quezra
TalkEmount All-Pro
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,055
Once you enter adapter land, Sony has access to both Canon and Nikon lenses, as well as its own A-mount glass.At the end of the day, Nikon just has a larger selection of AF glass.
Once you enter adapter land, Sony has access to both Canon and Nikon lenses, as well as its own A-mount glass.At the end of the day, Nikon just has a larger selection of AF glass.
R&D product cycles take ages, so it's likely things like these were set long ago and no one reconfigured the design later to take account of the launch of the A9 (which would be the earliest clue a bigger battery was coming from Sony). I don't mind the smaller battery per se, either, but for Sony, don't forget it's precisely the bigger battery that accounts for the majority of weight difference between the mkII and mkIII cameras. Nikon managed to be heavier with the smaller battery. That's the baffling part for me.The battery capacity does have me wondering: did Nikon do most of their designing before the Sony A9/A7riii/A7iii came out, or did they hobble that aspect of the Z system deliberately? (If it's the latter and they're still trying to herd pro user toward the DSLRs, who is this new Z system supposed to be for?)
Battery life was never a deal breaker with me but I know Sony got a lot of flak for it before they "fixed" it. It just seems baffling to me that someone would be diving in to this market now with such an unnecessary handicap.
Well basically the most sought-after features that A7III finally addressed - and convinced me this was a no-brainer for upgrade - were:
1) Dual SD card slots
2) Bigger battery
3) Joystick
4) Touchscreen (badly done sadly)
Somehow, Nikon managed to omit the first 3. The first three are really important for the wedding photog segment who do use these cameras professionally, and I suspect are the bulk of this market (they are also sticklers for Eye-AF, again which Nikon don't yet offer).
R&D product cycles take ages, so it's likely things like these were set long ago and no one reconfigured the design later to take account of the launch of the A9 (which would be the earliest clue a bigger battery was coming from Sony). I don't mind the smaller battery per se, either, but for Sony, don't forget it's precisely the bigger battery that accounts for the majority of weight difference between the mkII and mkIII cameras. Nikon managed to be heavier with the smaller battery. That's the baffling part for me.
Once you enter adapter land, Sony has access to both Canon and Nikon lenses, as well as its own A-mount glass.
Agreed, but that's exactly what we said about the A7 batteries for ages before too, and I'm assuming the difference isn't far off the original A7 battery - which everyone panned.I would also wait before judging battery performance based on CIPA rating. They seriously need to update their algorithms for modern use. Their numbers have become so out of step with real-world usage that it should be ignored. Look at the Z battery ratings vs actual ratings. SMH
Already a tester at Dpreview, using the Z7, said “In normal use we’ve got 1600+ shots and some 4K clips out of a single charge. It’s not DSLR level, but it’s a lot better (as always) than the bare CIPA figure might suggest” (link to that comment).
I don't know of anyone that got 1600 shots + video on original A7 so I don't understand.Agreed, but that's exactly what we said about the A7 batteries for ages before too, and I'm assuming the difference isn't far off the original A7 battery - which everyone panned.
I don't know of anyone that got 1600 shots + video on original A7 so I don't understand.