cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Sony has officially made Canon RF a 2nd rate camera system.

sceneit
Enthusiast

I'm not gonna lie I've had a lot of bad experiences with Canon recently and that's partially why I'm making this post...

With Sony charging $6,000 for the a9 III I think the message is clear: Canon can't compete with Sony and they no longer need to price accordingly. The fact that Sony has recently been pricing all their gear at or above "equivalent" Canon models suggest they have never really been afraid of Canon, now they're charging $6,000 for a 24MP a9 III while Canon is struggling with a 24MP R6 II priced at $2,300. Which technically is a 48MP sensor due to it's dual pixel design. The fact that Sony is nearly tripling the cost of the R6 II pretty much makes a statement that they no longer intend to be #2 in the marketplace but #1. 

Now, you may think the a9 III is an R3 competitor but it's really not. The a9 series is what Canon was targeting with the R6. The specs and form factor prove it. The previous pricing on the a9 was pretty steep, more of an R5 price tag, but Sony has decided they can add $1,500 to that price which puts it squarely in 1Dx territory. Obviously the 1Dx and the a9 are vastly different and I can only imagine that if Sony were to do a 1Dx style camera it would be priced above $10,000 USD. 

Basically they're saying they can sell a tiny, lightweight, low resolution camera for $2,000 more than an R5 and $500 more than an R3. 

Sony thinks that Canon RF is second tier, and their pricing proves it.

For me personally, I'll never buy a Sony camera because I think they're fraudulent. For one, I think the a9 III is a glorified cellphone camera that is using digital fixes whether the user turns fixes on or off in the camera. By definition this is fraud. Digitally fixing crappy lenses that cost $3,000 is fraud. I'm not going to sit idly by and be robbed by a bunch of lazy morons at Sony and Canon who can't work up the gumption to figure out how to build a camera lens properly. 

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I should accept a $3,000 lens that has 12 pixels of blazingly bright chromatic aberration near the center of the image because I can fix it digitally in Lightroom. I just want to know why the lens costs $3,000? You know what else we can do digitally?  We can add fake bokeh, fake sky, fake everything. Why even buy a camera I can just use stable diffusion if I want a lame digitally fixed photo. 

The basic reality is that the digital fixes in an iPhone will equal or surpass what a Sony or a Canon are capable of in maybe 1 or 2 years. The only reason to continue with Canon and Sony is that they offer a real picture. If it's all going to be digital fraud imagery, then Sony and Canon are just overpriced cellphones.

14 REPLIES 14

Peter
Authority
Authority

Seems trouble with camera gear is following you wherever you go.

If you want to troubleshoot your problems, then a good start is to share raw samples. For example about the soft corners or chromatic aberration from RF28-70.

The need for digital correction is nothing new. My EF 35-105 from 1987 needs that as well and doesn't cover the whole sensor area.

It seems trouble with camera gear is following me wherever I go? What does that mean Peter? No offense Peter but your EF 35-105mm didn't ever cost anywhere near $3,000 USD. It was probably $199 bucks in 1987 or whenever it was released. So lets not sit here and pretend there is a similarity when there isn't one. BTW I have an FD 35-105mm and it has less CA. Even the FD 85mm f/1.2 L has less CA at f/2. I have numerous EF lenses with far, far less CA than this overpriced hunk of **bleep** B&H and Canon have pawned off on me.

shadowsports
Legend
Legend

@sceneit wrote:

 

"Sony has officially made Canon RF a 2nd rate camera system"

 

Let's look at global market share.  Who leads in sales?  That usually indicates how well a company is performing (in Canon's case) on a global level.

shadowsports_0-1699798734315.png

 

shadowsports_2-1699801033550.png

You are welcome to have your opinion, but I'm going to go with the facts.  I think Canon knows what they are doing.

If you have questions about Canon products or are looking for help, we'll do our best to assist.  

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.6.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10

~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8 ~CarePaks Are Worth It

False victory. How many fewer a9 III's does Sony need to sell to match the profit Canon has from the R6? Probably 1/3 the amount. Sony is profiting and Canon is killing themselves. 

Danfaz
Enthusiast

Are you the guy that had 3 "lemon" RF15-35s in another thread? You seem to have zero luck with Canon products and are just ranting. The purpose of this forum is to "contribute, and be rewarded by helping others find solutions and education that will improve everyone’s overall experience with Canon products and services."

No, that's not me. I never owned the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L. I already have the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L mk III. I would like to the get the RF 15-35mm but if there are bad copies out there now then its off the list forever. 

Peter
Authority
Authority

So do you have some raw files to share?

"chromatic aberration near the center", is that axial CA you mean? Not easy to remove in post. Transverse CA shouldn't be near the center but is easy to remove in post.

CHROMATIC_ABERRATION_EXAMPLE_28mm_CROP.jpg

That is a JPEG and not a raw file. Looks like the forest picture here https://hugin.sourceforge.io/docs/manual/Chromatic_aberration.html

Is it only in the center when you clip the highlights?

Avatar
click here to view the press release
Announcements