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

I think what the OP meant was don't release new cameras without fixing the flaws that he perceives them to have, probably mostly in the design and handling.

Yes exactly

Hard disagree on the "don't release models too quick". You know that whenever a new model is released, it caused older models to drop in price, significantly. For ex the A9 was $4500 a few years ago, and thanks to the A9ii and now the A1, you can now find the A9 for $2000, which is great news for a lot of people.

A lot of people want the A1 but at a lower price. You know what they really want? They want Sony to release the A1ii ASAP, then they will be able to find the A1 at a much lower price.

With your great ideas, then Sony would still have the original A9 with some extra firmware updates, and no A9ii and no A1, and that A9 would still cost $4000+ even in the used market.

EFCS off may increase lag time, but EFCS on results in unpleasant bokeh with high SS, so an option to choose in Menu would make everyone happy. And also Fokus stacking and 4:3 Video Mode (desqueezing can be done externally) and Waveforms....

No. Mirrorless is different. You didn’t have lag with mirror cameras because the shutter was already closed when you hit the button.

Of course if the shutter is closed while you’re framing with a mirrorless camera youre not seeing anything.

So EFCS off in mirrorless is different than the old DSLR days.

No. If it were 1/300 then we wouldn’t be limited to 10 or 12 FPS in mechanical shutter on so many cameras. It’s not just the transit time. It’s more than that.

You missed talk about it because mirrorless cameras really weren’t speed demons until 2017.

"Why will they stop making APS-C cameras? "

Why did they "pause" APS-C but not FF?

I am.

Wait…what current Sony cameras don’t have USB-C?
I have the A7C and A1, and they both have USB-C. As did my A7III. The only Sony body I had which didn’t was the A9, but that’s about 5 years old now

A9II also has USB-C

The old A7RIII also has usb-c

I don’t know about the others but the A1 supports 10GBits on the USB-C port. Is that not fast enough?

I agree, and while we do have the better ports, give us direct recording to SSD over USB. Saves tons in cards and the need for an external recorder. The newest 8k recorders are doing €1000 too.

*all-over-the-line* is the key word.

Sony mobile (another sub-division of Sony Corp) throw these connectors "thirteen a dozen" on there phones , - no need to be stingy and use museum style usb connectors for expensive cameras, when cheap mobile have the very same connectors in a much a smaller form factor. (probably (as always) a beancounter shuffle-dance-move)

I'm guessing he's complaining about the APS-C bodies, the a6400/6600 came out in 2019 w/micro USB only... They're hardly the only manufacturer that cuts corners there, the Oly E-M5 III came out later that same year w/micro USB only even tho the E-M1 II already had USB-C much earlier, but anyway...

That's also the same year the A7R IV came out with both micro USB and USB-C on board FWIW. Sony cheapens out on all sorts of other ways with the APS-C bodies tho so that's hardly surprising, I think the last a6xxx didn't have UHS-II slots either? They're out of production now and who knows if the same models will ever go back into production, so this might all be kinda moot.

@impulses it's also the newer cameras. Even Z9 cuts corners. The USB is type C, but not the newest faster generation. That extra speed is very welkom if you want to implement direct video to SSD over USB in a firmware update. Guess we will not see this update in the Z9, while is will come to the GH6 I believe.

Yay!

-Harald puts it in better words than me.
-There is no need for camera buyers to accept worse charging rate and transfer speed than todays mobilephones.

Mobile have much less space to work with, and still manages to pack better USB support.

I honestly feel this is 100% not a engineering decision, but a 100% beancounter decision.

In the end, the consumers always get the short end of the deal, as always.

USB-C gets pretty complicated if you get into the weeds, the port itself can be anything from USB 2.0 to several different tiers of USB 3.0+ speeds (and those surely have an extra on-boards cost), and power intake can be anything from 5V 3A (or lower as it is on older Sony bodies w/USB-C) to pretty much anything you'd need via USB PD.

I don't shoot video and don't read cards in-body so I've never cared too much about the speed side of the equation (being able to shoot to an SSD definitely seems useful tho), but I'd like to see USB PD become table stakes and for DPR to explore compatibility in that regard.

Whenever a body implements USB PD they (DPR) almost treat it as both a pro and a con, mentioning incompatibility with random chargers but not really figuring out whether the camera or the charger were at fault. PD *is* the future for mobile power, it's on every laptop, tablet, and phone; get with it.

How long does it take you to charge a battery in a normal charger? How much slower is it in camera?

It's usually slower in camera (maybe 3 vs 2 hours), but it's still super useful to have. If you're in your car and are low in battery (or if you're low on battery period and have a USB power bank with your) it's super useful to just be about to plug into the phone charger you already have handy and top off.

There's separate 3rd party USB chargers as well and those are useful too, I use all those things (in camera, USB charger, OEM AC charger) together.

According to DPReview, Sigma now naively supports M1 Macs: https://www.dpreview.com/news/9816374521/sigma-s-optimization-pro-software-now-has-native-support-for-apple-silicon

Worst comes to worst, you visit a friend or family member without a mac, which is statistically very likely. Most lenses have few updates after their first months.

Heck from the money you save buying Sigma and Tamron you could afford a cheap used Windows laptop to do your lens updates. :)

I agree, Sony ergonomics has improved in each generation. But when talking with CaNikon shooters about Sony, ergonomics is the first thing they mention - without even shooting with Sony ;-)

So, how do these CaNikon experts know so much about Sony ergonomics without even using the cameras?🧐

@Malling: Feeling so insecure in your "specsheet with lots of asterisks" purchase that you have to justify it with spreading bull****?

That is because R5 can't fart near its rated stabilization. The CIPA IS rating is notoriously easily spoofed.

Correct.

You cant make IBIS better without making the camera larger.
Better IBIS needs more space to act.

Those 4/3 from Panny and Olympus have great IBIS because small sensor insode larger body.
Other make full frames bigger than sony.

I don't think it is possible. The mount diameter is too small to allow full frame sensor to shift properly. It's why as @user1234567890 has already noted, those M43 cameras have stunning IBIS capabilities.

Side by side walking beats any measurement.
The Sony's are the worst. You can buy like 6 Lumix S5 from the price of the A1. And the S5's ibis is still miles ahead. And that's the worst Panasonic can offer. Also that camera is not bigger than the A1.
I'm not a fan of Canons ibis either as it's really wobbly, but still a lot better than Sony.
Sony shoot himself in the foot with that APS-C sized mount.

I would like some practical explanation why the diameter of the mount affects how quickly the sensor can be moved to counter camera movement.

This “mount diameter is too small for effective IBIS” seems like the biggest piece of BS associated with IBIS performance.

It's not that how quickly it's how much. Really not rocket science.

Mount diameter would not affect how quickly a sensor can move, it would affect the extent or distance it could shift.

Is it BS if Sony has shown to have the worst IBIS performance among full frame cameras? There has been exhaustive testing done on this topic already.

I think the edges of the E mount only allow for a small image circle lens design, so the sensor can barely move inside that small image circle. That's why Sony IBIS is the worst. Otherwise Sony owns some exclusive Olympus IBIS patents, so technically they should be the best, but they're the worst. I think the mount size explanation makes perfect sense.

The IBIS allows me to hand hold a 500 mm lens at 1/125 - that is about 4 stops. Should I be more ambitious?

The size of the mount cannot affect the effectiveness of IBIS, because IBIS is about keeping the pixels in the frame. What affects full frame sensors is the mass of the sensor.

I’d like to see some actual data on range of motion of the mechanisms of IBIS systems from various manufacturers.

Fuji and Olympus both have confirmed that IBIS performance varies depending on the size of the image circle
https://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-managers-ibis-not-compatible-with-x-mount-read-why-we-are-observing-the-progress-of-organic-sensor/
https://fujiaddict.com/2020/04/03/tales-of-the-x-t4-tale-2-ibis/
https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/tales-of-the-x-t4-tale-2-ibis/

If the Fujifilm mount is incompatible with IBIS, how come they implemented it later? I think that was an excuse, rather than a reason

The people here make the wrong assumption that image circle correlates with mount size. IT DOES NOT. The image circle can be far bigger than the mount diameter.

Heck for some MF film cameras mount diameter was half the image circle.

Then please explain why are they unable to improve ibis? It's the same horrible quality for the past 5 years. Their "innovation" is to crop the image. That alone suggests that they reached a hardware limitation as they are basically rather sacrificing image quality than put a working stabilisation system in their camera (which, according to you is entirely possible).

"Then please explain why are they unable to improve ibis?"
The IBIS works, how do you think it needs to be improved?
I take shots with 500 mm lenses at 1/125 (which is 4 stops), reliably. How far does IBIS have to go? 5.5 stops gets me down to about 1/40. Is that not enough?

1/125 is only 2 stops. (500 at 1/500 is 0 stops.)
1/250 - 1 stop
1/125 - 2 stops
1/60 - 3 stops
1/30 - 4 stops
1/15 - 5 stops.

With digital resolutions I allow twice the reciprical - so for a 500 I would expect to use 1/1000. Going by the old 35mm standards of resolution I should be able to shoot a 500 at 1/20, which seems a bit over the top...

It's useless for video. Let's leave at that.

All the evidence suggests that there's a very strong and direct correlation between mount size, image circle and IBIS performance. Anyone who disagrees with this fact must provide evidence tbh. We already have Fuji, Sigma and Leica engineers agreeing with this correlation.

It's not just MFT bodies. Sony is beaten by Nikon, Canon and especially by Panasonic in regards of ibis. And I'm not talking about the number of stops but the actual usability ESPECIALLY in video. All of them have significantly larger mounts, go figure.

Yes I’m not talking about the glass in front. I’m talking about the metal and plastic behind.

@Funny Valentine

"I think the edges of the E mount only allow for a small image circle lens design, so the sensor can barely move inside that small image circle."

The size of the image circle is determined by the distance of the exit pupil from the image plane. It has literally nothing to do with the size of the mount.

Additionally the size of the image circle varies from lens to lens and even across focussing ranges in the same lens. Rays that have a high angle of incidence are not good image forming rays so lens designers aim for smaller imaging circles, not larger ones. You basically don't understand what you're talking about.

"It's the worst in the industry by a huge margin !"

The largest mount (Nikon Z) currently has the lowest CIPA rating and Panasonic and Leica both have different CIPA ratings despite using the same width mount.

Contd.

Gordon Laing tests IBIS in camera bodies and got exactly the same results between Sony and Canon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5GeNH3Ip0&t=613s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazLXO3oLS4

5 stops using a Sony lens in his A1 review and 3 with a Sigma third party. In his R5 test he got 5 stops for the RF 24-105/4 and 4 for the RF 50/1.2. Canon claims 8 and 7 stops for both those lenses incidentally.

Contd.

"It's useless for video. Let's leave at that."

You seem to think the only use case for IBIS is walking. In this video by Max Yureyev he shows the Sony is much better when handholding and filming a stationary subject compared to Fuji and Nikon, which exhibit micro jitters, suggesting their IBIS systems are more aggressively trying to correct movement than the Sony. Sometimes that is beneficial sometimes not, as in this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvytGuUEQeU 10:05 in

@MikeRan
Do you have a link to the assessment you are referring to?

No. That’s the problem. There is no assessment. Only hand waving explanations. I didn’t claim to know of any specific assessment.

The IBIS itself is working great. The only thing Sony needs to add is collaborative IS, that is: IBIS + lens IS working together. That's how Canon and Panasonic manage to eek a few extra stops.

Can confirm: used the Sunny Weather setting yesterday on my first day out with the A7IV. In cloudless California sunlight: no problems.

Yeah. People complain about not bright enough…. I mention “sunny weather” and they disappear.

Either they don’t have the camera and keep repeating the misinformation. Or they have the camera and never tried to adjust the LCD brightness.

You can absolutely judge exposure in sunny weather mode.
There’s also this thing called a live histogram. Turn it on if you like.

Do you actually have a recent Sony camera? I think you don’t.

Ha. You claim the visibility is no good in sunlight. The visibility is just fine in sunlight if you know how to use the camera.

Some people would benefit from higher resolution LCD screens but I could care less. Most people over 40 could care less as their reading vision goes too. I use the EVF for any critical review and Sony has among the best.

$0.

Which is the obvious flaw? That the screen isn’t bright enough? Or it’s not calibrated to some dE value?

You’re just ranting now.

The resolution is weak. I get that and agree. Even though I couldn’t tell the difference between a 1mdot screen and a 4 mdot screen.
The brightness is totally adequate even in direct sunlight.
And it’s useful for framing subjects and for exposure assessment.

What’s the problem? Resolution? Yeah. Agree. Anything else?

By the way, curious which Sony camera you shoot.

(If I can remember) I will measure the brightness of my A1 and A9II LCD screens this weekend.

I don't have any experience with competing brands but I notice every time I've switched SSS off in camera (because of tripod) and then not reset it and proceed to take pictures hand held like I usually do. This with first and second gen Sony FF mirrorless that are "the worst" in terms of IBIS. So I wouldn't call it "non-existent".

If you used ANY other brand you'd know that cipa measurements has nothing to do with video stabilisation performance, and that Sony's solution is truly by faaar the worst in the industry. So lets leave it at that shall we?
I just can't at Sony fans trying to defend this brand to the death. This is a camera, like any other with it's strengths and weaknesses.

Never understood why on earth someone would want to develop raw in a trash 3 inch screen. At least transfer to your phone. Mobile Lightroom is extremely powerful now.

Let me stop using my 27" 5K iMac because I rather use the mediocre LCD screen on my camera.

I think it’s a valid criticism. There are times when a PJ or sports shooter wants to fix an under or over exposed image from a raw file and send it off to be published while still at the game or event.

Since he can't send email from the camera, the picture needs to be transfered to the phone. So again, why would you want to develop time image in camera when you're phone has a bigger, better display and more powerful processor with a 1000x software.

RAW development in phone via lightroom? Sound good doesn't work
First you need to pay premium app
Second, it takes time and lots of tapping and browsing out of hundreds of pictures, either you have patience to wait all of them finished rendering or you transfer all of them at once, which ridiculous long and consuming space

Benefit of in camera RAW process? Edit what you need with raw files in camera and transfer the jpeg version to phone for fine tuning . Much faster

It's sounds like you never used it in your life. Why would you need to browse through hundreds of pictures? Just send the ones you want to develop. Adding them to LR is like 2 seconds.
And a modern phone will process them a 10000x faster than a crappy camera SOC I can assure you. And you can see it in on a 2-3x size screen and resolution with better quality.
Even if you don't have Lightroom iPhone's have built in RAW developer which is even more simple than LR.

Let's not pretend in camera RAW processing is something that pros want. Because it is not. I know many photographers, never in my life saw them develop files in camera. Several of them are fast paced riporters.

My ex 5 year old entry level GX80 sends RAW via wifi to mobile app, same as my new S5.
As far as I know the magestic A1 from Sony is also capable for such magic. I know it's limited for JPEG for older Sony models. I'm pretty sure other brands are capable of this as well.

Yes, 100% sure. G85 can do it as well. There is a switch or smth in the application menu burried smwh.
Yes, the transfer is fairly quick with the S5 and connecting to the camera is like 5 secs if you have it on FN. The S series use a newer Panasonic app.

There's an app in Android called "camera connect and control" that can transfer RAW file across any brands and model that the app support if you pay for premium version

Even support latest canon *.CR3