Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

Hogloff wrote in post #18340300
For my travel I use a Sony kit which consists of two cameras ( A7R and A6000 ) and a collection of lenses from 18mm up to 100mm. My travel photography consists of both street / environmental portraits and landscape photography and ultimate image quality is important for my landscapes. I tried the Fuji system for a bit but found the image quality was lacking, especially when printing large.

With the two Sony cameras, they share everything from lenses, batteries, cards and chargers. I use the A7R mostly for landscapes and environmental images along with Zeiss glass and use the 6300 with either the Sony 28mm or 35mm which make for a great very compact outfit.

Going the Sony route for my travel allows me to use one system for both my landscape images and street images, very flexible that way.

I think you sold me. Right after I swallow the brand.

mcluckie wrote in post #18340351
Humorous aside:
I was just in Manhattan and went to B and H, looking to see these options. Salesguy blew off Fuji and Canon M5 because they're APS-C, done deal. Wouldn't even get off his chair. I said I read that Fuji has better lenses than Sony, and he kept pushing an A7r2 to me.

you must have been reading on the fuji forum

idkdc wrote in post #18340276
That's true, yeah. Even low compression 800 Mbit is just 125 MBps, which should be fine for UHS II cards. Probably thermal since the ASIC can handle 20 FPS compressed RAW? Maybe ASIC though since it only handles 12 fps uncompressed raw.

H.264 encoding requires a lot of computational power, vs almost nothing for RAW. However making an encoder faster is easy (just add more IC), while increasing sensor readout speed is trickier.
Reading around, it seems that 4k@25 uses the full sensor width, while 4k@30 is slightly cropped. This suggests a sensor readout limitation preventing 4k@60.

Hogloff wrote in post #18340300
For my travel I use a Sony kit which consists of two cameras ( A7R and A6000 ) and a collection of lenses from 18mm up to 100mm. My travel photography consists of both street / environmental portraits and landscape photography and ultimate image quality is important for my landscapes. I tried the Fuji system for a bit but found the image quality was lacking, especially when printing large.

With the two Sony cameras, they share everything from lenses, batteries, cards and chargers. I use the A7R mostly for landscapes and environmental images along with Zeiss glass and use the 6300 with either the Sony 28mm or 35mm which make for a great very compact outfit.

Going the Sony route for my travel allows me to use one system for both my landscape images and street images, very flexible that way.

To be clear, the A6000 delivers better image quality than a Fuji X (did you use the 24mp sensor?)?

Also, I can see taking two bodies, and that applies for any system, but the aps camera you tote would lend confusion, to me. I would want the lenses I bring to behave the same on either body otherwise one will sometimes be in the position of having the wrong lens/body combo at any given time.

Also, if ultimate quality is your goal, as stated, because you sometimes print "large" (to be defined), why would you ever use the smaller camera? That once in a lifetime image might just get captured on the wrong camera, so to speak.

And if the FF Sonys are so compact, what is the advantage of taking their aps camera, besides cost?

Well not quite a grand - I should have said nearly a grand more it's actually a £999 more - sorry!

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340418
To be clear, the A6000 delivers better image quality than a Fuji X (did you use the 24mp sensor?)?

Also, I can see taking two bodies, and that applies for any system, but the aps camera you tote would lend confusion, to me. I would want the lenses I bring to behave the same on either body otherwise one will sometimes be in the position of having the wrong lens/body combo at any given time.

Also, if ultimate quality is your goal, as stated, because you sometimes print "large" (to be defined), why would you ever use the smaller camera? That once in a lifetime image might just get captured on the wrong camera, so to speak.

And if the FF Sonys are so compact, what is the advantage of taking their aps camera, besides cost?

the difference between sony and fuji of the same sensor size are generally small.

the sony a6000 and a7r are very different, one is blazing fast, the other is reminiscent of the eos-M, however gives very nice IQ. I simply run two FF cams, it keeps things simple, and I shoot everything with it, even incidental wildlife. It's not optimized for it, and at the same time, there's absolutely nothing I shy away from shooting.

for size reference, I added an adapted 24-70 mii for scale.

85mm f1.8, 24-240, 16-35, 35mm f2.8, it's a fairly compact kit that gives me a lot of range and flexibility.

second attachment is an older kit that I brought to australia

Same glass, same bulk and weight.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340418
To be clear, the A6000 delivers better image quality than a Fuji X (did you use the 24mp sensor?)?

Also, I can see taking two bodies, and that applies for any system, but the aps camera you tote would lend confusion, to me. I would want the lenses I bring to behave the same on either body otherwise one will sometimes be in the position of having the wrong lens/body combo at any given time.

Also, if ultimate quality is your goal, as stated, because you sometimes print "large" (to be defined), why would you ever use the smaller camera? That once in a lifetime image might just get captured on the wrong camera, so to speak.

And if the FF Sonys are so compact, what is the advantage of taking their aps camera, besides cost?

No, the A7R delivers better image quality than anything from the Fuji like ( well maybe their MF is on par ).

I manage just fine switching from a full frame to a crop camera. Doesn't confuse me...sorry if it might confuse you.

I print my landscape images large...they are taken with my A7R. I don't print my street / environmental images large...typically to 12x18 max so the crop works here. So I don't get that once in a lifetime image capture with the wrong camera.

I take the A6000 as a backup / street shooting camera because it cost me $400 whereas the A7R cost me $2,000...big difference.

Seems like you have a bone to chew on here. Suggest you take a load off.

mcluckie wrote in post #18340441
Same glass, same bulk and weight.

I probably should have been more clear, the canon glass didnt go.

it's not apples to oranges, but the 135L, I would not ever take on travel. I took the 105 2.5 as I typically bring a portrait lens with me. I also brought the sony 24-70 not shown.

recently, been experimenting with the 24-240 as I have to push a baby around these days. Pretty good single lens solution for the zoo and aquarium, which I have memberships to.

mcluckie wrote in post #18340441
Same glass, same bulk and weight.

Yes...to get top notch quality out of my A7R I use Zeiss glass which I migrated from my Canon kit...so it is not light.

BUT...if I wanted to go light, I attach some nice Batis lenses like the 18mm, 25mm and the 85mm...they deliver outstanding results and the entire kit is much lighter than what you can carry using a DSLR with the same quality lenses.

The beauty of mirrorless is you CAN go light if you want. The ugliness of DSLR is you CAN'T go light if you want.

The only difference between the my travel kit and my kit for paid work is the glass. Body is the same.

johnf3f wrote in post #18340423
Well not quite a grand - I should have said nearly a grand more it's actually a £999 more - sorry!

In US, the Sony is $1500 cheaper than the 1Dx2. Of course, we are talking new.
Another reason not to live in the UK, I suppose

Hogloff wrote in post #18340453
No, the A7R delivers better image quality than anything from the Fuji like ( well maybe their MF is on par ).

Seems like you have a bone to chew on here. Suggest you take a load off.

To the former, I didn't ask how the A7 matched up to the 24mp Fuji.

To the latter, I apologize if I offended you somehow. It wasn't my intent. I'll just say it's my natural inclination to push back when encountering the hard sell. From reading through this thread it seems as though some are overstating some attributes and understating some negatives. I've already written that I am a little gun shy with regards to Sony generally and the article from
petapixel raised some serious questions for me. Carry on.
https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

Hogloff wrote in post #18340453
No, the A7R delivers better image quality than anything from the Fuji like ( well maybe their MF is on par ).

The Fuji GFX 50S should by definition have better IQ than the A7R. Don't get too carried away. The problem with the XT2 is if you don't like the XTrans sensor in post-processing (I don't) and that it's a smaller sensor than the A7R II. I'm not sure how the A7R mk I compares with the XT2 though.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18340491
To the former, I didn't ask how the A7 matched up to the 24mp Fuji.

To the latter, I apologize if I offended you somehow. It wasn't my intent. I'll just say it's my natural inclination to push back when encountering the hard sell. From reading through this thread it seems as though some are overstating some attributes and understating some negatives. I've already written that I am a little gun shy with regards to Sony generally and the article from
petapixel raised some serious questions for me. Carry on.
https://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

While there are a lot of articles out there that oversell the positives, that article pretty much cherry picks specific instances (i.e. he picks the largest 85mm lens as a point of reference when discussing size when the smaller batis 85, and now FE85 exist) to spin a certain narrative.