hungrylau
Veteran Member
No, the images from the Canon mirrorless setup look great. I think you are best waiting for another two generations before moving though. Hopefully they add all the features that they should have added at the first instance.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thinking about leaving FE for RF... am I nuts?
- Thread starter sportyaccordy
- Start date
M
mcslsk
Guest
I am around - but not proud, only hopeful that Sony might fix it as it seems fixable in firmware.And let's not forget about the dreaded polygon/banding/posterisation issue:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4400071
I now confirm it does in fact exist, though rarely, only under certain conditions, on light coloured backgrounds and surfaces, and only with some lenses
Mcslsk would be proud if he was around
M
mcslsk
Guest
As you know, I made the move (but to the R, not to the RF). Lens wise, I was in a very similar situation. I find the R to be a very good camera addressing more of my needs than the a7M3. But owning good EF lenses makes it possible to switch between worlds
Lol,I am around - but not proud, only hopeful that Sony might fix it as it seems fixable in firmware.And let's not forget about the dreaded polygon/banding/posterisation issue:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4400071
I now confirm it does in fact exist, though rarely, only under certain conditions, on light coloured backgrounds and surfaces, and only with some lenses
Mcslsk would be proud if he was around
Well at least I'm now acknowledging the issue exists in correctly exposed images (albeit under certain circumstances and conditions)
It still isn't an issue for me, but might be in the near future because I'm buying another Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm, which you reported is one of the lenses which shows the issue.
I'll soon find out.
Den
Last edited:
Canon has even worse 3rd party vendor support. Sony has opened up its specs to Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss and maybe Samyang.
If you're are arguing that there are EF lenses, then Sony is pretty well supported with A-mount lenses that work on the LA-EA3 adapter.
AF with native lenses has been good since the Sony A7R II for anything outside of fast action. It's not Sony's responsibility or goal to support Canon lenses. The LA-EA3 adapter is also very usable for a-mount.
You keep complaining about lens prices but that's not true anymore. Lots of good affordable options new from Sony, Tamron, Samyang, and Sigma. I don't think a brand new Sony lineup is meaningfully more expensive than Canon. I'd say it's probably within 20% if you're focused on the affordable options.
If you hate new prices, buy used...it's not sony's fault that people value the lenses more than their canon equivalents...
If you really want to keep using DSLR lenses, you're not truly going to RF either.
I agree with this. Just bought an A6400 - FE mount lenses are oversized for it. Not sure I'll keep.
That's harsh...my take is you should switch. You obviously don't like the Sony system and it sounds like your mind is made up - I don't expect anyone here to actually change it. Why waste your mental energies and time on railing against Sony when you can spend more time on photography or enjoying your gear?
Last edited:
CanonSharpShooter
Forum Enthusiast
Canon's new RF mount is the future and you definitely want to be apart of it. Don't be left behind. You had your fun with Sony now to continue your photographic journey with Canon. At the end of the day it's the photos that counts, so you must go with Canon. When you're with Sony it seems like you're all concern with other bands gear so you're distracted from true photography. Leave Sony so you may focus on photography. Live in peace and dump Sony, less distraction from your main purpose with all the gear you have. Get out and take pictures with Canon!
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
[No message]
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Really shocking issue - visible only in low contrast situations (usually need some under exposure to show up in foggy or whiteout winter images - take lots of such images - and when exposing properly the issue is gone). Seems like the issue is less pronounced with the A7III + 24-105 G and new software (this is the worst case lens).And let's not forget about the dreaded polygon/banding/posterisation issue:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4400071
I now confirm it does in fact exist, though rarely, only under certain conditions, on light coloured backgrounds and surfaces, and only with some lenses
Note that this issue is image format dependent, JPG, compressed RAW and RAW differ.
Could also mention color shift, different varieties, and the dominating one channel color shift in severely under exposed images. And then some.
The interesting part is that Sony image quality has improved steadily over time.
Sony will - slooowly - fix this.I am around - but not proud, only hopeful that Sony might fix it as it seems fixable in firmware.Mcslsk would be proud if he was around
Have been shooting Canon and Sony for a quite while (simplifying and getting rid of the Canon cameras now). If you believe Canon files are perfect then you are victim to some serious misconceptions. Better in some ways, worse in others - for real life use it all boils down to just different...
If you fancy Canon, go for it. If that please then nothing is better. ;-)
In my case Canon just slipped away. :-D
M
mcslsk
Guest
Canon is not perfect. No camera is. But there should not be artifacts in RAW images introduced by some strange correction that cannot be disabled.Really shocking issue - visible only in low contrast situations (usually need some under exposure to show up in foggy or whiteout winter images - take lots of such images - and when exposing properly the issue is gone). Seems like the issue is less pronounced with the A7III + 24-105 G and new software (this is the worst case lens).And let's not forget about the dreaded polygon/banding/posterisation issue:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4400071
I now confirm it does in fact exist, though rarely, only under certain conditions, on light coloured backgrounds and surfaces, and only with some lenses
Note that this issue is image format dependent, JPG, compressed RAW and RAW differ.
Could also mention color shift, different varieties, and the dominating one channel color shift in severely under exposed images. And then some.
The interesting part is that Sony image quality has improved steadily over time.
Sony will - slooowly - fix this.I am around - but not proud, only hopeful that Sony might fix it as it seems fixable in firmware.Mcslsk would be proud if he was around
Have been shooting Canon and Sony for a quite while (simplifying and getting rid of the Canon cameras now). If you believe Canon files are perfect then you are victim to some serious misconceptions. Better in some ways, worse in others - for real life use it all boils down to just different...
sportyaccordy
Veteran Member
My MB4 works exactly the same as the LA-EA3- that was Metabones' "in" to make the adapter. It works well enough for single shots, but for video and continuous shooting it's useless. LA-EA3 is no better 7 years later, so I wouldn't call it very usable.
For the lenses I use, not really. Still no 3rd party 24-70 or 70-200 2.8s. My Sigma ART is the closest thing to a high value 35, and even it is more expensive than its SLR equivalent.
I wanted to see if anybody switched and had a bad experience. Seems like that's not the case.
juanmaasecas
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,635
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,268
M
mcslsk
Guest
Indeed. AF on the R is fast and accurate. a7xxx may be a bit faster on moving subjects, though.
Probably because those of us who would have had a bad experience didn't switch.
You're not nuts. I'm going through a similar process but with my A7R3 and the couple of FE lenses I've purchased. Just got through dumping my A7S2 in favor of pursuing other video options better suited for the way I shoot video. The A7R3 is a great camera but the output I get for what and how I shoot looks better for the most part using my Canon FF bodies and lenses. Might reconsider the Sony route later if they get their color science straightened out among some other aspects but after going through three FF Sony bodies and finding the user experience less than satisfying, I will wait a while and see what they and others come with in the next year or so.
J
jay-A
Guest
Funny irony or childish trolling? I'm hesitating here.
CanonSharpShooter
Forum Enthusiast
People who don't take enough pictures usually don't know what they want in a camera. The folks who are all caught up on specs, name and what's new are always asking for others what gear they should get.
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Seems like he is serious. After all skill and experience is in vain without a Canon. We all know that beeing a good photographer is camera brand dependent!
Have had some luck with my Sony cameras but that is against all odds! :-D
Sportyaccordy's posting history seems to represent a reasonable level of product knowledge, I was just surprised seeing the subject and question of this thread.
Den
CanonSharpShooter
Forum Enthusiast
I'm dead serious, this is a matter of extreme importance for the OP. Taking beautiful photos is only possible with the right gear.
I think you’re wrong about the la-ea3 adapter https://briansmith.com/sony-a-mount-lens-sony-a7rii-guide/
have you actually tried it? I haven’t admittedly but I don’t adapt lenses anymore and I don’t use the A7r ii anymore.
Again that’s not Sony’s fault, ball is in sigma’s and tamron’s court. How many 3rd party native eos R zooms are there? Yes you can adapt but that’s not really the same.
Just switch already!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum