Should I move away from Canon, and if yes how is the Sony eco-system for someone who is on a budget?

[Sujai Agnelo]

Hi,

I am an avid wildlife photography enthusiast who dabbles in event photography to earn a few bucks. I currently have a 600d + Canon 50mm 1.8 + Canon 24 mm + Canon 18-135 + Sigma 150-600 + Tamron 70-300. I have been wanting to upgrade for some time now. Canon has disappointed with the launch of only entry level cameras. There is no clarity on the 7d Mark iii either. Should I still wait on Canon or should I look at Sony, something like the recently launched A7 III and get myself a MC 11 converter to use the current line up of EF mont lenses? Trying to keep the cost low. Sony telephoto lenses are expensive and hence would rely on third party. Thanking you in advance for your time.

 

[golfhov]

Hi,

I am an avid wildlife photography enthusiast who dabbles in event photography to earn a few bucks. I currently have a 600d + Canon 50mm 1.8 + Canon 24 mm + Canon 18-135 + Sigma 150-600 + Tamron 70-300. I have been wanting to upgrade for some time now. Canon has disappointed with the launch of only entry level cameras.

I do not know if that is a fair comment. How about the 5div?

There is no clarity on the 7d Mark iii either.

what about a 7dii? or an 80d?

Should I still wait on Canon

are you being held back currently? If not, then just wait.

or should I look at Sony, something like the recently launched A7 III and get myself a MC 11 converter to use the current line up of EF mont lenses?

Well you have to wait here because the camera will not be available for a month. At least..........In the meantime you can read about it. Even if the adapted lenses work PERFECTLY(I will come back to this****) you may miss the "reach" of your crop camera a bit

Trying to keep the cost low.

If you want AF and to keep costs low then APSC dslrs are the sweet spot for most uses. Going FF DSLR will cost more usually and FF mirrorless even more

Sony telephoto lenses are expensive

yup. You already seem to think Canon lenses are and they are less expensive than Sony

and hence would rely on third party.

Coming back to adapted lenses. It is a long conversation with multiple variables. The particular body you are looking (the a7iii) with a metabones or sigma mc11 adapter seems to offer pretty decent AF. These are early trials so i would just monitor it. I am going to assume that the performance will come in somewhere near the last two bodies which are immensely usable BUT not as good as using them on good Canon bodies or using native. There are actually a handful of Canon lenses that focus better on Sony bodies but that is the exception. Even the adapted would be a big step up from your current setup in AF

Thanking you in advance for yoTur time.

good luck in whatever you choose. I think if frugality is important an 80D or 7dii would probably be more practical

 

[Vlad K]

You might definitely consider a7, but try it in your hand before you buy it. I borrowed a7rIII yesterday, and while this is very capable camera, I will stay with 5D.

SONY ergonomics makes me nuts. I could get a grip add-on to position pinky properly, but the razor between the camera grip and 24-105 is so thin I just can't avoid rubbing my distal joints all the time. It becomes boring after just few minutes. May be, I manage to adjust my hand positioning, but honestly, I can't get why SONY could not shape the body properly. Any entry level DSLR is much more comfortable to hold, IMHO.

 

[mjc1]

The first question almost all of these treads generates is "what do you want to do that your current camera can't do?" The 600D is what, about 6-7 years old? I would think any of Canon's newer offerings would be a pretty big step up in terms of features and image quality, easily noticeable right away in many situations. So besides determining what it is your camera can't do that you want, what is it that newer Canon's can't do that you would want?

It sounds like you are on somewhat of a budget (as am I) and you have a good chunk of change wrapped up in Canon, so my first instinct would be to stay with Canon until the benefits of moving outweigh the negatives. Sony makes perfectly good cameras, and you probably could find one you are very happy with, but changing systems almost always comes at a cost financially and I don't know how seamlessly adapting the Canon lenses actually is, never done it and hear differing stories, but my gut says Canon lenses generally would work better on Canon bodies, but again, I have no experience with that. Only you know your finances well enough to know how many hundreds of dollars a 1%, or 2%, or 5% or 0% increase in final image quality is worth (and if improved final image quality is even something that you are aiming for).

 

[osv]

Hi,

I am an avid wildlife photography enthusiast who dabbles in event photography to earn a few bucks. I currently have a 600d + Canon 50mm 1.8 + Canon 24 mm + Canon 18-135 + Sigma 150-600 + Tamron 70-300. I have been wanting to upgrade for some time now. Canon has disappointed with the launch of only entry level cameras.

i don't understand why canon is doing that, but it's costing them customers.

the 6dmk2 is only $100 cheaper than the upcoming a7iii? so buying sony there is a no-brainer.

There is no clarity on the 7d Mark iii either. Should I still wait on Canon or should I look at Sony, something like the recently launched A7 III and get myself a MC 11 converter to use the current line up of EF mont lenses? Trying to keep the cost low. Sony telephoto lenses are expensive and hence would rely on third party. Thanking you in advance for your time.

i would rent the a7iii when it becomes available, along with an mc-11 and a metabones adapter.

see how it works with your gear... i have a tamron 150-600/laea3 combo that rocks on the a9, and an mc-11/tamron 45/1.8 that also works well on the a9.

the a7iii af won't quite be on a par with the a9 af, but i would definitely evaluate the a7iii.

--
dan

 

[Sujai Agnelo]

Thank you so much for taking the time out. The problem with my current 600d is that it has started acting up a bit. ISO behaves weirdly at times and the focus turns soft too, the service centre couldn’t help much too. I rent equipment. But when it comes to doing that on a regular basis it punches the pocket. I agree that canon lenses would work best for Canon and that makes sense. The only reason why I was keen on the 7d Mark iii was assuming that it would come as an upgrade (a touch screen with swivel and better dynamic would have been great). But then again the 7d Mark ii is great the way it is too. I just used it a couple of days back and it came good for the trip.

Either way. I think I’ll wait for a couple of months then.

Once again. Thank you for your time.

 

[Lenshoodie]

The first question almost all of these treads generates is "what do you want to do that your current camera can't do?" The 600D is what, about 6-7 years old? I would think any of Canon's newer offerings would be a pretty big step up in terms of features and image quality, easily noticeable right away in many situations. So besides determining what it is your camera can't do that you want, what is it that newer Canon's can't do that you would want?

It sounds as if careful research is needed to see what advantages a newer Canon crop sensor body would bring. The 7Dii is well thought-of for wildlife.

It sounds like you are on somewhat of a budget (as am I) and you have a good chunk of change wrapped up in Canon, so my first instinct would be to stay with Canon until the benefits of moving outweigh the negatives.

This is one of the main arguments against changing your system. The money 'saved' by not changing would buy a good Canon body.

Sony makes perfectly good cameras, and you probably could find one you are very happy with, but changing systems almost always comes at a cost financially and I don't know how seamlessly adapting the Canon lenses actually is, never done it and hear differing stories, but my gut says Canon lenses generally would work better on Canon bodies, but again, I have no experience with that.

My gut instinct is the same.

Only you know your finances well enough to know how many hundreds of dollars a 1%, or 2%, or 5% or 0% increase in final image quality is worth (and if improved final image quality is even something that you are aiming for).

As in my first point, research is needed.

 

[Sujai Agnelo]

True. I have decent sized hands, and the Sony set up looks difficult to handle visually. I haven’t tried any Sony mirrorless body yet. So that’s a completely new thing for me. I was just reading the specs and was pleasantly surprised.

I agree with you, in fact I suggest that to friends haggling between a canon add a Nikon too. You’ve got to hold the camera in your hand.

 

[Sujai Agnelo]

That is the reason why I have been postponing my purchase since the past year and a half. I think I’ll stick to crop on Canon since I already have decent glass, but if I am shifting to Sony and have to start all over, I might go full frame.

As of now 7d Mark ii looks like a very good fit.

 

[Sujai Agnelo]

Thank you. Yes the 7d Mark ii looks perfect as of now.

 

[Tim Reidy Productions]

If you want to be frugal right now stay with canon, next year if you are unhappy you could always sell gear and go elsewhere.

 

[beagle1]

Thank you. Yes the 7d Mark ii looks perfect as of now.

7D2 or 80D are good

if you want to try sony first rent or borrow or join a local photo club before buying.

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Sujai Agnelo]

Makes sense. Thank you.

 

[arunBarnard]

the a7iii af won't quite be on a par with the a9 af, but i would definitely evaluate the a7iii.

I'm sure the autofocus will be pretty damn close to the A9.

 

[osv]

the a7iii af won't quite be on a par with the a9 af, but i would definitely evaluate the a7iii.

I'm sure the autofocus will be pretty damn close to the A9.

i'm sure that it'll work really well, the problem is that the a7iii doesn't have the sensor readout technology that the a9 has... that's why the a9 costs so much more.

specifically, the a9 can do up to 60 af/ae calcs a second, while the a7iii is limited to something like 20 af/ae calcs or less.

 

[MarshallG]

Many photographers have consistently noted that Canon produces much more pleasing skin tones than Sony and Nikon cameras. Of course you can correct skin tones in post, but if you shoot an event and cull our 150 photos, you’re going to have a lot of extra work to do. This matters to me, but it might not to you.

 

[osv]

most people choose sony skin colors over both canon and nikon:

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/919...tout-sony-a9-vs-canon-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5

--
dan

 

[beagle1]

most people choose sony skin colors over both canon and nikon:

h-vs-nikon-d5

--
dan

the "shoot out" .... LOL !

'fake news' ....or delusional ....... !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless