09-26-2018, 08:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2018, 10:44 AM by martind86.
Edit Reason: Better layout - paragraph split
)
Let me put a realistic & pragmatic view here:
1) Obsolete sensor. No, it is not bad but when you look where the competition moved over the years (better low light, DR, rolling shutter...), putting a five-year old sensor (I mean performance-wise and sensor architecture-wise) from Mark IV into the new release of the whole new camera concept is quite embarrassing.
2) Autofocus. 8fps without continual focus, so what for then ? Yes, 5fps with servo but based on first experiences, the 5fps is "hit & miss", the only acceptable amount of sharp shots is in '3FPS tracking priority mode'. Quite tragic, mainly because if you put Canon EF mount glass to A7III, it works in 5 and 8 fps so better than with Canon. Eye AF, which is most useful in continual focus, doesnt work in continual focus with Canon, silent shooting doesn't work in continual either. There is no joystick, focus point selection is controlled via the touchscreen which is laggy and makes for frustrating experience.
3) 1 SD card slot. SD cards are most prone to failure so putting a singe SD card slot here is just no-go for any (semi)pro.
4) Video. 4K video is the same 1.8 crop as in 5D mark iv. Plus the electronic IBIS makes it 2.0 crop so the size of 4/3 sensor. For this reason, you can see the limited ISO range. I just cannot see how they can aim at vloggers with this. It is much better for them to buy cheap Panasonic with 4k and they don't need to bother with FF lenses. 120fps in HD? Please, it is 2018 and not 2015.
5) The benefit of 'protecting a sensor behind the shutter from dust'. Well, not only is the fragile and expensive shutter exposed to an easy damage (certainly much easier to damage than unwanted touch of the sensor) but here is a question for big thinkers: What happens if you press the shutter after the dust was 'luckily' caught by the shutter?
6) One of the key mirorless benefits should be compact size and lower weight which you certainly cannot tell about the 28-70/2 and 50/1.2 lenses (the crazy high prices putting aside). I know the primary reason for the existence of these particular lenses is 'bragging rights' but still I like the Nikon's lens roadmap with 1.8 primes better.
7) This all goes for 2500 EUR, quite more expensive than Nikon and Sony. No, thank you. If I needed or wanted a FF mirorless solution today and looked at things realistically, I would still have to pick up Sony primarily for its practical results (mainly in the important AF area) and lens offer. I think both Canon and Nikon missed their first shot maybe except for stopping a migration of Canon and Nikon users to Sony/Fuji. And maybe that was the primary reason for their FF mirorless release anyway.
1) Obsolete sensor. No, it is not bad but when you look where the competition moved over the years (better low light, DR, rolling shutter...), putting a five-year old sensor (I mean performance-wise and sensor architecture-wise) from Mark IV into the new release of the whole new camera concept is quite embarrassing.
2) Autofocus. 8fps without continual focus, so what for then ? Yes, 5fps with servo but based on first experiences, the 5fps is "hit & miss", the only acceptable amount of sharp shots is in '3FPS tracking priority mode'. Quite tragic, mainly because if you put Canon EF mount glass to A7III, it works in 5 and 8 fps so better than with Canon. Eye AF, which is most useful in continual focus, doesnt work in continual focus with Canon, silent shooting doesn't work in continual either. There is no joystick, focus point selection is controlled via the touchscreen which is laggy and makes for frustrating experience.
3) 1 SD card slot. SD cards are most prone to failure so putting a singe SD card slot here is just no-go for any (semi)pro.
4) Video. 4K video is the same 1.8 crop as in 5D mark iv. Plus the electronic IBIS makes it 2.0 crop so the size of 4/3 sensor. For this reason, you can see the limited ISO range. I just cannot see how they can aim at vloggers with this. It is much better for them to buy cheap Panasonic with 4k and they don't need to bother with FF lenses. 120fps in HD? Please, it is 2018 and not 2015.
5) The benefit of 'protecting a sensor behind the shutter from dust'. Well, not only is the fragile and expensive shutter exposed to an easy damage (certainly much easier to damage than unwanted touch of the sensor) but here is a question for big thinkers: What happens if you press the shutter after the dust was 'luckily' caught by the shutter?
6) One of the key mirorless benefits should be compact size and lower weight which you certainly cannot tell about the 28-70/2 and 50/1.2 lenses (the crazy high prices putting aside). I know the primary reason for the existence of these particular lenses is 'bragging rights' but still I like the Nikon's lens roadmap with 1.8 primes better.
7) This all goes for 2500 EUR, quite more expensive than Nikon and Sony. No, thank you. If I needed or wanted a FF mirorless solution today and looked at things realistically, I would still have to pick up Sony primarily for its practical results (mainly in the important AF area) and lens offer. I think both Canon and Nikon missed their first shot maybe except for stopping a migration of Canon and Nikon users to Sony/Fuji. And maybe that was the primary reason for their FF mirorless release anyway.