Snydremark wrote in post #18538439
Closest eye very well may not be the one you want; hard to compose and shoot (or select your AF point, etc) when you can't see the screen through the glare. If they're actually getting continuous AF on those systems at fulll resolution, I that's a much better step up than when I last looked at any of the 'high performance' ILC/mirrorless bodies. Impressive battery life at those stats, if they're consistent and not 'someone got a good battery that day' deals.
If it works for ya it works for ya; they're all tools. I just don't find a lot of them particularly functional/useful until they iron out some issues in the function and or hardware lineups (i.e native glass, not adapted) Even then, they certainly don't hold anywhere close to enough appeal to try and switch up an existing lens lineup. I wouldn't even come close to try and argue that it's a bad investment if you're picking a path to go down; I just have seen more people make wholesale 'system' switches only to find it's simply a "greener grass" scenario followed by buyer's remorse over the time and energy it took to switch.
Of course, I've seen the same pattern just moving to new bodies w/in the same manufacturer..so, <shrug>
Closest eye is what you want, havent ever seen a photo where the back eye was desired.
Sony offers you an olive branch when switching, unlike other manufactures. The let you try before you buy, with the metabones and mc-11 adapters. Consider their Artisans were promoting the metabones and compatibility it gives. Imagine shooting your 24-70f2.8 ii / 35Lii / 85L/ 135L with IBIS AND eye focus. Of course Sony holds back the goods for their native lenses, but they give you a taste of what's offered. Heck, you can easily rent a body and adapter compared to renting a body and several lenses if switching to any other brand. I didnt switch to Sony, I transitioned, and still look and bought EF lenses as of last year, havent owned a canon body for years. Sure, the sony lenses cost more, but you're old canon lenses do have some value. Sell and buy used, it didnt cost a whole lot to start the transition, only the layout for the body and adapters. 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, not outrageously priced, so native it is. You'll just have to acknowledge that you're in some sort of beta program without a complete product line, but regardless, there's a ton of offering in a few short years. I think there was like 10 lenses released last year? kind of crazy release cycle.
I'll address the rest of the post with Tom's
Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538469
This is what concerns me. Thing is, I don't know whether or not I need to be concerned.......but things they've done in the past make me suspicious and hesitant to "buy in".
For example, I remember years ago hearing about such and such a camera having such better high ISO performance, and then the truth comes out that it really wasn't a sensor-level improvement at all, but that instead they were just applying some type of noise reduction to the files in the camera. That's right - files that were supposedly RAW files, that were being compared to other manufacturer's RAW files, were actually having some NR processing being done to them by default, in-camera, without the common user even being aware of it. Sheesh!
Another example is the new A9 that was just released. At first I heard that it would shoot at 20 frames per second. Then later, more details are disclosed and I learn that it doesn't shoot full-bit uncompressed RAW images at 20 FPS, but rather some lesser-bit, compressed type of file. So, if you want the highest bit, uncompressed RAWs, you're not going to be up at 20 FPS.
So these things in the past, where it seems to promise some great thing, and then I learn that the thing isn't quite as great as they made it seem, well, that has me suspicious. Can I really trust that every single claim is 100% true? I sure hope so, but past history has me gun-shy..
yes, there is an issue with full bit files at full speed. It's trickery that sony uses to write real fast, and they do write very fast regardless of that trickery, so it's not a total scam. The buffer on the A9 is some crazy 240 files or something, and on the A7r3 is 100 files..... that's pretty darn big, and they also have a buffer life bar you can watch refill, which takes about 20 seconds on a completely depleted buffer. I dont know what competing cameras offer, but it seemed very fast.
issue on the bit rate and general quality of compressed raw..... it's not that big of a deal. Consider the A7r2 scores a 98 on dxomark. The score was achieved BEFORE uncompressed raw was offered. The original A7r has a dxomark score of 95, and doesnt even offer uncompressed raw. The A7r3 scores a 100 on dxomark. There arent wild differences in image quality among the sensors other than color science, the latter models are more "Canon" like. To my understanding on bit depth, it makes little difference the higher your iso goes. it's a 2 bit loss, a good eye can spot the color difference with base ISO landscapes, others cant. Beyond that, image degradation makes it impossible to determine. In practice, I simply dont worry about it, it's too minor to keep me occupied.
an article about 14 vs 12 bit, not sony camera, but sony sensor: https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw
Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC