The camera industry is waiting for Canon to announce its mirrorless flagship sports shooter, but even three years after the Sony a9 was released, Canon might still be struggling to keep up. With the a9 Mark II on the horizon, they might be in trouble. Here’s why.
In February 2016, Canon launched the EOS-1D X Mark II, its flagship camera and the choice of sports and wildlife photographers around the world, not to mention countless photojournalists who rely on its tank-like build to perform consistently out in the field. I’ve rented this camera on numerous occasions, and despite owning a Sony a7 III, I might do the same again if the right job came along. The way it sits in the hand and the way it performs makes me feel something that my tiny a7 — which I love — simply doesn’t. Furthermore, while I hate the idea of a sausage-measuring party, clients are often reassured when you turn up hauling a massive camera. Their confidence feeds my confidence, making jobs run that little bit smoother.
The behemoth that is the Canon EOS 1DX Mark II.
It’s with this in mind that I started to wonder why Canon has yet to release a mirrorless equivalent and started digging into some of the details. The 1D X Mark II shoots a tasty 14 frames per second, and if you’ve not experienced this yourself, I highly recommend giving it a go. It’s just really nice.
Last year, I had the pleasure of shooting the insanely talented Erik Mukhametshin. The 1DX Mark II and its predecessor have been my go-to for many of my bigger jobs.
What makes this remarkable is that this is all done with its huge mirror and mechanical shutter flopping around. If you switch to live view (thereby locking the mirror out of the way), the 1D X II squeezes out 16 frames per second, albeit at the price of autoexposure, autofocus, and the fact that you have to rely on the rear LCD display.
Pesky Laws of Physics
When it comes to the 1D X II’s DSLR successor, the mechanics might be a limiting factor. The mirror is quite big and has a long way to move, and though Canon may well take us by surprise, 14 frames per second might be close to its limit. Locking the mirror out of the way is not necessarily a solution either: the mechanical shutter — the leaf-like blades that control the light hitting the sensor — is still a physical element that has to slide around incredibly fast, and pushing that beyond 16 frames per second might be another barrier to boosting the camera’s specifications.
So given that there are potential limitations and that 14 frames per second in itself is probably plenty fast enough for pretty much everything any sports or wildlife photographer is going to shoot, why should Canon care so greatly about improving this aspect of the camera? The 1D X Mark III will be perfectly functional if it packs similar specifications and the mirrorless equivalent will no doubt be equally beastly.
Let's Measure Some Sausages
The answer lies in the shape of the Sony a9 and that sausage-measuring party that we all pretend to hate. Arriving just over a year after the 1D X Mark II, the a9 turned a few heads by boasting 20 frames per second of blackout-free shooting and a buffer of more than 200 raw shots. I don’t recall the last time I felt the need to hold my shutter button down for more than one second, never mind 12 continuous seconds, but no doubt that’s useful to some people. However handy that may or may not be, it’s impressive.
The Sony a9. If you have a sausage that needs measuring, it might be a great choice.
The approach taken by Sony was a quiet revolution in terms of sensor technology. While Canon was busy developing DPAF for super-fast and accurate video autofocusing, Sony was directing its research elsewhere: the Stacked Exmor RS sensor. One of the big steps forward in sensor technology has been the shift from front-side illuminated to back-side illuminated. If you’re not familiar with how this works, you are far from alone (click here for some help). Essentially, it means that a lot of the circuitry in a sensor that used to sit in front of the bits that collect the light has been moved to the back, meaning that more light can get through, thus making the sensor more sensitive. The other huge advantage — and one that Sony has exploited massively — is that you can add more circuitry to a sensor without affecting its light sensitivity. Suddenly, Sony has a stacked sensor that has RAM modules attached to the back of it, speeding up readout, sucking the images into a buffer and immediately freeing the sensor to keep taking images.
Read-out times from the sensor are 20 times faster, and the maximum shutter speed is 1/32,000 of a second — a marked increase on the 1/8000th of a second found in other full-frame flagships. Other advantages emerge. In the Canon 1D X Mark II, the sensor remains “live” throughout a series of shots, relying on the mechanical shutter to control the light. With its extra circuitry, the sensor on the a9 is able to switch the sensor on and off, eliminating the need for the mechanical shutter and making shooting almost completely silent. In most ILCs that use an electronic shutter in this way — whether APS-C or full-frame — the line-by-line readout of the sensor gives rise to rolling shutter. By contrast, the readout on the a9 is so fast that the rolling shutter is almost completely eliminated.
In addition to this, the Sony can do all of this while maintaining autofocus tracking and offering a view through the EVF that doesn’t black out in between individual frames, as there’s no mirror or mechanical shutter to get in the way.
Playing Catch-Up
Sony gave itself a massive headstart, and Canon has some hard work to do. For its mirrorless sports/wildlife flagship, not only does it have to find a way of matching Sony, it also has to do it when Sony is not far from releasing the updated version of its own flagship camera, which will no doubt have improved specifications. In addition, Canon has to find a means of incorporating its DPAF technology into whatever it creates to take on not only the a9 but whatever Nikon — which is already using BSI sensors in the D850, Z 6, and Z 7 — also has in the pipeline.
The D850, Z 6, and Z 7. Three Nikon cameras that use sensors from Sony.
No doubt Canon has been working hard on some new sensors for some time, registering numerous patents for stacked sensors over the last couple of years. What’s worrying is that its research and development has not manifested in their initial forays into the world of mirrorless, and as of last week, there’s now another elephant in the room in the shape of the Sony a7R IV. This is no sports/wildlife shooter (though with ten frames per second, some would beg to differ), but it does demonstrate the terrifying speed at which Sony is developing its sensors. Furthermore, it shows how few qualms it has at aggressively pushing out its new technology when, I would argue, it would be better off adding refinement rather than megapixels.
The Sony a7R IV. Weather sealing and 61 megapixels is great. The user interface is not.
To make matters worse, the rumors suggest that Sony is not hanging on to this new technology: there’s said to be a 61 megapixel Nikon Z8 coming next year, and guess which sensor it will be using. If Sony wants to undermine Canon's position in the camera industry, giving its sensors to Canon's traditional rival is potentially a very shrewd tactic.
Fortunately for Canon, the sausage-measuring game is only a small part of what makes a successful camera, and those predicting the company’s demise might want to wind in the melodrama. With that said, Sony’s deep pockets and loss-leading camera bodies are certain to shake up a market that is undergoing some notable changes. If you’ve any thoughts on what’s to come — and whether photographers genuinely want or need more than 20 frames per second — please leave a comment below.
If you would know the slightest thing about the professional sports photo market, you would know that the camera is a very small part of a very expensive puzzle with lots of other equipment. It is very expensive because these agencies own thousands of cameras, lenses, flashes, remote trigger equipment, remote controlled cameras, laptops etc. Pictures get shot and are transmitted wirelessly to an editor etc.
Most of the photographers working for these agencies don't get to choose their cameras.
The current system works and switching is hugely expensive with not a lot to gain. They would have to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars while the current system works well enough to get the job done.
So Jan, the fact that the big agencies don't switch that easily has not a lot to do with the brand they shoot with but with the complex puzzle. But of course, you don't care. You just want to troll Sony.
And any excuse to troll, makes you drool yourself.
I am guessing he is talking about agencies like Getty Images, for example at the Olympics: https://fstoppers.com/gear/gettys-olympic-camera-gear-every-photographer...
Ugh, again with this same old tired argument. Chad Wadsworth, the exclusive photographer for the Arizona Cardinals only uses the Sony A9 and A7Riii.
Perhaps he is sponsored. What's that have to do with your original statement? You stated, "there are no Sony's at the professional sport fields, no A9, no A7RIII's." when indeed in fact, there are. To be fair, most professional sports photographers have only had Canon and/or Nikon as choices when they started out. While the A9 is over 3 years old now, Sony has only recently been releasing the complimentary glass for sports and wildlife. As Sony catches up to Canon with there glass, and more young photographers begin entering the professional market, I would expect to see plenty more Sony's at sporting events in the future. Besides, if you have good gear that does the job, why would you spend a TON of cash to switch systems? That is why there are sooo many more Canon shooters at sporting events. They are already locked into the Canon ecosystem, which isnt a bad system to be locked into. But this will start to change in time.
well till AF of mirrorless will be comparable to DSLR for sport photography purposes I think pros will stick with their D5 or 1D .. it will change eventually, just as I expect to see mirrorless cameras on commercial/advertorial photoshoots soon ..
I agree, A9 is pretty much only Sony mirrorless that could be applicable there but it is behind in AF department and despite large buffer it clears it for ages while locking camera for use .. so not really something you wanna as sports photographer .. and than selection of lenses is not that wide for that purpose
The problem with medium format as a sports camera is the equivalent lenses would be massive. If your looking at the most used one 600mm f4 to get the same reach and approximate fstop on a sensor the size of the GFX you would need a 760mm f4.7ish. If it were on a true medium format 645 you'd need a 970mm f5.6.
If you wanted to keep the same light gathering ability, you are looking at insane sized lenses pushing 25000 dollars USD. Sports needs the reach and the speed and medium format is not going to work for that.
The size of a phase one sensor is almost twice the size of a gfx sensor which is more like fuller frame than medium format. I Love the gfx system and would own it if I could afford it but Medium format it is not.
5fps with terrible AF is not good enough for pro sports shooters. The GFX is good for studio and landscapes, but definitely can't handle shooting pro sports.
Is it just me or anyone else if the money was no problem prefer the old 1dxII over the a9? for video and photo...
Optical viewfinder is much more pleasure for shooting sports. It's 100% real time, taking your eye away from the viewfinder to follow the action and putting it back on the viewfinder when it's time is seamless. EVF always lags at least a bit (Sony A7 III, Fuji X-T3 and Nikon Z6 tested) and there's this annoying eye adjustment when moving between live action and viewfinder which requires the photographer to keep his eye on the viewfinder almost non-stop. Three hours (in the case of soccer) of continuous staring at a small OLED panel is not good for your eyes.
So there's plenty of space for good DSLR at live sports. The mirrorless there is a bit the emperor's new clothes. Sony's much vaunted eye focus is just too slow for live sports (tried).
IMHO , Sony's biggest adversary is not Canon or Nikon , it's Wall Street . If you do a search for Third Point's Daniel Loeb and Sony you'll find some interesting articles . Like this one : https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/Third-Point-s-Loeb-push... . Sony has it's cell phone Division that isn't profitable . The Imaging Sensor subsidiary still is profitable , and is probably covering some losses in other Divisions and the R&D of the Camera Division . And there's also the ongoing Trade spat between the USA and Mainland China . Huawei makes for up to 20% of Sony's Imaging Sensor subsidiary output . Sony has been so far able to keep a steady release schedule for it's mirror less cameras , which was noticed by everybody , including people in Wall Street . It remains to be seen how long Sony can avoid confronting Wall Street's push for shareholder value . I have the gut feeling that Canon and Nikon are waiting to see how Sony will confront Wall Street's reality . And last , let's not forget that Sony is still a highly indebted company .
Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts. :)
I'm not seeing any of these bodies on sidelines.. And although I'm a Nikon shooter with 12 FPS. Canon and their old beastie popping out 14 is no slouch. And I'd suggest that if you need to crack that ceiling of more than 14 FPS -- just drop the ball all together -- and go 29 FPS with straight video and use grabbed frames.
This mirrorless shove is becoming annoying now. Almost feels like some deep rooted marketing deal to bait & hook those idiots that need anything new that comes out of the box, good or bad.
Sure, remember camera companies are in the business of making money. They have to sell us something to keep shareholders happy. So their very smart engineers make new things for us to buy... faster and more frequently than ever. It's just business.
I used my Nikon D4s with 70-200/2.8 and 400/2.8 over the weekend. Forgot how good the optical viewfinder is. Sony is good but I miss the responsiveness of the Nikon/Canon DSLRs. You do not have to boot it up for 1-2 seconds like the A9. I can leave it on for days and pick it up and immediately shoot. I have to keep the A9 on and drain the battery in case something happens and I need to shoot immediately. Having to carry a stack of batteries to power both A9 is annoying.
"holding your finger down to hammer out a burst of frames on the 1D X is almost as satisfying as picking off a target at 200 yards using the iron sights on an AR-15. It’s just really nice" Really?
This sounds like a Sony advertorial. I shoot Sony, I've shot Nikon, and I own the Canon 1dx. Not sure what clients you work for but they don't care about the size of the camera but focus on what the tethered camera is feeding to the monitor. When Nikon released the D3 everyone flipped out. Some sports photographer even went as far as being able to see the "veins in the pitcher's eyes" to describe the sharpness. I'm sure Canon will bounce back. Their RF line is looking very impressive. I certainly do not want Sony to "win".
I'm thinking that the AR-15 comment may be awkard, given two mass shootings.
My thoughts exactly. Especially since this was posted six hours ago. I guess Fstoppers needs the clicks no matter what. Just throw up clickbait and see what sticks without any oversight. And what's with the "Can We Just Kill the Exposure Triangle Already?" thumbnail with gun, knife and bullets? I guess Unsplash didn't have a suitable photo illustration.
These are scheduled in advance. I'll pull that line.
Thanks Alex. It's a shitty thing.
Yeah... I realize that these are scheduled in advance, but it might be good for them to amend that bit in light of recent events. :/
Well since there is a mass shooting pretty much every single day I guess it's never a good time to make weapons jokes then
Andy Day nice reference to the AR-15, click bait and tone deaf.
I submitted this article more than a week ago. The article has since been edited in light of recent events.
This just reads like more Sony owner insecurity. "Maybe Canon will be in trouble because I wuvs my Sony!"
No, no they won't. Until Sony can come close to matching Canon's professional support (and they can't), they are never, ever going to be the premier brand of major event photography. And that's all there is to it.
Tiny fractional improvements in framerate and autofocus, simply don't compare to being able to get your equipment repaired onsite with loan equipment provided until it's fixed and the chance to rent/borrow anything you didn't bring but wanted to.
Businesses, successful ones anyway, rarely run on technological gimmicks - they run on reliability and in that respect Canon owns the whole camera market. No matter how many "but Sony mirrorless is da best eva!" articles people run.
I'm an insecure Sony owner but will happily rent a 1DX II depending on the job. Ok. 🤦🏻♂️
Why is everyone acting like they can't catch up. Sony in a race to throw out as many innovations as they could has done nothing but pave the road for other companies to copy and catch up over night if they want.
I really don’t see Sony being the only challenger here. As someone pointed out below lenses are getting so big you may aswell stick to a DSLR. The challenger I think is APS-C, Fuji in particular. In a Tiny Flipside 200 Rucksack I can fit the equivalent of 50mm, 85mm, 85 - 350 (that’s 350!), 15-35 mm, 24 mm, Filter holder, 10, 6 and 3 stop filters, cleaning products, and extra batteries etc. and shoot amazing high quality images. You cannot tell the difference. But you feel the difference on your back and you open far more options in terms of what you can shoot.
I bought Sony because every Sony product I've ever owned has lasted way longer than it should have. I still have my PSP from 2009 lmao, the screen is starting to delaminate but the internals are fine. It survived a 6 foot drop last year!
If you are a professional and the client is concerned about the brand of your rig when you arrive, the client does not respect you or the portfolio they saw when choosing your service.
We all know the story from the rabbit and the turtle...
Canon is taking their time and will sooner or later come up with a superior product.
They already managed to skip two Sony A7 generations with the EOS R, which has a lot better ergonomics and usability than Sony could ever offer plus a real touchscreen interface - an unique selling point where Sony strangely still trails behind.
I'm pretty sure Canon is going to address the last 3 selling points of Sony pretty soon. Which are dynamic range, IBIS and highest megapixel count. There are already rumors floating around, and I'm pretty sure we'll see the first cameras with higher DR within the next months and a high megapixel camera (EOS RS) by the end of this year, followed by the EOS R Pro with IBIS.
Canon broke the ergonomics paradigm of the 5D series with the EOS R: much for the worse. Canon still abuses its shooters with heavy crop video and impossible rolling shutter. Canon management betray both their engineers and their customers in a cynical attempt to extract the most money for the least camera.
Canon is that golddigger girlfriend our mothers warned us about.
Using a 5D4 at work and owning an EOS R I don't really agree.
And like any other company - and you might not like it - Canons goal is to make profit.
And unlike Sony they don't sell their sensors to the whole world, they can't pump billions into sensor development - they actually have to optimize what they have and their production cost.
Besides as a photographer I actually don't care much about crop video or rolling shutter, cause video is just a feature and I'm not generation "I have to videotape everything and put it on Youtube".
Most cameras that are 4K capable have a cropped sensor. So did you hear anybody who owns a Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic - or a Black Magic pocket cinema camera 6K (Super 35 sensor + Canon EF mount) complain about their cropped 4K/6K video? Besides Canons HD already looks perfect, who wanna wait an hour till your 4K footage is uploaded whichs difference you only see on a 4K monitor?
Fallacy: "Canon's HD already looks perfect." Canon 5D Mark III line strips the HD to the point that it's more like good 480p. If rolling shutter doesn't both you, then you really have don't have much idea about video.
Fallacy: "Like any other company, Canon's goal is to make profit."
Not necessarily true. There are other primary values available to a company:
* to make their customers' lives better
* to spearhead huge breakthroughs in technology
* to enable their employees to live full and happy lives
An exclusive short-term (as it's almost always short-term) profit motive may make sense to Americans who have all been raised like Pavlov's dogs to worship money and only money but in the grand landscape of human history, profit is only a small part of what drives humanity forward.
Revenue plays a role: one needs money to pay people and to invest in research and development. Sometimes that money comes the state – when a technological breakthrough or infrastructure is sorely needed.
In fairness, Canon does seem to work on your preferred model these days: very short-term thinking, short-term profit taking.
Funny you bring up 5D Mark III, the most popular camera in indy film making at its time. Some scenes of Black Swan and The Avengers were even shot on the predecessor, the 5D Mark II.
So um yeah I guess the camera has such a bad resolution and such a bad rolling shutter that even Hollywood studios use it in a professional production.
Probably they don't have any idea about video LOOOOOOOOOOL.
Also maybe you can educate yourself an watch this video from Potato Jet, particularly at 7:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZ9tCcGNFw
you can see that Canon's HD from the EOS R is actually not much worse than Sony's super 35 crop mode 4K. And then Canons 4K and Sonys 4K (although downscaled from 6K) are pretty much on the same level.
I dunno what you're trying to prove with this other horsecrap, but it surely doesn't apply to Canon:
* to make their customers' lives better
The EOS R has made my live so much better. Eye AF down to -6 EV with with ability to still use all my EF lenses. Unlike a Sony that can't even focus properly in candlelight. Also Canons ergonomics and user friendlyness makes my life a lot more better than any poor Sony users that have to deal with this abomination of a user interface. The only thing how they could make this cr*p less fun to shoot with would be a thumbtack glued upside down to its shutter button.
* to spearhead huge breakthroughs in technology
You mean like dual pixel AF, drop-in filter adapter, focussing at -6EV, focussing in 0.05 sec., 5655 AF points, first touchbar in a camera, first touchscreen in a camera or freely configurable lens control wheel? What were the last breakthroughs of Sony - oh yeah right they put more megapixels in, meanwhile the 90s called that they want their freakin joystick controlled UI back.
Talking about short-term thinking, short term profit, you mean like hastily releasing cameras that eat stars and overheat, then having to fix that sh*t with firmware... then after 1-2 years already releasing a successor to that camera and angering people who bought it. Yeah Sony is so long-term LOOOL.
After the near breakthrough of the Canon 5D Mark II in the video domain, the Canon 5D Mark III was a huge disappointment. Extremely low resolution and unsatisfactory video. Canon instead moved all their video know how out of the 5D line and into the 1DX Mark II and the C100/C200/C300. Goal: to make sure no one can shoot professional video in a camera which cost less than $5500 at launch.
First touchbar in a camera? Anyone who considers the touchbar an advance in camera interface is just a new for the sake of new techophile.
Making fun of joysticks are we? Well when I have a camera up to my eye I certainly don't want to be fiddling with touch on a screen next to my mouth or accidental touch when using touch focus points. Touch focus points are great when using the monitor, not the viewfinder. When using a viewfinder a joystick is a much more useful way to interact with a camera.
Canon management is only interested in your money and making sure you have the least possible camera for your money. It's a pity as the optical engineers are brilliant as is the service network.
I'm not a Canon shooter any more. I didn't like Sony cameras either. On the other hand, the Nikon Z6/Z7 are brilliant cameras, mirrorless but with the best of DSLR functionality. I'm in the process of selling off my Canon gear as I've replaced it with two Z6 and a Nikon D4 and a mix of Nikon F and Z lenses, all of which have been equally brilliant as my much loved Canon L glass.
PS. Okay, the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 is not quite up to the standard of the Canon's EF 100-400mm L IS II.
PPS. It would be nice if you could learn to write in the Queen's English rather than a mix of emojis and obscenity and slang. Hopefully your shooting skills are significantly better than your ability to compose your thoughts in writing.
My suggestion would be to release a camera which is a camera and not a video camera. Scrap the video tech to drop the price or put the savings into making some sort of noticeable difference to the new camera (it won't really matter just what is different, just enough to show that one company is interested in photographers enough to produce something ONLY for photographers.
.
My bet, is that it would sell like hot cakes
Before you dig a grave for Canon, you should take a closer look at Sony. There year over year sales in their key business areas of game stations, TVs, Cameras and Smart Phones are down significantly. Smartphones sales are down nearly 50%. Because AR74 is a professional product, it's not likely to help them financially because that part of the market is small relatively speaking. The fact is there is a downturn in the entire consumer electronics market. General consumers are just not buying cameras. That is a problem for Canon, Nikon and Sony. So, I think that you need to do more of a thorough analysis before you give last rites to Canon. Check out this site with Sony financials and pay close attention to forecasts in decreased sales in cameras. https://sonyreconsidered.com/detailed-sony-q1-2019-earnings-breakdown-71...
Little gloom and doom in the headline, damn you Fox news.
Shoot the A9 in a pan with a pole in view at 20 fps and you'll see plenty of rolling shutter effect.
There are a few errors in the assumptions being made here.
First, flagship cameras are scarcely relevant to Canon's overall profitability.
Second, the fact that a new sensor responding to the Sony products has not yet appeared does not mean it is never appearing. In WWII the allies were losing the war until 1943 showed a glimmer of hope. The same is operating here.
Canon knows it needs to re-vamp its sensors. It also knows that Sony is not standing still. Thus they KNOW they have to skip a me-too sensor that just catches up to today and introduce the sensors that will define the future.
Lastly, I don't think you really believe the stuff you are writing because this is an obvious attempt to get clicks and engagement that is marketable to vendors. However, I know someone here will start a fight with me on this topic so.....batter up.
Love articles like this because of all the Sony fanboy "professional" photographers defending their camera blindly in the comments.
I use Canon. Sony has some features that Canon doesn't, I will put my hands up to that and not blindly defend any particular brand. Sure, there are some things that Sony does better, and you like your camera because of that.
But bottom line (which Sony fanboys outright refuse to admit) when we are talking about PROFESSIONAL cameras:
1. Canon has a better professional support network.
2. Canon has a better build quality; quote the article "tank-like build to perform consistently".
3. Canon has a menu system that means you don't miss important shots because you have to pop the user manual out of your bag to find basic things.
Something that seems lost in the comments below is the importance of lens quality, its importance in the overall equation, and how that lens quality shapes a brands reputation. As a working pro for 40 years, I was always more concerned with the ability to generate images with great detail, sharpness and character...this while having good speed for challenging light situations.
I know this has become less prioritized with the advent of digital, but I am nevertheless flabbergasted at the sharpness and character of the new S-Line lenses from Nikon. They are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used. They are sensibly weighted, well balanced and not too big. The price is reasonable for the performance. If this level of performance remains constant among all new S-Line lenses, it will help define the Z camera range as an incredible picture taking option.
Now we have to see what the boffins in Minato come up with for a Nikon flagship mirrorless.
You forgot to mention the "other sausage" Panasonic Lumix G9
I've been shooting Canon since 1978. In 2017 rather than upgrading my 5D Mark III to the Mark IV I succumbed to peer pressure and bought a Sony A7rII. I used it almost exclusively with the Sigma MC-11 to adapt my Canon lenses. After 1 year and 9 months I gave up, sold it for a loss and bought the Canon 5D Mark IV I should have bought in the first place. The Sony was always too small, even with the battery grip. The controls are too small and impossible to find by feel. Forget about trying to operate it while wearing gloves in a cold environment. When working with models, especially outdoors I consciously felt like I was spending too much time fiddling with the camera in changing light. The Canon ergonomics just fit, and I now only concern myself with getting the shot and not worrying about the camera. The Sony sensor technology Mr. Day described is intriguing, but I could care less about mirrorless. I could never get used to an electronic viewfinder. I much prefer looking through an optical viewfinder.
What is better, 16 frames of 14bit RAW, or Sonys 20 frames of 12bit RAW. The use of electronic shutter really comes with a drawback of not getting the full DR what the sensor might provide.