Poll Time! Will you buy the R Locked

jlabelle wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

diness wrote:

You guys are just misunderstanding each other. Keith is talking about the 5d4 not the EOS R. The 5d4 does have better weather sealing than the A7iii, has a larger lens lineup, and has lots of third part lenses as well. I get that you are looking at the RF system, but he is not.

Nail on the head, though I guess I don't believe I'm being misunderstood. Maybe I am, and if so that's cool, happens all of the time.

ah...yeah, the 5d mk IV may have better weather sealing than the A7III. That may be true.

maybe huh?

But no, obviously, even the 5dmk IV does not have a better line up as Sony as Sony can adapt every single Canon lens, with no disadvantage in term of weight and bulk and still AF performance as good or better than on the Canon.

Interesting, you've tested every Canon lens on every Sony camera then eh? With much better results than the combinations that I've tested.

Anyway, I have been a 12 years Canon shooter, had 1d mk III, 5d mk II, most of their best lenses (17 TSE, 85L, 135L, 70-200L...) and obviously have friends with the most recent iteration (5D mk III, IV...). So, the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Correct, people have different shooting styles, different needs, different priorities, different hands, different brains....as shocking as that might seem.

When I switched, I switched to Sony for the A7R. The AF tracking was just at 5dII level and nowhere near the 5d III or IV level but the eye-AF and accuracy were great to have.

I shot the 5d2 and the a7r, what do you mean about this? With Canon lenses or Sony native? You seem to be making the argument that Sony is the best thing ever in part because it can use Canon lenses, but the a7r was rather unreliable at best with Canon lenses...most of my lenses didn't AF at all. With native lenses that's obviously a very different discussion.

Eye-AF seems like a really cool feature, btw.

It had many other compelling reasons that made it a better choice for me (eye-AF, much smaller, much ligher, terrific IQ, EVF...). But today, with the A7R III and A7 III, it is quite universally recognize that those are factually better bodies than the 5DS and IV.

Again, better for who? You seem to assume a spec sheet and a DR test are the sole measure of what makes a good or bad body for a photographer. Not sure if it's just that since you like yours you are ok with that, or if it's purchase justification? Pretty sure I can tell which is the "better" body for me and my uses.

They are universally factually better, except when they are not.

It does not mean that you cannot prefer Canon because you are used to it or you are invested in their ecosystem or whatever good reason you may have. But stating that the body is better or you have more lens selection is not one of them.

I'm stating that the body is better for my uses. You seem to take massive exception to the idea that literally anyone would disagree with your love of Sony bodies. I also never stated "more lens selection", I stated that it has a massive lens line-up, and yes there are still trade offs using adapted lenses, just as loss of weather sealing. This will also hold true for the R series, btw.

Thanks for trying to tell me what is and isn't ok for me to think, btw...interesting approach.