mdvaden wrote in post #18737393
Not particularly. Canon has some tech that Sony does not have, as is vice versa. One small part I'm going to enjoy are the 4 extra lens pins and 3rd control ring. Just started shopping for the control adapter tonight so that when my RF lens arrives, I can enjoy the same with my EF lenses. From what I can tell, the A9, although maybe faster FPS, may not out-perform the EOS R for low light focusing. But more will be learned in that point.
True enough that we don't know everything on how the EOS-R will perform, but it is not a speedy camera like the A9.
One point to clear up here, I don't think of body sizes, or choices on controls as "tech". The ring on the RF lenses is a design choice, not a technology. The stacked BSI sensor in the A9 is a "technology" in that it is a specific kind of sensor. All of the A9 superlatives in performance (fast read speeds, no-blackout shooting, lighting fast AF, high frame rate) are a result of this technology.
The on-sensor A/D conversion that Sony pioneered with the first exmor sensor is likewise a "technology" and is a big part of why Sony (and Nikon's with Sony sensors) has been the industry leader in having low read noise and large dynamic range.
Near $4000 the A9 should perform great, and apparently it's a great camera. On the other hand, not even counting the EOS R, I'm accustomed to the 5DS's mighty 50 megapixels, and can't see myself sliding back to a small 24 megapixel sensor. Not at four thousand dollars certainly, and probably not at $3K either. The EOS also outperforms the A9 for focus points too. I don't need that many, but thought it was fair seeing you mentioned the A9 to show how Sony "throttled" back that feature.
I'm not sure the differences in absolute numbers of points matters much. What we have now gotten in MILC cameras are hybrid AF systems with points spread all the way across the image. That's a game changer, but also now a feature found on all the options from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. But if one has 400 points and another has 600, it probably makes no difference.
If you want a high resolution camera, Sony has the A7rIII, which I would argue has a better sensor for landscape work that the 5DS.
Also ... the A9 just isn't a Pro size body. To me, it's laughable that Sony's techs are so wrapped up in specs and data sheets, that the A9 ergonomics barely handle all of a photographer's fingers. So with so many other capable cameras on the market from Canon and Nikon, I can't imagine dumping four grand into a child hand size camera with only 24 Megapixel resolution regardless of it's frame rate or IBIS. The foundation needs to be fixed first.
Having owned 1D bodies, 5D bodies, and Sony alpha bodies I would say that I do not prefer the mass of the 1D. I don't really care about what random people think is "pro" looking enough. The fact is that the 1D is pretty dang heavy and I don't care to cart one around. Once the 5D3 was released, I grabbed one, dumped my 1D Mark IV and never looked back.
I do mount an L plate on my Sony most of the time, which is convenient for being able to slap the camera on a tripod at any time and which (to me at least) solves any minor ergonomic concerns with the grip. And yet, when I put my 5D and A7rIII side by side, the Sony is just so much smaller. I can carry a very complete kit for the Sony in a 10L bag, which is never enough with the 5D.
I think Canon can get to a tempting system, and while the R has too many misses for me in the first look, the next releases might be great. What I'm more interested in is where the RF lenses will be going. I don't own Sony GM lenses because they are too big and heavy. The RF 28-70 and 50 likewise are not of interest. On the other hand, the 24-105 and 35 both show a better direction. Let's see what else Canon releases, but the rumored 24/1.2 isn't heading in the right direction, unless it is as small as the new Sony GM 1.4/24.