 for higher end Sony cameras, real world tests shows. Yeah, that's really bad!

@TRU, there are a few more comments about how much you hate (dislike) the Sony camera system. As many times as you say you don't, you comments contradict your apologies and contradictions.
The best thing you can do is stop putting down the Sony system to make yourself credible, when you constantly say "I don't really hate the Sony system".

@PAntunes: the Canon RP is their budget FF camera...while the Sony flaws in UI and design propagate throughout their entire product line, all of which is more expensive than the RP

The multifunction bar was eliminated after user feedback...so Canon heard and reacted. In many areas where users voice complaints about Sony design/ergo/UI Sony has yet to respond or has responded in a very tepid way.

Thoughts R Us so what you’re saying is that other brands also use user feedback to improve their cameras? The same thing Jonby was criticising Sony for doing?

@PAntunes: Nothing wrong with taking user feedback into account - as long as that's not the only input into the design process. Yes Canon made an error with the multifunction bar. That doesn't change the fact that their camera's interfaces are generally far better designed than Sony's when it comes to actually using them for photography. If you like fiddling around with endless options and customisations then the Sonys are good for that. Eventually you'll get a setup which works well enough.

It took longer for Sony to try to fix their menu's than it did for Canon to accept feedback and drop the multifunction bar experiment.

Even now the improved menu's are better but still not up to the quality of Canon.

But Sony is slow to respond to user feedback regarding issues of usability. How long did it take them to put in a touch menu system?

If customers ask for some basic features of good design and usability it takes Sony a long time to react, if ever. They should improve upon that.

Thoughts R Us, I think canon needs to fix their menus. I find them hard to navigate and I don't know where things are.

When will they fix that?

And why is the on/off switch on the wrong side of the camera? Why is the front dial still on top instead of the front where your fingers actually are?

Sorry but every brand has their way of doing things. Some will love it, some will hate it. Not doing a camera the way YOU want it is not a problem.

@Malling:

R3 LCD screen resolution: Approx. 4.15 million dots

A1 LCD screen resolution: Approx 1.44 million dots

I'd say that's a big difference and not a "slight" one.

TRU is right. It definitely seems Canon prioritized LCD resolution while Sony and Nikon prioritized sensor resolution.

If you translate the dots into normal resolution neither are particularly high.

@Malling: remember your own words when evaluating EVF resolution as well.

Because the Sony EVF on the A1 has zero advantages over the R3 or Z9, but there are clear advantages to the Canon and Nikon EVFs.

I must admit I see no real advantage on either it’s different not better

Sony says that the camera hands off IS for pitch and yaw to the lens when an stabilized lens is used on a body with IBIS. The body still corrects for roll and translational movement. Lens and body IS are not used together for any of the movement types..

Panasonic's Dual IS (and the Olympus/OM System Sync IS, Canon's IBIS and possibly some Fujifilm combinations) use in-body IS and OIS together for pitch and yaw correction.

It’s because it’s a pro camera and Olympus is not, it’s well know that enthusiast typically get such (automated) features first to aid the photographer while pro does not need it as they have the know how and programs to process it afterwards.

Also why Sony menu system is not as user friendly for none professional, sony has put far more into it being customisable.

Personally I would always choose to do stacking off the camera as it’s always better.

Not saying it would not be a nice feature, sure it would be fine but frankly isn’t strictly necessary. It’s more nice to have then need to have some of the other stuff they tossed into the A1 was frankly more important.

Pixel count, DR performance, AF performance, fps happens to be the important bit it’s the make it or break it, a focus stacking feature isn’t 1/1000 as important, as you can do that in post you cannot recreate that crucial moment you missed because you camera was to slow, your out of focus images will never be great and neither will insufficient resolution if you need to crop or print very large or the noisy images because the ISO performance is poor or bending issues etc. what you desire is icing on the cake, the Sony actually make us achieve better images and get some that would be much harder to get before.

Thank you for pointing out what happened in the HiFi world, because I think it's instructive.

In that world of HiFi, the best sounding equipment almost never had the best specs and yes, the mid tier brands tended to market only on some simplistic specs.

I realize that marketing of specs is natural in the tech world but in reality the paper specs never tell the whole story, or even in many cases the most important part of the story. Of course one part of the problem is that the specs that are marketed tend to be the ones that are easy to sell on the basis of more is better, but the specs that matter usually are more sophisticated and require more background knowledge to understand.

As you note, RMS power value was more important than peak power value, but peak power value was easier for customers to understand and fed into the bigger number is better assumption.

TRU

The paper specs are the focus stacking and similar features it adds about nothing in terms of IQ it’s all something you can achieve in post. 120fps on z9 now that is the true word of a paper spec and 30fps jpeg is certainly also paper specs, 8k on the R5 and 20fps is also paper specs as the hardware isn’t there to truly handle it.

Yes we can get to high resolution that will be paper specs but we are still a good way to get there, the 30fps, 60ish mp certainly isn’t paper spec, neither is the AF and AF-C etc.

So one example where specs fail to fully inform is in the EVF. If one goes only by max resolution spec, then the A1 would seem to be superior to the R3 and Z9.

But if one goes by user experience, the Z9 and R3 are superior to the A1. And yes, I've used all 3 and IMHO the A1 is not even close to the other cameras in EVF real world experience.

The A1 EVF spec is like the peak power value, whereas the Z9 and R3 offer something like the better RMS power values, to complete the analogy with the world of HIFi audio.

Tru

You are a notorious cannikon fan, you won’t never say a tiny bit positive about Sony as your hate for that brand blind you.

@Malling: I think I've been quite on a level tone in this discussion. I could just as easily accuse you and some others of being Sony fans that only state the positive spin or in other discussions of Canon/Nikon only criticize.

Nothing I've said is unreasonable or anything that others haven't also noted.

But I admit my bias; will you admit yours?

Bias would somehow require me to actually like Sony as a brand, the amount of Sony stuff I owned is extremely limited as it can be counted on one hand excluding my current camera gear. I owned more Apple stuff then I owned Sony just to make a point, If I’m biased towards something it’s that and certainly not Sony. I would probably had been shooting Nikon today if not for the brand extreme conservatism and reluctance to go Mirrorless.

I’m harsh against Nikon because they truly deserved it, the first mirrorless that wasn’t hopelessly behind was the Z9, so hopefully they put their S*** together forward, but it’s also the only Nikon worth owning if you don’t mind a monstrosity, hopefully they actually offer a smaller camera that you actually wanna hike with and own, because that was certainly not the case with Z6ii or z7ii.

A good proportion of the market is enthusiasts, people who like taking photos with cameras and decent lenses rather than smartphones. Sony has many enthusiast models, sure, not the A1 or possibly A9II but most of the others. All Im saying is in-camera features are sometime important for enthusiasts. If they want better results they can also do whatever they want on computer afterwards. Im an enthusiast and I use these features and so do many others i know

It has APSC (1.5x) in camera.
Dust is not a problem
Agree with rest

The A1 has a 1.5X crop mode. I have it programmed to a button and use it often with telephoto lenses. Many bird photographers use this with the A1.

@PAntunes

Keep shooting at 1/400 for handheld or increase the ISO to 25600. Your pick.
I will enjoy my IBIS.

Even if the ibis was just 4 stops, you’d be shooting a 400mm at 1/25. How often do you need to shoot slower than 1/25 with a 400mm? And what are your shooting handheld that won’t move?

That “deal breaker” isn’t really a deal breaker, is it???

There is a different between wanting and needing.

The mount size has nothing to do with IBIS performance.
Also, the IBIS on the A1 is really good, lagging just half a stop behind the R5, which a lot of people claim has the best FF IBIS ever.

So 0,5 stop is a dealbreaker… right

@Malling

Keep saying it's only 0.5. In real world, every single review says Sony IBIS is way behind the others. I have seen Sony videos that's jittery compared to Canon and/or Nikon.

@PAntunes
We can argue if Sony's IBIS is comparable to others or not, but if you can't see how IBIS is important then I can't help you.

Joe Niepce Photographer, the question is not if IBIS is useful or not. It's if it does what it needs to do.

You can argue that a road car that does 200mph is not as good as one that does 220mph, but it becomes a little pointless when most people won't even reach 150mph.

And now you're talking about videos, not stills...

fps rate isn't what makes a stacked sensor more expensive tho, I don't know that even the actual readout rate is directly tied to the cost, so even tho you may want for stacked sensors to be available on cheaper bodies yesterday (I do too tbh) it isn't necessarily in the cards just yet...

And the stacked M4/3 sensor is probably still coming from Sony, I guess being smaller and w/half the readout rate of the latest FF (stacked) sensors makes it cheaper, it'll be curious to see if/when that sensor ends up on anything cheaper than the OM-1 tbh.

You can find used A9s for $2000 pretty much everywhere now.

"I guess being smaller and w/half the readout rate of the latest FF (stacked) sensors makes it cheaper,"

True, stacked sensor cost goes up astronomically with frame size. Higher failure rates and fewer sensors per die.

Love the X1d. I actually like most of Sonys camera designs, but they have been getting bloated of late, the 1st gen were nicest

Thoughts R Us, probably because real users like how the cameras are designed.

@PAntunes: no doubt some Sony users are satisfied with the design. But if you watch the video, you see that the design is one area of complaint for Chris/Jordan. And if you read the comments of other Sony users, you will see the same.

Sony needs to step it up in their design, and most Sony users know that.

Thoughts R Us If you read the comments, you’ll see that the vast majority of Sony users don’t have a problem with the design of the cameras. You see more people complaining about focus stacking than the design of the cameras. And focus stacking is something that only a very small minority of photographers actually use.

If focus stacking is more important than the camera design, that just shows how not an issue that is.

@PAntunes: I haven't done some numerical analysis but there are quite a few comments from Sony uses in this discussion about wanting a better design. But of course the discussion comments are not necessarily indicative of the market as a whole.

On different forums some Sony users express the same criticisms of UI and design, and let's face it, even the very Sony-friendly users on YouTube have expressed some of these criticisms.

But of course neither of us nows the reality.

Thoughts R Us, well, on the other hand you also have the Sony users that feel that other cameras are just too big and even prefer the A7C because of the compact format.

Being compact is a feature that many users appreciate. Of course there will be users that would prefer a bigger camera, but I don't feel that those represent the majority of Sony users.