Thom Hogan: Products fighting each other: OK

[jaomul]

Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?

If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.

When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.

Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future. There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.

As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market. I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales. They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market. They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.

Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors. I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".

When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there

 

[Scatterbrained]

Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?

If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.

When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.

Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future. There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.

As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market. I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales. They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market. They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.

Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors. I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".

When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there

If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no? The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass. In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass. With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.

This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII. It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price. I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better. If you watch the video you'll see that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference. Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.

 

[f/otographer]

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.

I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with almost native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.

This adaptability of mirrorless systems cannot be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.

Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
Minolta MD 35/2.8
Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
Makinon 500/8
Sony A7
NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens

That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.

 

[jaomul]

Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?

If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.

When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.

Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future. There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.

As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market. I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales. They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market. They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.

Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors. I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".

When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there

If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no? The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass. In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass. With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.

This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII. It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price. I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better. If you watch the video you'll see that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference. Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.

I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with almost native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.

This adaptability of mirrorless systems cannot be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.

Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
Minolta MD 35/2.8
Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
Makinon 500/8
Sony A7
NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens

That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.

I agree for the most part with both you guys. Ye make points that are very relevant to yourselves so who am I to argue.

My point though is why do photographers need Nikon or Canon or anyone to make mirrorless systems when there are so many available already. As as said canon lenses can be used on sony cameras, so the sensor issue is solved with good glass. But if canon make a ff mirorless who is to say that they will use the same mount or indeed they will probably use existing tech senors (which are capable of fantastic photos despite what the internet says, albeit maybe have limitations for some people). The issue isn't for canon to make a mirrorless, its for canon to make that dynamic rangey chip that some want.Nikon on the other hand already us these sensors. When canon overtake sony in the chip stakes will everyone still want a mirrorless canon?

 

[Scatterbrained]

Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?

If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.

When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.

Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future. There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.

As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market. I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales. They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market. They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.

Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors. I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".

When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there

If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no? The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass. In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass. With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.

This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII. It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price. I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better. If you watch the video you'll see that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference. Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.

I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with almost native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.

This adaptability of mirrorless systems cannot be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.

Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
Minolta MD 35/2.8
Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
Makinon 500/8
Sony A7
NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens

That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.

I agree for the most part with both you guys. Ye make points that are very relevant to yourselves so who am I to argue.

My point though is why do photographers need Nikon or Canon or anyone to make mirrorless systems when there are so many available already. As as said canon lenses can be used on sony cameras, so the sensor issue is solved with good glass. But if canon make a ff mirorless who is to say that they will use the same mount or indeed they will probably use existing tech senors (which are capable of fantastic photos despite what the internet says, albeit maybe have limitations for some people). The issue isn't for canon to make a mirrorless, its for canon to make that dynamic rangey chip that some want.Nikon on the other hand already us these sensors. When canon overtake sony in the chip stakes will everyone still want a mirrorless canon?

For many people the temptation of Sony will go away when Canon comes out with a competitive sensor. On the other hand, the WYSIWYG nature of EVFs will become more and more of a draw for beginners and casual amateurs. As far as wanting a Canon made mirrorless, I'd like it for two very specific and selfish reasons. One is the overall ecosystem that surrounds the Canon products. I like to shoot tethered via DSLRController, wirelessly to a tablet. With Sony that isn't available. Sony has a wireless app but it forces you to shoot jpeg, and it only lets you trip the shutter on the A7RII. There are a lot of aftermarket software apps for camera control, but with Sony you're stuck with what they provide.
The other issue is the shorter registry distance. I use an adapted large format camera for macro studio shots. The shorter registry distance gets the sensor closer to where the film plane used to be, allowing a wider range of focus for the lenses.
Outside of that, I just think Canon does a better job at building an ergonomic, easy to use camera than Sony does.

 

[sashbar]

Olympus and Panasonic's camera divisions are money-LOSERS for their corporate parents. I expect the same is true for FujiFilm's camera division.

FUJI recorded a substantial profit, but if you look closer, it is not as straightforward.
Fujifilm’s Instax, X-series sales shine, pulling in 2.7x the profits of last year

 

[tecboy]

If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.

 

[cherylynne1]

I just wanted to mention a couple of updates:

You can now shoot Raw via the Sony Smart Remote app, and it also lets you adjust shutter speed, aperture, etc as well as select focus points.

Sony Smart Remote Control Update 3.10

They also have a battery grip for the A7 series: Sony Vertical Battery Grip for Alpha a7 II Digital Camera VGC2EM

I'm not in any way trying to say that the other points made aren't valid, just wanted to let you guys know in case you weren't aware.

 

[f/otographer]

If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.

-

Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There are pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.


10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job

 

[Scatterbrained]

If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.

-

Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There are pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.


10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job

The speed of the focusing isn't an issue (at least with the Sony A7RII). The tracking isn't really an issue either. The issues are with the EVF.

1) Viewfinder lag. What you are seeing already happened. The lag isn't huge, but it's there and can be frustrating when trying to capture peak action of a movement only to just miss it. Especially if you're used to nailing it.

2) Viewfinder refresh after a shot. Each time you take an image the viewfinder blacks out, then comes back. Not a big deal most of the time, but a major issue when trying to track and photograph people or things moving quickly and erratically.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I just wanted to mention a couple of updates:

You can now shoot Raw via the Sony Smart Remote app, and it also lets you adjust shutter speed, aperture, etc as well as select focus points.

Sony Smart Remote Control Update 3.10

They also have a battery grip for the A7 series: Sony Vertical Battery Grip for Alpha a7 II Digital Camera VGC2EM

I'm not in any way trying to say that the other points made aren't valid, just wanted to let you guys know in case you weren't aware.

I'll have to try the latest version of the app. I tried the original and found it to be more trouble than it was worth.

The battery grip isn't going to solve the ergonomic issues the camera has. Try moving an AF point on a camera that has a dedicated AF joystick then go back to the A7 with it's button and wheel. Then accidentally rotate the wheel while moving the AF point (which puts you in AF mode selection). Try being left eye dominant and using back button AF on an A7. It's like poking yourself in the eye with your thumb every time you focus.

Right now the A7 cameras are good cameras with great sensors. A bit of tweaking on the menu systems and the bodies and they'd be great cameras all around.

 

[pixmedic]

Personally, I think the main reason nikon and canon have not seriously jumped on the mirrorless bandwagon is mostly because it would interfere with their entry level DSLR sales. Nikon has the nikon 1 (which I own and love) but it's really just a point and shoot with changeable lenses. (For what it is though, it's a great camera. I've had one since the original j1)

Mirrorless is still a very evolving market in terms of hardware and software. It wouldn't surprise me if nikon and canon WERE secretly developing mirrorless cameras, but part of me thinks they just don't want to develop yet another camera system just to have it compete with a line they are already producing, whereas Sony and Fuji (and other mirrorless options) NEED a different product that does not directly compete with canon\nikon.

I can however, see where someone who would like a mirrorless camera in ADDITION to their DSLR would like to stay with the system they are already invested in with lenses and accessories.

 

[f/otographer]

Personally, I think the main reason nikon and canon have not seriously jumped on the mirrorless bandwagon is mostly because it would interfere with their entry level DSLR sales.

This is to an extant exactly why they haven't done so already. Seriously though, how are Canikon supposed to view the development of such a camera and how it fits into their lineup? This is somewhat black and white, but I believe they are really only three ways to look at this.

1) Their new mirrorless will be an eventual replacement for their DSLR's if the technology pans out and the market begins to shift that way. Such a camera as this will require several things to be successful, most notably a new mount with new lenses and all the newest technologies inside so it shines brighter then the DSLR offerings. Things like class leading ergonomics, weather sealing, dual card slots, fastest buffer rates and any number of things that pros need when on the job. The way the market is right now it is not certain if mirrorless will indeed overtake DSLR's in popularity so this type of investment is a gamble.

2) Design the new mirrorless to work side by side with the existing DSLR lines with no forward thinking being given to them ever replacing them. This camera will not have to shine as brightly since it is a companion camera. You want it to look good next to the competition, but no so good that nobody buys your DSLR's anymore. A camera such as this will have different design requirements then the one above. A new mount will most likely be needed, but more decisions will be made to adapt existing DSLR lenses and some of these choices may effectively gimp the design and keep it from fully maturing on its own. So many of the bells and whistles can be left out.

3) The last possibility is to make the new camera completely subservient to the existing DSLR's. This is sort of what they have done so far with their current EOS M and Nikon 1 models. Sure, its a mirrorless, but in now way does it challenge their bread and butter models. They could still choose to go this route even with a new more 'serious' model by gimping the mount decisions (such as staying with the M mount) and keeping the ergonomics in the realm of compact camera designs while also neglecting such things as EVF's and weather sealing.

Which one of these options the two big companies choose will, I believe, have far reaching ramifications for the next decade or two of their camera production. My personal belief is that if choices are made to in any way tie the new design to a 30 year old ecosystem then the new camera will loose potential right from the get go. Canon made a clean break in the 80's when it moved from the wonderful FD lenses (which were used by many pros at the time) to the new autofocus EOS line. No consideration was given to the old lenses or cameras and Canon started with a clean slate. That fresh design and forward thinking has allowed them to be a dominant player for over 30 years now. I hope they see mirrorless cameras the same way (although not as disruptive as auto focus was) and approach the project with the same clean slate mindset.

 

[tecboy]

I hang around the photography community a lot, and it is rare, but at least one or two photogs shoot mirrorless. Everyone else shoots dslrs. If Sony mirrorless can beats 5D mark 3, then I'm convinced Sony mirrorless is the future.

 

[Derrel]

If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.

-

You are right, Scatterbrained, sports or action photography is an area where the d-slr cameras have a signifiant lead. Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There are pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.


10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job

The speed of the focusing isn't an issue (at least with the Sony A7RII). The tracking isn't really an issue either. The issues are with the EVF.

1) Viewfinder lag. What you are seeing already happened. The lag isn't huge, but it's there and can be frustrating when trying to capture peak action of a movement only to just miss it. Especially if you're used to nailing it.

2) Viewfinder refresh after a shot. Each time you take an image the viewfinder blacks out, then comes back. Not a big deal most of the time, but a major issue when trying to track and photograph people or things moving quickly and erratically.

You forgot to include the absolutely HORRIBLE battery life that an EVF camera has--due to the EVF sucking juice to perform the most basic task a camera does: showing what the lens sees. Check out the dPreview review of shooting a Seattle Seahwaks game with theSony A7R-II series camera, a camera which required THREE fully charged batteries to eke out 700 frames over the course of a football game!That is simply pathetic battery life, and it's why virtually all sports shooters who cover major league sports use Canon and Nikon d-slr cameras.

Keeping up with the big boys? Shooting pro sports with the Sony a7R II

I loved this quote: "Would I rely on it for a second or third body at a sporting event with a client and money on the line? No, not yet, but I'm looking forward to the day that I would."

"In practical use at a nighttime NFL football game, the camera struggled."

Yeah....impressive as hell. NOT! THREE batteries, to eke out 700 frames? My God, that is pathetic! Focus that let him down. EVF refresh rate lag that made following action challenging. A camera he'd not consider as a second body, and even worse, one he would not even consider as a THIRD body?

Switching to the lower end, check out the comparison on soccer of a Nikon D5500 versus a Sony RX10 II on NCAA women's soccer.Can a Sony RX10 II keep up with a Nikon D5500 on the soccer field?

I loved this one: "The Nikon D5500 outperformed the Sony RX10 II in every way possible, when it came to shooting soccer."

As the author wrote,"1/10th of the images I shot with the RX10 11 were marked as selects," yet two-thirds of the Nikon d-lsr images his partner shot, at the same game, were marked as selects. So...ten percent success versus 66 percent success rate?