Does Canon have an answer to the Sony A7mk3?

Jonneymendoza2

Senior Member
Messages
1,099
Reaction score
575
Now that the Sony camera is announced with a ton of info about it. The price point is shockingly low for what you get for a camera.

it IMO offers more value then even the 5d4 let alone the 6d2.

i think for canon to compete with that, they need to release a mirrorless version of a 5d4 at that same price point as a a7mk3.

thoughts?
 
Now that the Sony camera is announced with a ton of info about it. The price point is shockingly low for what you get for a camera.

it IMO offers more value then even the 5d4 let alone the 6d2.

i think for canon to compete with that, they need to release a mirrorless version of a 5d4 at that same price point as a a7mk3.

thoughts?
I don't think Canon should be worried about one camera, but several Sony FF mirrorless cameras. There is an exodus of people with Canon lenses that are going over to Sony due to the availability of lens adapters.
It's not an exodus.
Correct. There is no exodus from Canon to Sony. That is a myth.

And the value proposition of the Sony is not so great when one takes into account the lesser build quality. I've seen a lot of gadgets with long spec sheets but that lack reliability and usability. Sony cameras tend to fit that description and hence aren't so great. Sony's look best when one is just reading about them and not using them.
I'm going to agree with you on this one to an extent. The upper-end Canon bodies are built extremely well and much more weather resistant than Sony. If you're only a fair weather photographer it's not a big deal. But if shooting in any kind of inclement weather, Canon all the way.
 
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128728392@N05/albums/72157648429825829
How do DSLR shooters set up the exposure beforehand? Do they have to take a few photos to make it right first? I'd love to be educated on this matter.
Kind of like the kid that doesn't know how to drive a stick shift, they never understand the relation the gearbox has with the engine.
Like most people in america? lol
Can't get a manual in a Ferrari or any of the AMG Mercedes and the 911 series offers but one model with a stick (one of the 911 GT3 variants). Just sayin'.....

However, being a geezerly carguy, everyone should know how to drive a manual transmissioned car. ;-)
I kind of agree with you on that. In fact I maintain everyone should know how to use a starting handle. ;-)

Having said that, and getting back to cameras, how much should people be expected to know the background theory? Is it that useful? I'm of the opinion that it is, but my justification is that I went through the effort of learning it so everyone else damn well should too! :-D

But I totally accept that someone doesn't need to know how a refrigerator works to use one, or to use most other modern pieces of equipment either come to that.

And I have to say that some of the most talented photographers I ever met in my career knew very little about the theories of photography. But what they had learned, or were born with, was the ability to 'see' a picture and in some cases also a great sense of timing. An assistant (or even the P Mode) could sort out the rest.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know if there are any stats out there showing the number of new users starting out with Canon vs Sony vs Nikon? I know Canon still has a foothold on the existing market (Sony is gaining ground), but if they are not attracting new users then they're not going to survive. 20 somethings today are lazy and reliant on technology for everything, I would have to imagine the usability factor of Sony would be more appealing. Could be wrong though.
 
Does anyone know if there are any stats out there showing the number of new users starting out with Canon vs Sony vs Nikon? I know Canon still has a foothold on the existing market (Sony is gaining ground), but if they are not attracting new users then they're not going to survive. 20 somethings today are lazy and reliant on technology for everything, I would have to imagine the usability factor of Sony would be more appealing. Could be wrong though.
The camera manufacturers have their own data but such data is not generally available.

However none of the camera companies are attracting as many new (younger) users as they would like. There are various theories as to why this should be and I'm sure most of these have been kicked around to death on this and similar forums. But one of the favourites is, of course, the transition to camera phones.

As a result of this the average age of photographers is increasing which is not a good sign for the long term health of the camera industry, or for those people who are interested in photography using cameras as opposed to camera phones.
 
Canon is almost def going to rollout a FF mirrorless before long. Several articles have come out the past couple days to verify that. I know there has been rumors for a bit, but they surveyed their pros as to what they would want in a FF mirrorless and corporate...maybe the CEO made some formal statements to indicate that they can no longer put off entering the mirrorless emerging market out if concerns of canabalization. With the power and money behind Canon, as well as previous camera debuts, we all know its in the cards that they do something industry changing with a single release. Time will tell. Ill likely habe Canon glass when it happens ;)
Exactly! Rumor says this fall. I don't think Canon will miss the trend to go mirrorless. They have tested it in APS-C and it has turned out well with the latest models after some mediocre ones in the beginning. So now they know how to do it. The dual pixel sensor is perfect for mirrorless. They know how to do an ergonomically good camera. Sony has showed that it's possible to sell FF mirrorless also with bad ergonomic design and too few lenses. Canon will not do that, they will introduce a fully developed FF mirrorless that can use all those fantastic L lenses but also a new line that takes advantage of the shorter flange distance.

I have a strong feeling this will happen and that's why I decided to get rid of my Olympus m4/3 gear before it's too late and get my self a Canon FF setup with some nice used L zooms (And a 5D2 to have something to begin with).
 
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.
 
Now that the Sony camera is announced with a ton of info about it. The price point is shockingly low for what you get for a camera.

it IMO offers more value then even the 5d4 let alone the 6d2.

i think for canon to compete with that, they need to release a mirrorless version of a 5d4 at that same price point as a a7mk3.

thoughts?
I don't think Canon should be worried about one camera, but several Sony FF mirrorless cameras. There is an exodus of people with Canon lenses that are going over to Sony due to the availability of lens adapters.
Lens adapters? Haven't you seen the performance limitations using adapters. If you can live with that...
 
Canon is almost def going to rollout a FF mirrorless before long. Several articles have come out the past couple days to verify that. I know there has been rumors for a bit, but they surveyed their pros as to what they would want in a FF mirrorless and corporate...maybe the CEO made some formal statements to indicate that they can no longer put off entering the mirrorless emerging market out if concerns of canabalization. With the power and money behind Canon, as well as previous camera debuts, we all know its in the cards that they do something industry changing with a single release. Time will tell. Ill likely habe Canon glass when it happens ;)
Exactly! Rumor says this fall. I don't think Canon will miss the trend to go mirrorless. They have tested it in APS-C and it has turned out well with the latest models after some mediocre ones in the beginning. So now they know how to do it. The dual pixel sensor is perfect for mirrorless. They know how to do an ergonomically good camera. Sony has showed that it's possible to sell FF mirrorless also with bad ergonomic design and too few lenses. Canon will not do that, they will introduce a fully developed FF mirrorless that can use all those fantastic L lenses but also a new line that takes advantage of the shorter flange distance.

I have a strong feeling this will happen and that's why I decided to get rid of my Olympus m4/3 gear before it's too late and get my self a Canon FF setup with some nice used L zooms (And a 5D2 to have something to begin with).
 
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.
 
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.
 
This sort of question comes up with every new Sony model, and the answer is the same: Canon follows their own path. In the meantime Sony users buy Canon lenses to put on their shiny new cameras, guess who makes more money and leads the market, which one's execs must be addicted to pepto bismol (hint: not Sony). Sony probably hasn't killed off its photo division because they sell sensors to others, particularly for phones.
 
Now that the Sony camera is announced with a ton of info about it. The price point is shockingly low for what you get for a camera.

it IMO offers more value then even the 5d4 let alone the 6d2.

i think for canon to compete with that, they need to release a mirrorless version of a 5d4 at that same price point as a a7mk3.

thoughts?
Canon's answer is what Canon offers. If you prefer what Sony offers, buy Sony. Come next round, that may be exactly what I do -- Sony's on a roll, for sure! Having just got the 6D2 for $1280 after tax, I'm gonna play with that for at least a year before I do anything drastic, though. Maybe Canon will do something I like in the meantime, and maybe they won't. Time will tell!
In this context, I don't think that's how most folks on DPR use the term "answer". Let's just say Canon's answer is the wrong answer for the OP and many others. :)
 
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.
 
Can you elaborate what mirrored camera technically cannot do? You just lift the mirror, add a hybrid VF, and you're good to go....
Seeing your photo before you even capture it...
What are you talking about when I look through OVF I see the image I am going to take.

--
Don Lacy
https://500px.com/lacy
http://www.witnessnature.net
I guess you are pretending that you don't get what I was talking about... Fine, we are in different worlds then. Peace :)
If you are shooting RAW, you are not seeing the image you will take because the RAW is not an image. If you are shooting JPEG, you are seeing a caricature of your image: 90's resolution, low DR, different colors, etc.
You’re being pedantic. There’s no denying the WYSIWYG benefit of the EVF.
I don't suppose lovers of one will ever agree with lovers of the other.

However I use both although I'm not sure the theory of WYSIWYG with an EVF really compensates for the reality of an OVF. It's like the difference between looking through the window of your hotel at a tropical lagoon and looking at a video of what you saw. It may be a great video but it's still one step away from being there.
LOL... “Theory?!?” Okay, if you say so ;)
But at the end of the day most of us will use what we like, or more likely what we're forced to use by whatever the manufacturers happen to offer us.
 
Can you elaborate what mirrored camera technically cannot do? You just lift the mirror, add a hybrid VF, and you're good to go....
Seeing your photo before you even capture it...
What are you talking about when I look through OVF I see the image I am going to take.

--
Don Lacy
https://500px.com/lacy
http://www.witnessnature.net
I guess you are pretending that you don't get what I was talking about... Fine, we are in different worlds then. Peace :)
If you are shooting RAW, you are not seeing the image you will take because the RAW is not an image. If you are shooting JPEG, you are seeing a caricature of your image: 90's resolution, low DR, different colors, etc.
You’re being pedantic. There’s no denying the WYSIWYG benefit of the EVF.
I don't suppose lovers of one will ever agree with lovers of the other.

However I use both although I'm not sure the theory of WYSIWYG with an EVF really compensates for the reality of an OVF. It's like the difference between looking through the window of your hotel at a tropical lagoon and looking at a video of what you saw. It may be a great video but it's still one step away from being there.
LOL... “Theory?!?” Okay, if you say so ;)
Only because WYSIWYG with an EVF isn't exactly what you get. A reasonable approximation perhaps depending on the quality of the EVF but still only an approximation.

Which is why some people prefer an OVF and rely on their brains and / or experience to judge what they are going to get.

Anyway there is no right or wrong - just what you prefer, or get given.
But at the end of the day most of us will use what we like, or more likely what we're forced to use by whatever the manufacturers happen to offer us.
 
Last edited:
If you're a "Say Cheeze" kind of shooter, that's a nice feature, as you have time to play with your exposure and your subjects play along with you.

However, it's of little use once the action hits the fan... for action shooters with exposure already set. No time to fiddle with settings once things start to roll.
 
Agreed, folk are always claiming that lots of people are changing to Sony. Such claims are never backed it up with numbers, or the mention those who tried Sony and went back to Canon or NIkon etc.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top