The Sony a1 was just announced, and it is, without question, a remarkable camera. So, why is it good news for Canon?
I, like I'm sure most other people, salivated while reading the Sony a1's specs sheet: 50 megapixels, 8K video, 30 fps burst mode, and more. There is no doubt that Sony has blown the doors off the industry with its latest release. So, why is it good for Canon, specifically in reference to the EOS R5? Let's dive in.
The Sony a1 Is Mostly the Better Camera on Paper
I am certainly not arguing that the specs of the EOS R5 somehow outperform those of the Sony a1. The Sony is either comparable to or outperforms the Canon in pretty much all major aspects. It outpaces it slightly in resolution (50 megapixels to 45 megapixels), and its sensor is backside-illuminated. Its burst rate is 10 fps faster (though the Canon's mechanical shutter burst rate is 2 fps faster than the Sony) with no viewfinder blackout. More importantly, its sensor readout speed is about 1/240 s, about four times faster than the EOS R5, meaning Sony's electronic shutter burst mode is far more usable for fast action than the Canon's, with far less rolling shutter. Its viewfinder has a higher magnification (0.9x to 0.76x), with almost double the resolution of Canon's and a faster refresh rate. It also offers a higher flash sync speed, doubly fast as the EOS R5.
This is an incredible camera.
Canon's in-body image stabilization does outpace Sony when paired with comparable lenses, at 8 stops to 5.5 stops. The Canon does offer a fully articulating screen, while the Sony's is fixed. Canon has a top screen, which many pros use, while Sony doesn't. Both cameras offer 8K video at 30 fps, with the Canon offering internal raw video, albeit with overheating issues. Both offer 4K video at 120 fps.
The Sony offers a pixel-shift mode that outputs a 199-megapixel file. It has built-in Ethernet. It likely edges out the Canon in dynamic range (though Canon has made major strides). Sony claims it offers better heat management, but we'll see how that pans out in the real world.
Altogether, real-world usage aside, yes, a1 is mostly the better camera when we look purely at the specs.
But Is It Twice as Good?
So yes, the a1 is the (mostly) the technically superior camera. But the a1 is $6,500. The EOS R5 is $3,900. The EOS R5 is 60% the price of the a1. So then, the question becomes: are you willing to spend $2,600 extra for the gains you'll get? Do you absolutely need 30 fps, or is 20 fps (or 12 fps if you don't trust the rolling shutter) enough? How about those 5 extra megapixels? A somewhat better viewfinder (the EOS R5's is already great)? Built-in Ethernet?
For some people, the answer is yes, absolutely. And I'm not writing this to disparage that decision. Perhaps those extra features are indeed worth $2,600 to you. Perhaps you simply need to have a feature the a1 has that the R5 doesn't, regardless of the price difference. But my point is that Canon has made a camera that is probably 85% the Sony at about half the price.
This is an absolutely fantastic camera too.
Sure, we are getting into diminishing returns a bit here, and you can argue that it is reasonable that doubling the price only gets you maybe 15-20% more camera, but the important extra variable here is where the baseline of technology is at the moment. Ten or even only five years ago, there were pros who absolutely needed the jump in specs between the flagship level and the next level down. Nowadays, cameras like the EOS R5 have brought huge technological capabilities down to the second tier, and those capabilities mean that the second tier satisfies the needs of more pros than it did years ago. Sure, there is still a portion of photographers who need (or simply want and are willing to spend for) the absolute best, but the relative proportions have likely changed a bit.
What About Lenses?
And then, we come to lenses. Sony has built out their library quite a bit, for sure. They now have a 400mm f/2.8 and a 600mm f/4, crucial lenses for the type of photographers who are likely to shoot this camera. But there are still some notable absences, such as a 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8.
You might be thinking: "wait, Canon does not have a mirrorless 200mm f/2 or 300mm f/2.8. In fact, they don't have a mirrorless 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4, but Sony does." And you would be right. But that actually brings me to my next point: inertia.
What Canon does have is a deep, well-established library of professional quality DSLR lenses, including a 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and 600mm f/4, and more importantly, they have a seamless adapter experience that unlike most other adapters, allows for equal (and sometimes even better) autofocus performance and equal image quality. This has allowed the company to explore more esoteric lenses (like the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11) in the meantime, as they know that professional users who need such optics already have deep investments in their lenses and are covered by the adapter experience (I recently spoke with one longtime sports photographers who has raved about his experience with the R5 and adapted lenses).
And What About the R1?
One crucially important thing to remember is that the Sony a1 is the company's flagship camera, meaning it should be compared to Canon's 1 series of cameras. So far, we have been comparing it to the EOS R5, which is analogous to the company's 5D series of DSLRs. You can expect the upcoming R1's capabilities to clearly separate it from the R5, just as the 1D has always been a distinct jump in capabilities from the 5D. And that being said, I expect it to directly compete with (and perhaps surpass in some areas) the Sony a1.
What will we see from the R1?
The only variable that's really in question in regards to the R1's ability to compete with the a1 is sensor resolution. The a1 departs from traditional flagship design in a major way: sensor resolution. Up until now, flagship sensor resolution has hovered around 18-24 megapixels (The Nikon D6, the Canon 1D X Mark III, and the Sony a9) as photojournalists and sports photographers need speed, not resolution, and given their frequent need to quickly edit and transmit files, additional resolution can actually be a hindrance.
But now, with faster computers and connections and cheaper storage, an argument can be made that keeping the resolution low isn't as necessary as it once was. Still though, the Nikon D6 and 1D X Mark III follow the older model. Will the R1 continue in that vein, or will it embrace the high-resolution model? Canon has shown they can handle the high-speed pipeline required, with the R5 pumping out 45-megapixel raw files at 20 fps and 8K raw video at 30 fps (essentially 33-megapixel stills). I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant resolution jump in the R1 over the 1D X Mark III.
Conclusion
The Sony a1 is a spectacular camera, and it is currently enjoying the limelight, which frankly, it deserves. However, it also makes the Canon EOS R5 an even better value by comparison, and given that that camera fills the needs of the vast majority of photographers and that the R1 is waiting in the wings for the few who need more, Canon looks to be in a very good position going forward.
i'm using them to cover major news stories that happen at speed. they are easily fast enough and this is coming from someone who used the a9 daily for a year
>As great camera the R5 might be, you will rarely see it being used in action/sports/wildlife.
Based on what exactly?
Wisest comment among many commenting on this article.
Hey - I got GAS like many out there but know I have much work to do learning and perfecting my craft before I jump to another camera.
As photographers, we are always looking to get better but sometimes we forget some of the outstanding photos we took with older gear. Keeping up with the latest camera tech is a very expensive endeavor that I've found doesn't always prove to be beneficial.
The money you save by keeping your current gear could be better invested into training or traveling to places you've never been before for inspiration.
Weird comparison. You seem to prefer canon and that seems to influence you. How do you compare the A1 to the D1? Did you see the size difference?
Not gonna go into it any further, its not worth it to argue about great gear, both from canon and sony.
You use words “slightly higher” when referring to the 11% higher resolution of one camera over the other but then turn around and ask “is it worth double” a only a 60% price delta. You’re a big boy and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know how to use your words and when you continually purposefully use words that throw shade one and rainbows on the other then you sir are just a clickbait writer with no substance. But, I guess that’s what they pay you for and with me being here a testament to that. But this article is trash and I don’t have a dog in the fight.
Ouhhh well said, I love it! Keep it up!
Talking about lenses available for Canon and Sony systems, it looks like the author misses that Sony has introduced LA-EA5 adapter recently which made it possible to use not only Sony A-mount lenses but also Minolta A-mount screw-driver lenses on e-mount with full functionality. In this space, there are 200mm f/2.8 and f/4, 300mm f/2.8 and f/4, 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses along with some beautiful G glass.
Unfortunately they let such authors write articles without enough information.
A camera is a tool to get a specific job or jobs done - nothing more. Rational consumers will weigh their needs against the cost and make a decision.
sometimes taking in account personal wants is a rational thing to do, mate. so giving yourself a liberty and permission to want something despite being off with cost/benefit analysis is a way to go. not in every case though.
Sadly, when someone has a photography business to run and needs to keep costs to a reasonable level, personal wants is totally irrelevant. This is why lots of photographers buy older camera models secondhand. Still plenty of professional DSLR shooters out there.
I do understand your logic perfectly. Mind you, that running a business is a whole other level of complexity. Since it is quite possible to include costs of renting appropriate (tailored to the task and budget) gear into the final bill I do not see the huge need to always cut cost due to gear. The goal of any business should be brand building (which means generally trust) and that would correlate with profitability directly. True lots of tog s survive rather then flourish...I believe that by not neglecting your core wants (gear talk was just a pretext) it helps to flourish a bit better.
Monkey DNA differs by only 3% from human, however those small differences are a big difference.
Do you want your money to go into the pocket of an executive or do you want to save money? I suggest using that 3% ;)
With Sony I learned to wait patiently for the next generation of cameras after a launch like this. But how cute would this A1 look in my bag :D
Wow, some people dont half get angry when their chosen brand is called into question.... tribal warfare at its finest.
A lot of the comments here accuse Mr. Cooke of being a Canon fanboy. I found the article to be generally okay although somewhat favorable to Canon. What's atrocious is the clickbait title. Winning? If anything they are competing well against each other--with Nikon struggling to stay in the game--but it's far too early to talk about winning.
Sony's stacked sensor is the true game changer. It allows the A9--and likely A1--to process data more than twice as fast (and maybe in the A1 close to 4x as fast) as the R5. This ability enables incredibly sticky tracking at ridiculously fast burst rates. I have the R5, and it is a great camera, well worth its price, but for the most difficult, fast and erratic moving birds, it doesn't keep up. Here's hoping that the R1 closes the gap.
Now, I don't see ever needing 30fps. Hell, on the R5, I shoot at 12fps and that's plenty, but I'd love to have the improved tracking.
For most types of shooting, the enhanced performance of the A1 and R1 isn't going to matter. But for BIF shooters, if the A1 performs as promised, it has no peer. Again, I hope that the R1 matches.
So, who is winning? It's too early to call, but right now, Sony has the lead and is pulling away.
Good article.
So many bash the R5 compared to the Sony A1 (Trade mark infringement of the Canon A1) but that is comparing the Canon lower level consumer camera to the best Sony can do. That is a real compliment to the R5 that is so close at a big savings in cost.
About trade mark. Sony is not A1 it is alpha 1. Just about everyone uses A1 or A7 or A9 because it takes an effort to type α [Alt +224]
Here is like comparing a Ferrari and Bugatti that is in different class all while we all never needed one absolutely. While some reader/haters are just so rude. People are so full of hate these day even on a camera site.
If you're a pro and are tired of putting lipstick on a pig, I'd say give up the excuses and take a hard look at Sony. They have been leading the mirrorless camera market for quite some time while Canon just rested on their installed base. It's not just their excellent response to customer feedback, which always shows up in their camera, or their wide range of lenses, the Gmaster series being excellent, it is their constant advancement of the technology that they produce in-house that always leaves Canon behind. I admit, I'm a bit of a Sony fanboy (just a bit), but I left Canon 2 years ago with the A7RIII, and have not been disappointed.
Enjoy what you buy...who cares the brand. There is always a one up give it another year.
Sony runs their phone, TV, stereo, laptop, computer business to the ground. Other than game and camera, They are not really that great of a tech company either.
I have many of their products over the years, spending on phones, stereo, tv, computers and eventually they fizzle out of those business and none of their different lines of products ever works together like apples.
So chances are at some point, they will screw up the camera business as well if history is a lesson.
Many Pros use Nikon, Canon. So it's all preference.
Just buy what you like.
And more Pros are switching to Sony all the time. As for running their other businesses "into the ground" I think is what you were trying to say, that is completely false. There are always consumer electronic trends and some come and go, but there are others where the technology keeps on advancing, and Sony is pretty much at the forefront of those advancing consumer electronic, and Pro equipment sectors. But you are right on one point. You should buy what you want, on whatever criteria you research your decision.
Half the price? Do the math.
Right more like 60% as Sam says.
Math does not depend on your profit. R5 cost 60% of A1 and it is 3/5 not 1/2.
“*about* half the price.”
I have no problem with your original article. Not only you said "about" but also "The EOS R5 is 60% the price of the a1. " I have a problem with math based on profit and ROI.
Took my ROI analysis down because it is pointless within the context of this opinion article.
Also in terms of battery duration Sony is way better than Canon, even if you compare the a7iii to the R5 or R6. Sony has more than double of the duration that Canon has. Do your research man! Your text is a shame for Fstoppers!
Probably Toyota selles many more cars than Audi.
I personally by far to drive an Audi
audi are overpriced vw money pit.
still buy what you like.
if you like audi, who cares how long till it blown head gasket? you can still enjoy it before the 36K mile lease is up and dump it back to the next victim.
Or buy a exotic and drive 10K mile before it blew up ...still as long as you enjoy, it's a good deal.
If price and features-based valuation is what drives your creativity that article is spot on. Features alone do not make hardware more desirable to use irrespective of price. I see both a1 and r5 (add gfx 100s) as decent feature-choked reasonably priced propositions, but somehow lacking due to fast dev cycle and incentive to beat others with features/price, not refinement. Again i am subjective. If you love any of them, then be happy and go create killer images.
The Sony A1 looks like it will be a great camera, if you shoot Sony. I'm happy for you guys, really, I am. I'm sure it'll take great photos, you'll love it. However, it's expensive, and not really a fair comparison with the R5. But, being that the R5 is the best of mirrorless from Canon, compare away. I do find it odd that no one is mentioning that the Sony A1 30 fps is compressed/lossy RAW - that's not a fair comparison. Shoot whatever you want, it's not going to impact my life.
In what circumstances does a photographer use 30fps? Portrait work? No. Landscape? No. Macro photography? No. The only use for 30fps is for sports and action and these photos would possibly be resized to be used on the web. So there's no harm to have a compressed RAW.
Just more frame to choose if you are a sport or wildlife pro.
20 fps is 30 fps..who case...
But knowing Sony move up the bar, so now the next Nikon Z1 or Canon R1 is going to be great too.
So it is great for everyone.
I'm a newly registered subscriber to Fstoppers, and joined to check it out. I didn't expect it to be biased one way or the other with regard to camera manufacturers, but I'm beginning to suspect it is. Individual preference is one thing, but trying to spin a product may at the least be disingenuous, and at worst dishonest. Relative to Canon and Nikon, Sony is a newcomer in this market, and I embrace their approach toward advancing the technology in digital imaging. I just have a problem with the position this author takes claiming victory for a brand that is clearly playing catch up. I may not be here long with biased and slanted articles such as this.
First: The flagship product of any line of any product is NEVER "twice as good" as the half-cost model. True of digital cameras, true of European sports cars.
Second, Let's check the math: The A1 is not "twice the price"; it's 167% the price.
Third: Will the R1 be "twice (or 167%) as good" as the R5? If not, then an aspiring journalist can write an article "Why the Canon R1 Actually Shows How Canon Is Losing the Mirrorless Game"...
BTW, As I understand it, Canon lenses adapt very well to recent Sony mirrorless via several recent adaptors.
Umm. Ok... but you can say that about absolutely ANYTHING. A Porsche 911 is 85% the speed of a Ferrari but at 60% the cost
A Tesla model 3 is 85% of a Model S but at 60% the cost
A Sony a7RIV is 85% an A1 but at half the cost.
That’s life. To get slightly more, you’re generally spending almost double.
And I highly doubt someone will jump from a canon to a Sony because of this new camera. Like most cameras, this is for that Sony user (who already owns e-mount lenses) who wants the latest and greatest and somehow feels his pictures will turn out so much better with this new camera. I’m guilty of that. I’ve upgraded so many times within the Sony family thinking that’ll improve my pictures. It does. But never as much as I had hoped. In other words, your improvement has little to do with your gear but more with so much else. That’s a topic for another day.
The reason Sony went with 50 MP sensor is surely to make it 8K capable & Canon already had a 8K camera out; and I think they should add Small/Medium RAW shooting like on other cameras (Nikon D850, I think?). Therefore, I don't think the rumored Canon R1 need to go that high on resolution since they already have an 8K camera.
Keep in mind that the Canon R5 does 20 fps @ 45 MP with a single DIGIC X processor. The Sony A1 uses dual BIONZ XR processors to achieve what it can do. My guess is that a future Canon R1 would have dual processors as well, either dual DIGIC X, or some newer processor
Lol, I seriously doubt that.
Well, I don;t know about winning or losing, but... there are a lot of adapters for Canon glass to Sony cameras. I don't think there are any that work the other way around. 'You cannot change the laws of physics' :-)
a9 is much less than R5 and a better camera. I really don't see a scenario here where Canon is winning anything. Maybe the R1 changes things.
It's crystal clear the author has no idea, the difference between Alpha One and R5. 15-20% difference ?? Ridiculous statement.
Canon's 20fps with conventional e-shutter is completly useless for anything what moves faster than a walking person, or anything under artifical light, can't be use with strobes, and it has blackout. Doesn't matter the EVF shows you previously captured still images instead of black frame, it doesn't help at all, to follow the subject. Actually R5 is a 12fps camera with 1/200 mx sync speed instead of 1/400. R5 can't do 120 Af calculations per second, doesn't have industry leading EVF, with industry leading refresh rate. Can't record 8k or 4k video simultaneously to two card, moreover the video capabilitys is ruined by overheating and recovery times, completly unreliable for any serious work. R5 Doesn't have 2 CFExpress card, has almost half battery life than A1 has, doesn't have pixel shift modes, ethernet connection, full size HDMI or a 5G modul.
15-20% huh ?
Completly biased fanboy article, it just destroys your own credibility.
It's crystal clear the author has no idea, the difference between Alpha One and R5. 15-20% difference ?? Ridiculous statement.
Canon's 20fps with conventional e-shutter is completly useless for anything what moves faster than a walking person, or anything under artifical light, can't be use with strobes, and it has blackout. Doesn't matter the EVF shows you previously captured still images instead of black frame, it doesn't help at all, to follow the subject. Actually R5 is a 12fps camera with 1/200 mx sync speed instead of 1/400. R5 can't do 120 Af calculations per second, doesn't have industry leading EVF, with industry leading refresh rate. Can't record 8k or 4k video simultaneously to two card, moreover the video capabilitys is ruined by overheating and recovery times, completly unreliable for any serious work. R5 Doesn't have 2 CFExpress card, has almost half battery life than A1 has, doesn't have pixel shift modes, ethernet connection, full size HDMI or a 5G modul.
15-20% huh ?
Completly biased fanboy article, it just destroys your own credibility.
sorry for the duplicate, can i delete somehow ?
Everyone stopped taking photos at some point for some reason. while talking about how nice and cozy the fur coat will be everyone forgets that the bear is still in the woods alive and well proudly wearing that fur. Fstoppers are some sort of philosophers of photography without much application in day to day life. Just fking buy the camera that you need and take photos and that is the end of it!
My Sony A9 can handle more than I really need, so I see no reason for a Sony A1 or for that matter a Canon EOS R5, and I actually think that applies to most photo enthusiasts, and in fact the Sony A1 is more for professional photographers and does not compete against the Canon EOS R5 but instead against the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III, it's that simple ....
If you couldn't make decent images with a Sony a7 or Canon 5D, you're not magically going to make good images with a Sony a1 or Canon R5.
Not to be a fanboy, but A1 is "just another" fully usable full frame mirrorless camera from Sony and it just so happens it's arguably the best one so far of them all. But then there are three generations of great A7Rs, the best 4K A7Siii, until last week unbeaten A9/II and the "industry standard" gamechanger A7iii. Canon's R5/6 are only first truly full featured products from Canon. So yes, from some viewpoint R5 gives a lot and costs 60% of A1 in this particular comparison, but it's a big jump to "Canon Is Winning the Mirrorless Game" ;)