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.
actually, the refresh rate of the Canon R5 is 120 Hz, not 60Hz. in any case, everyone wins. I still can't buy the R5. It's sold out everywhere unless I'm willing to pay above MSRP. I'm going to miss Lunar New Year because no one can get me the camera in time.
I'd rather own 2x R5's than 1x A1.
Alex, the article is interesting but the headline is completely misleading. Winning which game exactly?
In photographic specs the Sony wins in pretty much every way except mechanical shutter. What Sony have achieved with the electronic shutter, including flash sync at 1/200th is amazing. It signals the beginning of the end of the mechanical shutter.
The R5 is cheaper (not half the price as is implied), has sort of better IBIS. I say sort of because in video with wide angle lenses it’s too strong and the image warps badly, but for stills it is better yes.
It has 8K raw video which is impressive but you won’t use it due to the massive data size. The Sony can output 16bit raw so you can record ProRes raw eternally. Plus it has a full size Hdmi port. The R5 has the terrible micro hdmi one.
Now the screen, the Canon screen is SOOOOO much better and yes, is a flip out one. Most photographers I know do not want that. They want a tilt screen. They don’t want to be looking off to the side. Sony could have done both like Panasonic’s S1H they sadly didn’t. I think the tilt screen was the right choice for a primarily photographic camera.
Overheating wise in video we have yet to see.
Canon has autofocus for animals in video which is a big deal for me. Big win there. But I find the Sony video autofocus to be superior and much quieter. It’s better in stills too.
The A1 can do redundant backups with its dual slots in video. The R5 cannot, this is a big fail.
The A1 can record in all sorts of bitrates and formats. You can have 10 bit in every codec and regardless of picture profiles. The R5 has to be in CLOG otherwise it’s all 8 bit. Plus the i-frame codec is impossible to work with without transcoding.
Sony have fantastic audio add ons like the xlr k3m. Canon have nothing. The XLR add on in particular is an essential one giving you proper 4 channel audio.
Lenses: this part is weird. You are mostly using legacy lenses for their old EF mount in this argument when you should be focusing on the native lenses. Sony has a HUGE amount of native lenses and there are a huge amount of 3rd party ones.
The EF to RF adaptor is superb though so it doesn’t mean someone moving to the R cameras from the DLSRs don’t have to buy all new glass and the variable ND adaptor is great!
Canon are making some fantastic innovative RF glass but most of the prices are crazily high. They have very little on the budget end. Hopefully Sigma will start to bring out lenses for the RF mount. I love their latest ones especially. They are finally making smaller and lighter mirrorless lenses and the Af motors aren’t whirring all the time either. The 85mm F1.4 and 24-70mm F2.8 are fantastic lenses!
You may be thinking SONY FANBOY! Well actually I own the R5 and adore it, i made two long videos explaining why. I cannot see me buying the A1. I don’t need all those stills features. So I cannot justify that price plus I have the R5 if I need 8K. Plus the animal autofocus in video...love it!
For video Sony are killing it with the A7Siii and canon don’t even come close there. The A1 video is totally based on the A7S III video features, but with 8K and an S35 mode. It does have an inferior full frame 4K due to pixel binning but the S35 mode is oversampled so will look terrific.
The R5 8K image is stunning, as is their 4K HQ oversampled video but is limited to 30p and overheats. So the mode you will mostly be using is the line skipped 4K, which you need for 50p/60p/100p/120p anyway. It’s not that great, especially compared to the HQ mode and compared to the A7siii which looks amazing in all 4K frame rates.
So are Canon winning? Well no, but they are very much in the race. A race they ignored for far too long. They have just 4 R cameras. Ignore the R and RP, especially for video and that leaves the R5 and R6. The R6 has a superior 4K standard image than the R5, apart from the HQ mode I mentioned, as its oversampled BUT when it overheats you are left with HD which is a huge problem! So basically, Canon have one camera in their mirrorless line up that is in the game, the R5.
So obviously a bit of click bait title, but it’s your opinion. I am just pointing out a few things.
The A1 is the flagship Sony. The R5 is currently the flagship but the 1D line has always been that as you said. Hence the comparison isn’t fair price wise. The 1DX mk iii is the same price as the A1. Speculating over what the R1 will have and using it as more evidence to justify the article title?
Hopefully Sony’s a7rv will have the same 8K video as the A1 and cost a lot less, plus the A7 IV is well overdue, that should also be exceptional. But these are speculations too. Based on what’s out now Canon aren’t winning the game, to say so is just false.
Well said Philip and from someone who is a proven professional with years worth of experience.
ass liking detected
Most cameras are better than most photographers.
Some brands seem to be winning while being simultaneously destroyed by a mighty competition...
Shakespearean Dramedy on FStoppers.
Alex.....I am not sure why anyone would ever want to write articles or have opinions these days. You can never make people happy with anything and everyone is a critic...especially photographers. For the record, I enjoyed your article as I found it informative and not a sales pitch for anyone as you showed the great points of both cameras.
Much apprecaited, Todd!! Yes, it requires thick skin hahaha.
Wow a totally crazy Canon fanboy article, I just can not take it seriously. Yes, Canon will be the biggest brand for several years to come when it comes to selling cameras, but whether they will always have the best camera for several years to come, I doubt it a lot, and that is just as important, right? I think it will be a bit like in the good old days when Canon and Nikon competed with each other, and where they constantly switched with who made the best cameras, but now with the difference that it will be a battle between Canon and Nikon plus Sony!
The review mentioned “professional “ photographers several times. As a long time “professional “ photographer let me add a few points:
1. Commercial or professional still photography is a profession that was always a challenge economically but these last couple of years, it has been brutal.
2. For most, if not all commercial projects, the cheaper R5 I is not only good enough, it is a great camera,
3. As a business person, a commercial photographer is going to have to ask, what if I bought the less expensive camera and invested that cash into something else like a more robust marketing effort? Would I be ahead?
4. Yes, the Sony might be a better camera but it could be the worst investment. Cost actually does matter if you are a professional and therefore have to look at a camera not just as a camera but as a part of ones overall studio effort.
Just my 2 cents.
Www.zavesmith.com
You make good points Zave, there are a lot of dentists and guys like my landlord when I had a studio who have a lot better equipment than most professional photographers I know.
Today's cameras are a lousy "investment" in the film days, buying into a Hassy or RZ system would be good for 15-20 years. Any digital camera today will be replaced by a "better" one in a few years.
I think this actually shows how far behind Sony is in the professional ranks and how little they understand about the pro market.
They still think its the specs that make a good pro camera. On paper the A1 is great but it's not about what is on paper, it's what isn't. The 1D and D6 aren't big because Nikon and Canon couldn't create a smaller body. They're big because the requirements for professional gear is higher than uncle joe who travels to Africa to take some photos. By providing the same camera body to both, shows a flaw in their strategy. Sony should have created a new body, scaled up by maybe 20%, smaller than a D6 but with increased battery and vertical grip. The weather sealing should have been upgraded to true pro grade and the durability should have been strong enough to drive a tank over. The grip should have been slightly further away from the lens mount so you could shoot sports with gloves. If Sony did that, it would have hit the nail on the head.
But Sony doesn't understand the pro market and that shows. Their amateur market is driving decisions and this body is priced out of the amateur market.
And I'm a Sony user so this isn't Sony animosity from a Nikon or Canon user
I have to disagree about priced out of amateur market. My first e-mount was NEX-3. I loved the size. 10 years later I have about 30k in lenses and cameras. Unfortunately most so called pros make much less than amateurs who love photography and don't mind spending money for the hobby. Sony started in mirrorless with hobbyist in mind and owes success to amateurs. Fact that AP went with Sony shows that some pros joined the brand, but Sony is definitely catering to well to do enthusiasts.
I disagree and think Sony understands the Pro market quite well. Why? Because they keep delivering on the technology forefront. Does size matter? For some, because it is a singular preference. The fact that Sony cameras are showing up at NFL broadcasts for both still photos and video, combined now with aerial photography with the coming Sony drone attests to the versatility of its size and expansion of the media creation envelope. I'm a Sony user as well and find an A7RIV with the vertical grip is plenty big in-the-hand, has plenty of battery life, and gives me many capabilities and excellent image quality.
I'm a pro and I really don't care about the body size. I look for a few things in a camera I buy. Good DR, good low light performance and good AF. Ergonomics I'll just deal with.
These types of comparisons which maintain a fear based, intellectual analysis, of brand and model superiority are not unlike the click bait on YouTube with similar fear based titles sucking people in. It’s sad that this type of mindset is what drives some journalists and bloggers. Articles which help develop an artists skills and creativity serve a higher purpose, and have the potential on unifying people as compared to driving some level of ego.
Alex here is what you are missing. The A-1 IS a truly professional piece of equipment, the R-5 is a very nice camera but has too many hiccups to be used professionally. 1-it overheats and cant recover fast enough to be reliable. 2- The specs in photo mode only hold up for 40% of the battery life then midnight comes and it turns back into a pumpkin. 3- Most people who want or need 20 fps are shooting things that move fast, the faster they move the worse the rolling shutter becomes. 3- The video recording is only to 1 card slot with the second only capable of recording a proxy making the post workflow a problem for many. Its not 85% of anything if it don't work right. The A-1 is ground braking especially if you shoot arena sports on strobe, nothing else shoots half of its speed on strobe with a 1/400th sync speed thus cutting the ambient light in half enabling much more dramatic shots on the floor of an arena or Olympic stadium. The connectivity in the A-1 is broadcast ready with a full size HDMI, Ethernet port and dual 5G antennas. At the pro level there is no 85% of anything, it gets the job done or it doesn't. The only Canon camera in that "get the job done" category is the 1dxm3 and that is half the resolution, half the frame rate. Sorry Alex, respectfully you missed the boat on this one and with Sony landing the AP exclusive Canon needs a big leap forward when they announce the R1 or they will take a giant step backwards. I hope they come at it hard but when you look at the tech in the A9 and A1 you have to wonder what else does Sony have in store to advance high end photography?