Eric Lawton
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 9
[No message]
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Considering making the switch from Canon to Sony mirrorless. Advice
- Thread starter Eric Lawton
- Start date
Eric Lawton
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 9
Well, I guess this thing posted before I was able to type any text. Sorry.
Basically, I have a Canon 5d Mark III and about 4 grand in L lenses. I was watching a lot of reviews and reading blogs lately that are on fire about the new sony A7R. I starting reading and it's amazing that I can get a full frame, mirrorless, and 36mp beast for under $2,500. I am thinking about making the switch to Sony from my whole Canon setup.
I mainly shoot landscape and "second shoot" a lot of weddings. ANY and ALL advice welcome!
Thanks!!
Basically, I have a Canon 5d Mark III and about 4 grand in L lenses. I was watching a lot of reviews and reading blogs lately that are on fire about the new sony A7R. I starting reading and it's amazing that I can get a full frame, mirrorless, and 36mp beast for under $2,500. I am thinking about making the switch to Sony from my whole Canon setup.
I mainly shoot landscape and "second shoot" a lot of weddings. ANY and ALL advice welcome!
Thanks!!
BrianYarvin
Leading Member
Eric:
You'll wind up spending lots - maybe thousands - and making a camera dealer very happy.
The issue though is file size. Do you feel pressured to have larger files? If the source of that pressure is your direct competition, then buy the new gear tomorrow morning and don't look back. Otherwise, consider that with bigger files, you'll wind up using more storage and perhaps need a faster computer.
Think hard about this. If sharpness is an issue, you might be better off putting your money in a new tripod and/or raw processing software. In my case, the single biggest increase in sharpness I've seen in the past decade came from switching from Camera Raw to CaptureOne.
Think hard.
The thing is, you aren't going to gain a whole lot in resolution from 22 to 36 MP, honestly. The sony camera is e-mount which means native lenses are very few and if you add an adapter for a-mount you spend more money, have a bigger camera, and I'm guessing it'll slow down autofocus.
Like the other person replied, you'll spend a lot of money but will you really be gaining that much? Canon has a lot more lens options than sony does, even for a-mount. Willl a sony mirrorless camera focus fast enough in low light for weddings?
To me it sounds like you want to "switch" for the sake of it to try something new rather than you having a real need or a significant different in output or performance.
K
Kirk Tuck
Guest
I'll point out that my experience with Sony is that they do a very poor job implementing flash. If you second shoot with flash a great deal you will be going backwards from your Canon.
Sorry, not interested.
Eric, I've been looking at the A7/A7r too. I'm still using Canon 1DsII and 5D (not MkII/III) so I'm ripe for an upgrade. I'm not wanting to splash out on the 1Dx and 5DIII. I do want such improvements as auto iso, live view and sensor dust cleaning, but more than anything I want an articulated screen on a FF camera. I use manual 14mm lens and a manual 24mm ts lens. The Sony A7 would seem to fit the bill but as others have said, for me at least I'd need to upgrade the computer, LR and photoshop, the computer upgrade would of course mean I wouldn't be able to get a driver for my old but very reliable Epson 7800 24" printer. I've come to realise that in this era of digital, you either upgrade constantly, which is expensive, or you miss a few years and then upgrade, which is expensive!
I'm hoping the Canon 6D will be improved to an articulated screen in the MkII version, but if that doesn't happen I think Sony may get my cash.
I'm hoping the Canon 6D will be improved to an articulated screen in the MkII version, but if that doesn't happen I think Sony may get my cash.
Alec
Leading Member
What is the driver for the switch?
Canon 5d Mark III with L lenses is a capable tooklit. Where in your stated application is it falling short? Conceivably you can keep using your Canon glass with Metabones on SONY, but you won't get the AF speed that Canons are known for.
I am a SONY user BTW and have a small D800 based system just for video. I happen to be very excited about what SONY is doing; A9 will be quite some camera. But would I ditch two of my A900s? No, they're perfectly good.
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
Eric
I agree that the new Sony looks like a terrific camera. But I'm in the business of photography. And that means that every expenditure should be regarded as a means towards producing greater profits. For me, at this stage of technology, and based upon what I already own, different bodies -- much less an entirely different system -- won't do that.
I understand that you use your gear for landscapes and second shooter wedding work. I can't imagine where the switch would benefit you in the slightest with the wedding work. For landscapes, I could see where the increase in resolution might potentially have a small affect upon your output, but would it be enough to offset the cost of switching?
If you depend upon photography for a living, and thus need to make a profit, and cannot identify exact areas in which such a major switch would do that, then I would advise to stick with what you have. If, however, the money you make from photography is not important to your income overall, and you have the cash, then you might simply ENJOY making the swtich, so why not just do it and have fun.
Best of luck
I agree that the new Sony looks like a terrific camera. But I'm in the business of photography. And that means that every expenditure should be regarded as a means towards producing greater profits. For me, at this stage of technology, and based upon what I already own, different bodies -- much less an entirely different system -- won't do that.
I understand that you use your gear for landscapes and second shooter wedding work. I can't imagine where the switch would benefit you in the slightest with the wedding work. For landscapes, I could see where the increase in resolution might potentially have a small affect upon your output, but would it be enough to offset the cost of switching?
If you depend upon photography for a living, and thus need to make a profit, and cannot identify exact areas in which such a major switch would do that, then I would advise to stick with what you have. If, however, the money you make from photography is not important to your income overall, and you have the cash, then you might simply ENJOY making the swtich, so why not just do it and have fun.
Best of luck
TonyGamble
Senior Member
I suppose the real question is as to what makes you think you are losing business due to your current kit.
Are people intimating that your pictures are not sharp enough?
Are you, like me, inhibited by having too much to carry?
If not then, other than having the fun of shopping, you probably have no real reason to switch kit.
I moved from DSLR to m4/3 about three years ago so I could carry less weight but do the same work.
The only thing that has made me nervous is the knowledge that my shots where the detail was important were slightly lacking. When the Sigma DP Merrills plunged to around 340 UKP I bought all three.
I now know that when I am called upon for a pixel peeper shot I can supply it. But the cameras are pigs to use and my m4/3 will still be used 95% of the time and even would get away with the remaining 5%. It is just that I feel better. I had the 'readies' and I know the three Sigmas were too good to miss.
Tony
Are people intimating that your pictures are not sharp enough?
Are you, like me, inhibited by having too much to carry?
If not then, other than having the fun of shopping, you probably have no real reason to switch kit.
I moved from DSLR to m4/3 about three years ago so I could carry less weight but do the same work.
The only thing that has made me nervous is the knowledge that my shots where the detail was important were slightly lacking. When the Sigma DP Merrills plunged to around 340 UKP I bought all three.
I now know that when I am called upon for a pixel peeper shot I can supply it. But the cameras are pigs to use and my m4/3 will still be used 95% of the time and even would get away with the remaining 5%. It is just that I feel better. I had the 'readies' and I know the three Sigmas were too good to miss.
Tony
It sounds like the OP wants to try something new/different purely for the sake of it - or thinking that he will gain a significant different in 36 MP vs. 22 which he won't. Not unless he has a 80" 8k TV or screen or prints 4' x 6' and wants to view the print from 3 feet all the time.
gipper51
Veteran Member
I think the Sony body could make a great supplement to a Canon setup for tripod based work, but it has waaaay too many shortcomings to be a primary system as of today. If you only ever shot on a tripod with adapted glass then I could see it, but if you need decent AF, native lens selection and good flash then it lacks way too much.
It's simple...the Sony lacks quality native glass. The Zeiss 35 is nice, but that's one lens. Even the new Zeiss 24-70 got very mediocre reviews on Photozone, certainly way short of feeding a 36mp sensor.
My two cents...add the A7R and Metabones adapter and try it out with your Canon glass. If that is not financially feasible, stick with what you have. I think you would regret a wholesale switch.
Mediocre, or...? Tested with which camera?
The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III is 21MP with smaller photodiod, what is much permissive.
The Sony A900/850 was 24MP with bigger sized photodiod and first generation of sensor!
The CZ lenses get better IQ with better sensors, so it could be a tad cottony with a sensor and stunning with another. But certainly not "mediocre".
The key reason to switch is the EVF, and it should be better to choose an A99 for a pro use, even it's "only" a 24MP or waiting a tad for the generation next. But I agree that nothing can beat the A7r for landscape! ;-)
Mr.NoFlash
Senior Member
I think, for professionals, Fuji is now better than Sony.
* Much better glass.
* The APS sensor is made good by the new X-Trans-Layout and the better apertured glass.
* For professionals, its also important how the camera looks. The X-T1 looks very good.
* I guess there will be a X-Pro 2 with OVF
( well, I there is also Samsung, but who wants the ultimate sensor performance, Fuji is better. For me, Samsung Nx is better, because Fuji-like glass but cheaper )
Last edited:
Khun_K
Senior Member
I have and am shooting with all kinds of cameras that I do not think you can make a better picture when switch from Canon to Sony, or vice versa, and this apply to all brands of cameras as of 2014. The traditional DSLR has some advantage to mirror-less system and of course the mirror-less as it is today already has some visible advantage over traditional DSLR, and will continue to improve while DLSR has probably close to its peak. So technically speaking whatever mirror-less does better today will be even better tomorrow, and whatever mirror-less is doing less today will improve over time, to a point to eliminate most but not all what DSLR can do. So mirror-less system will be a lot better than what it is today while DSLR will be more on sensor only, and of course its optic - which is the same as mirror-less.
It seemed Canon today does not offer a good mirror-less solution, which is why I shoot Canon pro cameras + lots of L glasses, but I also shoot A7R with E-mount Zeiss glasses, because as professional I wanted to know what is the best tool for the work and I use multiple of cameras just because of that. For pure photography, the limitation is not the camera system, and if you just want smaller size of course Sony has better solution today but with limited, but quite capable lenses. But if you can live with Canon camera sizes, there is almost nothing that Sony can do and Canon can't.
--
Regards, K
www.kaisernchen.com
It seemed Canon today does not offer a good mirror-less solution, which is why I shoot Canon pro cameras + lots of L glasses, but I also shoot A7R with E-mount Zeiss glasses, because as professional I wanted to know what is the best tool for the work and I use multiple of cameras just because of that. For pure photography, the limitation is not the camera system, and if you just want smaller size of course Sony has better solution today but with limited, but quite capable lenses. But if you can live with Canon camera sizes, there is almost nothing that Sony can do and Canon can't.
--
Regards, K
www.kaisernchen.com
Loading…
www.kaisernchen.com
NC_Glider
Forum Enthusiast
Yes I have advice to Canon: come out with a mirroless full frame camera compatible with all lenses. Call it the 5d4m and price it below $2k. That's my advice. Canon, stop dropping the ball, be inovative again.
TonyGamble
Senior Member
"good thing you answered for him. he's probably happy you saved him the trouble of replying himself."
Don't worry. He seems to have moved on anyway.
Tony
Don't worry. He seems to have moved on anyway.
Tony
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum