Which digicam is better sony or canon

The Sony A99 II has a The A77 II and A68 offer fewer megapixels but a lower price point. Sony also has some excellent advanced compact cameras. The RX series is a popular though expensive line of compacts. You might buy a camera with a different brand name on it and end up with a Sony sensor, such as newer Nikon models.

Sony has some of the best mirrorless camera systems on the market. Third-party manufacturers offer all their lenses for Sony E-mount. There are plenty of lenses that you can only use with Sony or other, like Fujifilm mirrorless cameras. Their short flange distance allows for greater flexibility in lens design.

Each camera brand has some quirks, but Canon, Nikon, and Sony all make great camera systems. The best part about the Nikon vs Canon vs Sony debate?

The constant competition has each camera manufacturer pushing to launch the best camera. One year, it may be a Canon, the next a Nikon and the next a Sony. It all depends on the individual camera. Photographers will often prefer one camera system over the other.

When viewing the photos side by side, no one can tell if you shot that image with a Canon, Nikon or Sony. Go to a store that sells camera systems and shoot with the ones that are on display.

How do they feel in your hands? Does working with one feel easier or more natural than the other? Dig into the menu systems. An alternative is to rent a camera body from each brand. Then, look at the lens selection. Do the lenses you can see yourself buying in the future exist?

How expensive are they? Once you find your perfect camera, get all the skills to use it with our Photography for Beginners course. Next, why not check our full review on the Canon Powershot SX! Leaving your camera on its default settings will produce blurry results.

Share with friends Share. Show Comments 22 Hide Comments. Related Articles. These fundamental aspects…. Although there are many types of photography styles, you need to…. They're the most popular photography tutorials on my website. According to the visitors who viewed them. There are…. Will the same thing happen to FF cameras? Hope not and it is not likely because there is currently no cheaper alternative to them that can provide the same image quality.

Canon and Sony have an oligopoly on FF image sensors, and they are satisfied with the status quo. There appears to be no appetite for a price war. Almost 20 years ago, the Digital Rebel and the Nikon D70 were the first cameras to sell for less than a grand, and they sold like hot cakes.

Lots of people already have 1 or more APS-C cameras, and so they are not anxious to get yet another one. Fujifilm, which sells APS-C cameras, only have 5. The Olympus brand is practically extinct. It is clear that world is waiting for FF cameras to become affordable. That day may never come for marketing reasons. Single exposures of the circuit on a silicon chip is enough to make APS-C sensors.

The reason is that CCD sensors require the multiple exposures to be aligned precisely to work. In contrast CMOS sensors only need the multiple exposures to be in contact electrically, without a need for prefect alignment. What about 1" sensors? Any insight on that? For me that was the most exciting thing that happened when they came out, but then It helped push Canon ahead of Nikon at the time in terms of noise, and image quality.

They started back in the by incorporating micro processors in their Cameras. When the world and camera companies dumped movie film cameras they started making video cameras. So I think it would be fair to say that canon do know how to play the game, and the digital camera industry is basically canons to own.

Yes, Canon has been leader for a reason. Nikon has been also leading the industry in DLSR, but not in mirrorless. It will take some time before Nikon can lead in ML cameras due to electronics like chips and processors and sensors , but optically Nikon is already one of the best in the field.

Also it will take some before sony could lead the camera industry due to electronics. From 22 to 45 percent would happen before nikon could grow.

It's also interesting to see that Canon is slowly but surely increasing its market share lead, thus discrediting the usual criticism of Canon as somehow lagging behind in the features that customers want. Canon understands the market and their customers better than random critics on Internet forums. In looking at how the mirrorless market was developing in the last couple of years, I thought Canon was a little behind in their releases but it is very difficult to come up with perfect timing in a dynamic market.

In the end, you can't argue with the numbers. I would not buy anything Nikkei say, they are more or less associated by Canon and is a partisan contribution. Malling Come again….? Malling: LOL. I see that when facts disagree with what you want, you just spred literally disinformation. Of course it makes no sense, and you have no proof It seems to be in vogue these days to invent a reality when you don't like what reality presents you.

I never seen any companies, science institutions, politicians who could be truly objective under similar conditions and circumstances. If you want to be truly objective you cannot have any association with such, not even the slightest.

I notice you haven't provided any facts or details yet Malling Er….. You seem to be suggesting that they are fraudulently making them up. If what Malling asserted was true, then Nikkei could be subject to legal liability because they are relied upon as a source for investor information.

Also if you read the article, Nikkei is getting this information from a third-party research firm. They are simply reporting it. Aside from the spin you'll see from fanboys and detractors of various brands, one thing is certain. Sony has done a great job at gaining a share of a market that it didn't even exist in that long ago. Not counting when they simply slapped their name on the remnants of Minolta's dying camera division, they've only really been making their own product for a decade.

One has to give them their props. And I say that as a person who has never owned a Sony. DGCA I agree with what you've written: that what Sony has accomplished in a fairly short period of time is impressive. So I don't know why some Sony fans feel the need to write all sorts of weird stuff trying to contradict reality. It's gotten sad when some try to discredit a reputable source without evidence, just because the report was not all rosy to the Dear Leader.

Sony fans should be writing what you wrote, which is that being 2 from nowhere in about a decade is impressive. His sort of post does the brands he slavishly follows no service whatsoever….. Although the Olympics is just a single and highly specialized event from which you cannot conclude global market share, the information seems to align with the Nikkei survey results.

Jen Fair enough - however this is anecdotal evidence compared to the more factual Nikkei information…. The numbers also match the industry forecast used by both Canon and Nikon for the size of the market. They also are number 1 in APS-C cameras. Thoughts R Us. It is for sure that Canon understand the market better then others. They have around half the market in their hands.

This data mentions "camera manufacturer's share". Presume does not include lenses, flash systems, etc. Would be very interesting to see 3rd party lens manufacturers, flash systems info included.

I've always wondered about that as well. There's a whole ecosystem that it seems doesn't get nearly as reported on. Looking forward to end of Stone Jack where do you suppose Nikon should get their customers from Canon, Sony…. Canon user base is very much loyal to their brand, they more likely to go Sony then Nikon as it would almost be to big a pill to swallow. As mentioned, it's difficult to get anyone from any brand to switch once they are heavily invested.

Unfortunately, with the dedicated camera market shrinking, there are not that many new customers to be had. I agree that Nikon has a tremendous opportunity with their existing base of DSLR users that haven't gone mirrorless yet, but still use a dedicated camera. They haven't bought a DSLR recently, and thus don't show up in these sales numbers. Sony may have some vulnerability in that it seems a good portion of their users switched from Nikon, and may be more disposed to going back once Nikon offers them what they want.

Some Sony users don't like using Sony that much due to the ergonomics, handling, menu's, reliability, etc The problem is the same for all, the lack of attraction in the younger generations, in that Sony is in no worse situation then the others, however Sony dos have the brand advantage because allot of the younger generations have grown up with the brand, largely thanks to playstation, music, headphones etc.

It might turn out to be a blessing. I wouldn't be so quick to write off this "older crowd" as being not "worth much of attention in the long run. You need to survive in the short run to make it to the long run. And this "older crowd" still has many years left. Not to mention this "older crowd" influences younger generations. Also FWIW, the ones that I personally know that are most into Nikon are younger people who started out with Nikon in the last 5 to 15 years However, as Sony's market share has climbed we see Nikon's has fallen, and so I would suspect there are quite a few using Sony that came from Nikon.

These may want to switch back eventually. The current sales shares show only percentrage of cameras by brand sold last year or quarter, but if you look at sum of sold cameras for last 10 years, Nikon dwarfs Sony in the sold user base. Getting that userbase to move to Z is a priority for Nikon and will present much larger market opportunities than trying to attract Sony or Canon users though even now that kind of movement exists, but probably in all directions.

Like you say, based on total accumulated user base they should have sold very large large volumes of ML. But that has not happened. I guess its a combination of old CaNikon users jumping ship and more new users who dont have a sunk cost in old systems so that they go directly to a leading ML eco system without feeling burdoned by old purchases.

If they do, then some people will switch over like I did. When I was looking to leave Fujifilm because of their lack of any full frame options, I did all the math between Canon RF and Nikon Z, I found that my desired kit would cost a few thousand dollars less, and weigh a couple of pounds less if I went with Nikon Z.

All of that, the Z7's dynamic range, the look and feel, and the Phase Fresnel telephoto lenses convinced me to go with Nikon. Add to that the lens eco system including all the 3rd party AF lens lineups that Sony has In the short term, the camera sales will rise. Long term, this industry will continue to shrink.

It will be too expensive then for beginners to get into the game when there is a smart phone. Computational photography that increases DR with AI digital filters thru a pair of sunglasses.

The Camera manufacturers need to rethink and transform instead of just focusing on faster, more pixel and different formats. I also begin to question the need of a viewfinder. Viewfinder where is back then when there where no screen on cameras. Look for Nikon to regain market share in and That is assuming that Nikon keeps their promise that the Z9 will be exceptional.

The lenses are maybe the best, at least very competitive with Canon and Nikon has made a very strong strategic move by giving the market excellent f1.

The zooms are maybe best in class. It all depends on the Z9! If it does not keep its promise, it's in my opinion good bye Nikon!

Nikon is probably more interested in pursuing expanding profit margins than sacrificing price to chase market share at this stage of the game high margin, low volume strategy. Those two cameras have been out long enough to have been accounted for in these numbers.

Also, can confirm it myself as an owner of A7RIV. Nikon IBIS is more efficient. This has been reported previously by Lens Rentals. Previous gen bodies have the same rating as Nikon. And of the 1. Despite not having IBIS, 3. So, the CIPA numbers are meaningless and what matter are the actual field tests. The CIPA numbers are not meaningless, they just don't accord with your beliefs. Of course they do not show the whole picture, CIPA does not test roll for example and they may not present a best case scenario, but the point is they provide a genuine comparative scale.

In your haste to defend Canon and smear Sony you failed to read the LensRentals article closely enough. Not really surprising. What is surprising and depressing is how everyone parses this article as Sony has a problem and nobody else does.

I recommend you to try out both cameras and see yourself. In my case it was not a feeling, but based on my own experience. Also the Foto Magazin's test procedure was documented and not based on feelings, but actual field tests. CIPA numbers are always to be taken with grain of salt, especially regarding image stabilization. The market taken by the smartphones never belonged to the dedicated camera manufacturers anyways. Shrinking market means the cameras tend to get expensive, and there may not be new companies or new investment if the sales is steady without any surprises for the next years.

Uh, sure they did. Have you not noticed the sharp decline in compact camera sales? Phones have effectively killed that market, which is now composed of niche products, like "travel" cameras. From to about or 14 - dedicated cameras owned that market. Then - around - mobile phone cameras became 'good enough' for most people to forget about dedicated equipment. Well, what I meant is that the crowd bought those cameras point and shoot, etc are never dedicated camera customers.

Point and shoot was better than mobile phone camera , or film camera for them at that time, and so they bought them. I know at least five people who ditched their dedicated cameras when they upgraded heir phones. The sales numbers don't lie. I don't think you get my point. When the internet became faster and cheaper, social media became dominant many people they knew were on the social media , pushing people to buy the best available camera that is convenient and easy to use didn't have to visit print labs, etc.

Point and shoot filled that space because it was digital the world became more computerized since computers can be bought relatively cheap , easy to use relative - such as transfer the pictures to the computers and then upload them on the same day or quick. Mobile cameras weren't good in those days I used one, and it's not the best - despite being expensive. When the smartphone became a thing, it simplified such experience better, and they jumped the ship.

Dedicated point-and-shoot and similar easy-to-use ones served as a stop-gap sending sales through the roof for a period. These days, I have seen people starting with smartphones and then switching to a dedicated camera. During that brief spike period, many investments were made, which we reap even today. Eventually, the investments will slow down since dedicated camera sales are not attractive anymore.

So the imaging market is getting more and more focused on specific usage professional and less on the broader public. I personally would be very surprised if Nikon does not exist as a company for imaging anymore years from now. Probable not alone but in cooperation with for example Fuji Fujikon Leica is a much smaller company than Nikon but is doing fine, and has been doing fine for a long time. They have a niche but a very profitable one. In some sense all of the dedicated camera business is becoming a group of niche markets.

Nikon can exist and do well for a long time. Their financial situation is very solid, as Thom Hogan has written so much about. Right now I'd say buy the system you want and don't worry so much about hypotheticals into the future, most of the factors we do not even know about.

I thought Nikon had been making financial loses the last 2 years? By all standard business indicators, Nikon ARE a struggling manufacturer. Does that mean you shouldn't buy its products if you love Nikon? Of course not. However does it increase the risk of the system you invest in being bust in 5 years and therefore no more lenses and cameras compared to Sony and Canon? Yes it does. Nikon isn't going anywhere. Zero chance they exit the market in the next 10 years.

Very slim chance they leave the market in the next 20 years. They have a golden name and fan base. Smaller market share means less revenue and possibly slower development and releases of new bodies and lenses. Don't hold you breath for low volume specialty lenses and accessories.

This also limits them, don't expect any Nikon to out gun a Sony, ever again. Which companies stay and which go away will depend on the quality of their decisions. Kodak was the biggest name in photography for over a century and then suddenly it wasn't thanks to a calcified decision making process. The company just didn't make the decisions to invest in and run with the electronic camera market and POOF they were gone. I'm with Dragonrider, names and customer base size doesn't mean much in regards to long term viability, as he said Kodak was the biggest name in photography in over a century.

Nikon represent a risk investment IMO, they can do little to differentiate themselves against Canon and Sony who produce the sensors and large parts of the other camera tech themselves.

Kona Mike above saying there is "zero chance they will exit the market in 10 years" is just wishful thinking, reading Nikon's financial reports, and their camera share, there is NO WAY you can say that. Regarding hypothetical questions about manufacturers quitting, I would consider Sony a bigger long-term risk than Nikon.

Also, remember that for years Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to themselves - now they have increasingly powerful rivals. There may come a point where the bean-counters want out.

They could end up simply offering sensors, while concentrating on PlayStation, movies, insurance etc. I understand that Sony has bigger fish to fry, but as long as the camera division is making money or just breaking even they would have no reason to shut it down. Having a in house camera division also gives internal sales to other divisions and helps push their sensor development and photographic software algorithms and machine learning. This means Sony do not have to make money from camera's and lenses for it to be a benefit, and to keep justified, that isn't the case for Nikon.

They need to make a profit good enough for people to want to invest in, in a market where they are losing market share. Having said that Sony have bundled cameras with a bunch of other things in the face of the crashing market to give it time to grow.

I think on a matchless brand and lens engineering expertise…. Samsung pulled out of the market fairly quickly. Could Sony? They are similar corporate giants. I think Sony sticks it out, they will sell quite a few cameras for a while. I think Nikon lives on. If Olympus could get bought out and could live on, then Nikon will easily live on, even if it is purchased.

I see Nikon being like Leica one day, small volume high cost, retro style. The will rely on their heritage.

Don't get me wrong, they will live on, but their glory days are long gone. Nikon is in bad shape if you think they will keep up their historically frequent body and lens release rate. Expect Nikon to offer fewer different camera models. Expect Nikon's release rate to drop as their market share drops. They have made a lot of cuts, they can now only produce so much, with the resources at hand. I see Nikon being desperate to sell equipment, so they will strive to be a "good value" and undercut competitors prices on comparable items.

It makes little sense to compare them to Kodak. Kodak's primary business was selling consumables to a market that evaporated. And even when it was still thriving, consumers had no barrier to buying from Fuji instead.

You can now look at Exxon and Chevron and see the same potential decline in another decade as EVs become more than a bit player in car sales. If you own high end Nikon lenses, you need Nikon bodies to use them.

It's not like Canon EF where you can mount them on a Sony. So long as Nikon delivers suitably current refreshes, you have incentive to keep buying. Sony is notoriously fickle with retiring product lines, so there really isn't a guarantee against them exiting before Nikon. Apart from their high end range, Canon and Sony also have a large low end point and shoot camera range which accounts for a lot of sales.

While as Nikon is mainly focusing on the high end range. Maybe it will change but for now its mainly low end cameras and lenses from Nikon. Vallkar, Nikon is not really pushing the "high price" label on any of its current bodies. Canon has I higher end compact camera line. Camera manufacturers have mostly given up on point and shoots. That market is pretty much gone, and has been for a while.

So they both come out with interesting cameras from time to time. Ying yon. What's slow glass for you? These lenses aren't usable without electronig gadgetry and they sell them for a ton of money. And a size and weight you can carry. BTW, all the consumer level R glass is very slow. Canon users: We knew. Other users: Doesn't mean anything because 1 2 3 I'm struggling to understand some of the discussion here.

Canon has the most different models on a huge range of prices, absolutely killer commercial distribution worldwide and a great reputation. It should not come as a surprise that they're selling way more units total than the competition. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn and my cameras are working just the same as they did before this announcement.

Now things are going to get interesting:. There is no way around implementing computational photography into traditional cameras, since phone cameras have largely closed the gap with regards to HDR, DR, different focal lengths and low light photography.

Let's face it: every upper class smartphone from the last years makes photos and videos "good enough" except for large prints in most circumstances and thus makes traditional Form cameras obsolete.

A modern Xiaomi Mi 11 ultra is almost as versatile as e. I think you are wrong in many ways. Smartphones will eat lower end market as in point and shoot, but will most certainly not eat away higher end segment which is dominated by photo enthousiasts.

Size of gear is no problem, weight is only a minor problem not really playing a role in decision making when one is into photography and enjoying it. And NO no phone gives you the same image quality as an ILC nor giving you the same pleasure in taking photos. A smartphone is a quick, but inconvenient tool that lacks the physical controls and ergonomics you get with a proper ILC.

I use my phone for the snapshots, but never for any serious image taking. A smartphone is convenient because it is a multi-functional device. It can be used for many tasks including taking photos,, but is not outstanding in any way. Not much has changed. They now use phones and are still not interested in using ILC's. It will serve them well enough. Phones have not closed any gap in low light image quality. Yes, they take some good pictures in low light "night mode" but only for static subjects, not usable for anything moving.

Good enough for most people? The Mi 11 is good but with the RX you can use the zoom and still have the main sensor image quality.

But that will work only with the standard focal length, whatever that is on the phone and in fairly standard light situations. As soon as you want to go wider or need a telephoto your phone is lost. As soon as you have the need for a specific look, that a nice Sony GM lens offers, your phone is lost. There's an upper limit on how big a sensor they can cram into a phone while still keeping the form factor. I've taken some very nice pictures on my iPhones over the years, but the low light quality and lack of lens choices especially beyond normal focal lengths of around mm means there will always be a place for dedicated cameras.

They also have terrible ergonomics that make anything other than the most casual shots frustrating and the image quality can very quickly fall apart outside of ideal conditions even with the latest models. Now, you can argue as much as you want, and explain how much more fun it is to use a camera, how size and weight of a FF camera with fast zoom lens "doesn't matter" to anyone, and so on and so forth These were mostly either compact cameras or some beginner DSLRs.

Now, smartphones make photos as good as any soccer mom would be able to take with a DSLRs or compact camera. Nobody argued about that. Even manufacturers know that and they are refocusing on the pro market where sales were mostly constant. Interchangeable and professional camera shipments did not shrunk that much. While camera sales have fallen radically over the past few years, including DSLR sales, smartphone sales have continued to climb.

More people are satisfied with what their smartphone is providing. At the same time, the vast majority of photos are used at small sizes, well within the size that a good smartphone can provide a high quality print at. One thing you can do with a good phone is take good sweeping panoramics and infinite depth-of-field wide angle shoots. I wonder if there is some other factor that might explain a large drop in camera sales in ???

Onto the main point - "computational photography" can't make up for those quarter inch lenses. If it could, smart phones wouldn't now be shipping with 3 -4 such lenses. Some people don't pixel peep or care if the image has heavy NR as long as its not obvious on a phone, some people do, others eat steak, some people eat tidepods.

Its all a matter of standards. Apparently most people like the convenience of phones, is the image better than a compact or apsc? Hell no but you can never tell on a phone. This crowd who used to buy an advanced compact camera or a beginner's DSLR with kit lens is mainly interested to "capture the moment" that they can store and share with family and friends. Heck, most pictures people make are being shared via WhatsApp that massively downgrades and downsamplrs images. The photo-album of yesteryear has become the family-group on WhatsApp.

The camera market will survive but as a fairly small niche market for enthusiasts who enjoy the photographic process and for pros who just need the best tools available.

Kelpdiver, Smartphones don't provide lenses in order to make up for the small sensors but because they want to provide different focal lengths. It's like having a camera kit with 3 or 4 prime lenses. As far as computational photography has come, just have a look on this video comparing pictures from an iPhone with pictures from the Sony A1.

That's because they never had the opportunity to use top end gear, their perspective is limited, ignorance is bliss. Nothing like that! They are just the users that used to have mm pocket cameras in film days - and the phone is way better than these were… camera companies better get used to the fact that all is back to normal: only pros and enthusiasts buy ILC and specialized compacts, the rest is moving to the digital version of a pocket camera, called phone Nothing wrong with this….

During Tokyo Olympics, there was a poll of photojournalists regarding gear they use. Professionals are very brand loyal, as their whole business is based to the workflow they have. They invest money in first place to system that makes them to spend least amount of time and effort to produce the service or product.

And stick to it. They can be shooting with the same body model and lenses for years without remorse or problems. Their problems starts when they need to invest money to upgrade the equipment, and that is when you go for the same brand, you go for the next logical choice, and that is the model that performs as much as the previous one. This is why the Canon dominates, they have the professionals and they have amateurs with the educational side.

Professional entertainers YouTube influencers are not photographers, they call themselves as such, but they ain't such. They are content creators for their own channel. Nothing more. And this creates the illusion that these influencers knows what they are talking about because they have all the latest tech and they use fancy words and they give fancy parlor explanations why something is something.

And that is the problem here in these dpreview articles and all discussions, that the final image has lost its purpose. Hypothesis about importance of equivalence theory, the brand fights, the "what others needs" and so on is not doing anything else than waste bits. Professionals need the tools cameras and lenses to accomplish their tasks. Just like a handyman needs a wrench or a screwdriver to make and repair things. Have you seen a handyman purchasing new wrenches every few months?

No, he replaces the broken ones or gets new tools when they are disruptive and get him to the "next level" Photojournalists change their gear only when a disruptive technology has appeared that will make their life much easier e. If new tech is not transformational then photo-pros will keep the gear they got used to as long as it ain't break. Specially if you compare it to Sony that without releasing any new mainstream cameras also had an increase on the percentage of sales.

I was told by the Sony guys that these were very viable for the mass market. I don't remember any of them telling us that these were not "mainstream" models. The a7sIII was priced lower than the R5. The a7c was priced lower than the R6. Better talk to Sony marketing, because they sure marketed the cameras as if they were "mainstream.

Mass market means for your average consumers aka most people, they also sell to non mass market clients like B2B, broadcast cameras. Now you won't get DPreview reviews on these gear so good luck spinning that.

PAntunes: why is the a7sIII not a "mainstream camera? I was told by the Sony guys that YouTubers and video content creators were mainstream.

I was told by the Sony guys that 12MP was enough for many types of stills photography. Gerald Undone had an interesting post where he showed why he believed 12MP was better for posting on Instagram than much higher resolution photos, due to the compression and optimization algorithms used by IG. Do you want me to pull the quotes from you where you said the A7sIII was a 'niche product' that 'wouldn't sell to the mainstream of users'?

Or how it was 'unsuitable for stills photography'? I think it's likely that the A7IV would already have been released had it not been for the chip shortage, and it's obvious that Sony will make a mainstream high resolution camera that shoots 8K video to compete with the R5. What I said didn't matter or define the product. But really, neither what I wrote or you wrote matters RubberDials: "I think it's likely that the A7IV would already have been released had it not been for the chip shortage, " And doesn't matter Why is it obvious?

And BTW, what constitutes "mainstream? Is that not mainstream due to its high price? Because you'd have to, if to include the R5. But many would argue that this is way too high a price point to be "mainstream. Should be instructive to find out, because you seem to move the goalposts as it suits your argument. Thoughts R Us, same reason the A1 isn't a mainstream camera Or, if it makes it easier for you to understand, the same reason the 1D or the 5Dsr aren't best sellers PAntunes: you said that Sony didn't release any "mainstream" cameras in So tell us why neither the a7sIII nor a7c are not considered by you to be "mainstream?

How do you define "mainstream? So you must have something in mind? Or do you just change that term to fit your argument? Well, you don't even understand the different targets of different cameras.

You probably still believe the R5 is similar to the A Seems typical of some Sony fans. That's because it's easy to box you in because you lack consistency or clarity in your arguments.

The only consistency is that you will write anything to try to spin things in a way that makes Sony look the best. The problem is that gets to these contradictions and vague assertions with no substance.

Yes, I refuse to answer any of your basic questions when you clearly don't even understand what camera segments are We aren't even talking about market segmentation because multiple market segments can be "mainstream. I simply asked, why don't you consider the a7sIII to be a "mainstream" product? The 4K video is a little restrictive with a 1.

Read more: Nikon Z 5 review. Rod is the Group Reviews editor for Digital Camera World and across Future's entire photography portfolio, with decades of experience with cameras of all kinds. He has been writing about photography technique, photo editing and digital cameras since they first appeared, and before that began his career writing about film photography.

He has used and reviewed practically every interchangeable lens camera launched in the past 20 years, from entry-level DSLRs to medium format cameras, together with lenses, tripods, gimbals, light meters, camera bags and more.

Included in this guide: 1. It's the highest resolution full frame camera yet, but that's not all it does. Specifications Type: Mirrorless.

Sensor: Full frame. Megapixels: 61MP. Lens mount: Sony FE. Screen: 3-inch tilting touchscreen, 1,, dots. Viewfinder: Electronic, 5. Continuous shooting speed: 10fps.

User level: Professional. Reasons to avoid - Unbalanced with bigger lenses - Expensive, naturally! Sigma fp L. Sigma's oddball hybrid camera is crude in many respects Monitor: 3. Viewfinder: Optional EVF, 0. Reasons to avoid - Slow, janky video AF - Electronic shutter only. Nikon Z7 II. Huge resolution, high-speed shooting and 4K video but not perfect.

Megapixels: Reasons to avoid - EVF resolution lower than rivals - Tilt-angle display, not vari-angle. Panasonic Lumix S1R. The Lumix S1R is built for quality and performance, not size or cheapness! Screen: 3. Viewfinder: Electronic, 5,k. Lens: L-mount. Continuous shooting speed: 9fps. Reasons to avoid - Heavy and expensive. Canon EOS R5.

Megapixels: 45MP. Continuous shooting speed: 12fps mechanical shutter, 20fps electronic shutter. Viewfinder: 0. Reasons to avoid - Recording limits - 4K video is average. Sony A9 Mark II. We thought the original Sony A9 was fast, and then Sony makes this Lens mount: Sony E. Screen: 3in tilting touchscreen, 1,k dots. Viewfinder: EVF, 3,k dots. Continuous shooting speed: 20fps. Reasons to avoid - Menus remain obtuse - Isn't it time for CFexpress? Sony A1. Screen: 3-in tilting, 1.

Viewfinder: Electronic, 9. Max burst speed: 30fps. Max video resolution: 8K. Reasons to avoid - Stratospheric price! The best mirrorless camera there is for 4K video, but stills are 12MP only. Monitor: 3-inch vari-angle touchscreen, Fully articulating 3-inch touchscreen 1,K dots. Max continuous shooting speed: 10fps.

Max video resolution: 4K. Panasonic Lumix S5. Panasonic's compact full frame mirrorless camera is just stunning. Screen: 3-inch vari-angle, 1,k dots.