Sony to Canon?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
ajamils1
OP ajamils1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,044
Re: Collecting vs consolidating

Andy David wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

For me I actually don't want to keep the Sony system, only because of the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander primes so I will keep one. after 6 long years I still don[t care for the Sony ergo, even with the 7rIV. but have to say Sony sensor is top notch so I will put up with it for now. actually I am seriously thinking to get a Z7 II so I can use those E-mount lenses on it and get rid of the 7r IV.

Multi-system does not work for me. I tried it before and I just get confusing as to what t take on trips and where to spend money. Not to mention the extra amount of money tied up.

As for Sony system, I agree with you. having owned A7, A7II, A7rII, A7rIII, A9 and A9II, I never felt completely happy with the camera bodies. In contrast, I tried Z7 for few weeks and loved the ergos, menus and touchscreen operations but at that point the AF wasn't up to task and lenses were not available so I never switched.

Assuming the Z7II AF has improved, I like your idea about using it for E-mount lenses but then again, you are investing in multiple systems.

I've hit the point where I no longer see the benefit of collecting different types of cameras. They depreciate over time, and I've lost a lot of money on cameras I rarely used.

Its the reason I bought the R5. It does everything well and there are many used EF lens that work with it if I need them. I was able to sell my other cameras, but an 'expensive' R5 and I still had a lot of money left over. I sold my lenses, some duplicates (a couple kit lenses needed for each extra body), and I have even more left over.

I kept a 70-200 EF lens, bought a 24-105, and ordered an 85 macro. That is enough for me instead of the 7 or 8 lenses I had before.

And I can still do more that I could before and I have the one body that felt the best in my hands.

Totally agree with you. I've been guilty of lens hording. Whenever I switched systems, I started with couple of lenses but soon I ended up with too many lenses which were never used.

This time I'm planning on just sticking with R5, 24-240, 85 and maybe one long zoom for wildlife.

 ajamils1's gear list:ajamils1's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM +2 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: Collecting vs consolidating

ajamils1 wrote:

Andy David wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

For me I actually don't want to keep the Sony system, only because of the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander primes so I will keep one. after 6 long years I still don[t care for the Sony ergo, even with the 7rIV. but have to say Sony sensor is top notch so I will put up with it for now. actually I am seriously thinking to get a Z7 II so I can use those E-mount lenses on it and get rid of the 7r IV.

Multi-system does not work for me. I tried it before and I just get confusing as to what t take on trips and where to spend money. Not to mention the extra amount of money tied up.

As for Sony system, I agree with you. having owned A7, A7II, A7rII, A7rIII, A9 and A9II, I never felt completely happy with the camera bodies. In contrast, I tried Z7 for few weeks and loved the ergos, menus and touchscreen operations but at that point the AF wasn't up to task and lenses were not available so I never switched.

Assuming the Z7II AF has improved, I like your idea about using it for E-mount lenses but then again, you are investing in multiple systems.

I've hit the point where I no longer see the benefit of collecting different types of cameras. They depreciate over time, and I've lost a lot of money on cameras I rarely used.

Its the reason I bought the R5. It does everything well and there are many used EF lens that work with it if I need them. I was able to sell my other cameras, but an 'expensive' R5 and I still had a lot of money left over. I sold my lenses, some duplicates (a couple kit lenses needed for each extra body), and I have even more left over.

I kept a 70-200 EF lens, bought a 24-105, and ordered an 85 macro. That is enough for me instead of the 7 or 8 lenses I had before.

And I can still do more that I could before and I have the one body that felt the best in my hands.

Totally agree with you. I've been guilty of lens hording. Whenever I switched systems, I started with couple of lenses but soon I ended up with too many lenses which were never used.

This time I'm planning on just sticking with R5, 24-240, 85 and maybe one long zoom for wildlife.

Sure sticking with one system is the cheapest and if it does what you need its the best approach to take..

Now that I have considered getting back to Canon as my main system I look at my Sony in a new light. An A7RIII with no grip and the ability to use some smaller size primes (like Loxia or the 35/1.8 or 20/1.8) that share the same mount an an A7RIV with a battery grip and L-bracket that has the large f/2.8 trinity of zooms or a 200-600 is really nice. Even the the new A7C, which I have no plans to buy, is a plus for the system with its small size.

With a Canon EOS R5 as my maine system I feel I will probably shoot Fuji APS-C along with it for its small size and smaller lenses at time when an EOS R5 and 50mm or 85mm f/1.2L is just huge and hard to pack for trip. That is how I got into mirrorless in the beginning. I bought in to that when I only had 5D Mark II or III and L glass and couldn't easily take it on foreign travel when on business where I needed to take a computer. Of course a light kit on a plane is needed less these days for sure.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
lawny13 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,029
Re: Collecting vs consolidating
2

Steve W wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Andy David wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

For me I actually don't want to keep the Sony system, only because of the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander primes so I will keep one. after 6 long years I still don[t care for the Sony ergo, even with the 7rIV. but have to say Sony sensor is top notch so I will put up with it for now. actually I am seriously thinking to get a Z7 II so I can use those E-mount lenses on it and get rid of the 7r IV.

Multi-system does not work for me. I tried it before and I just get confusing as to what t take on trips and where to spend money. Not to mention the extra amount of money tied up.

As for Sony system, I agree with you. having owned A7, A7II, A7rII, A7rIII, A9 and A9II, I never felt completely happy with the camera bodies. In contrast, I tried Z7 for few weeks and loved the ergos, menus and touchscreen operations but at that point the AF wasn't up to task and lenses were not available so I never switched.

Assuming the Z7II AF has improved, I like your idea about using it for E-mount lenses but then again, you are investing in multiple systems.

I've hit the point where I no longer see the benefit of collecting different types of cameras. They depreciate over time, and I've lost a lot of money on cameras I rarely used.

Its the reason I bought the R5. It does everything well and there are many used EF lens that work with it if I need them. I was able to sell my other cameras, but an 'expensive' R5 and I still had a lot of money left over. I sold my lenses, some duplicates (a couple kit lenses needed for each extra body), and I have even more left over.

I kept a 70-200 EF lens, bought a 24-105, and ordered an 85 macro. That is enough for me instead of the 7 or 8 lenses I had before.

And I can still do more that I could before and I have the one body that felt the best in my hands.

Totally agree with you. I've been guilty of lens hording. Whenever I switched systems, I started with couple of lenses but soon I ended up with too many lenses which were never used.

This time I'm planning on just sticking with R5, 24-240, 85 and maybe one long zoom for wildlife.

Sure sticking with one system is the cheapest and if it does what you need its the best approach to take..

Now that I have considered getting back to Canon as my main system I look at my Sony in a new light. An A7RIII with no grip and the ability to use some smaller size primes (like Loxia or the 35/1.8 or 20/1.8) that share the same mount an an A7RIV with a battery grip and L-bracket that has the large f/2.8 trinity of zooms or a 200-600 is really nice. Even the the new A7C, which I have no plans to buy, is a plus for the system with its small size.

With a Canon EOS R5 as my maine system I feel I will probably shoot Fuji APS-C along with it for its small size and smaller lenses at time when an EOS R5 and 50mm or 85mm f/1.2L is just huge and hard to pack for trip. That is how I got into mirrorless in the beginning. I bought in to that when I only had 5D Mark II or III and L glass and couldn't easily take it on foreign travel when on business where I needed to take a computer. Of course a light kit on a plane is needed less these days for sure.

But this is all short term.

I used to own the A7III (A7II before that). I switched to the R because I could see what canon was going to do a mile away (though 8k was a surprise). I had started with nikon, moved to canon, sony and back to canon. Over that long trip money was wasted. I am done with the flip flopping. 
Long term canon will release smaller glass. Just look at the 35, 85, and now the leaked 70-200 f4 and the 50 f1.8. Sure the R felt big in my hand after owning the A7III. But seriously... the R and now the R5 still fit in the same bags I have. Neither fits in a jacket or pocket. So The size of the body I can excuse. I always had a small plate added to the A7III because I really don't like my pinky hanging off.

In sort. Some people do prefer sony, and that is fine for them. Pick a system and stick with it is what I say. Smaller canon lenses will come. I have no doubt sigma and Tamron will release canon RF lenses in the future, and just like we have the Milvus from zeiss for EF mount we will likely see those manual focus lenses in the future for RF as well.

If canon does pull off the crazy rumour of releasing 14 lenses next year.... they will have pretty much covered the whole range of lenses.And they won't all be huge.

RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,202
Re: Collecting vs consolidating

lawny13 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Andy David wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

For me I actually don't want to keep the Sony system, only because of the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander primes so I will keep one. after 6 long years I still don[t care for the Sony ergo, even with the 7rIV. but have to say Sony sensor is top notch so I will put up with it for now. actually I am seriously thinking to get a Z7 II so I can use those E-mount lenses on it and get rid of the 7r IV.

Multi-system does not work for me. I tried it before and I just get confusing as to what t take on trips and where to spend money. Not to mention the extra amount of money tied up.

As for Sony system, I agree with you. having owned A7, A7II, A7rII, A7rIII, A9 and A9II, I never felt completely happy with the camera bodies. In contrast, I tried Z7 for few weeks and loved the ergos, menus and touchscreen operations but at that point the AF wasn't up to task and lenses were not available so I never switched.

Assuming the Z7II AF has improved, I like your idea about using it for E-mount lenses but then again, you are investing in multiple systems.

I've hit the point where I no longer see the benefit of collecting different types of cameras. They depreciate over time, and I've lost a lot of money on cameras I rarely used.

Its the reason I bought the R5. It does everything well and there are many used EF lens that work with it if I need them. I was able to sell my other cameras, but an 'expensive' R5 and I still had a lot of money left over. I sold my lenses, some duplicates (a couple kit lenses needed for each extra body), and I have even more left over.

I kept a 70-200 EF lens, bought a 24-105, and ordered an 85 macro. That is enough for me instead of the 7 or 8 lenses I had before.

And I can still do more that I could before and I have the one body that felt the best in my hands.

Totally agree with you. I've been guilty of lens hording. Whenever I switched systems, I started with couple of lenses but soon I ended up with too many lenses which were never used.

This time I'm planning on just sticking with R5, 24-240, 85 and maybe one long zoom for wildlife.

Sure sticking with one system is the cheapest and if it does what you need its the best approach to take..

Now that I have considered getting back to Canon as my main system I look at my Sony in a new light. An A7RIII with no grip and the ability to use some smaller size primes (like Loxia or the 35/1.8 or 20/1.8) that share the same mount an an A7RIV with a battery grip and L-bracket that has the large f/2.8 trinity of zooms or a 200-600 is really nice. Even the the new A7C, which I have no plans to buy, is a plus for the system with its small size.

With a Canon EOS R5 as my maine system I feel I will probably shoot Fuji APS-C along with it for its small size and smaller lenses at time when an EOS R5 and 50mm or 85mm f/1.2L is just huge and hard to pack for trip. That is how I got into mirrorless in the beginning. I bought in to that when I only had 5D Mark II or III and L glass and couldn't easily take it on foreign travel when on business where I needed to take a computer. Of course a light kit on a plane is needed less these days for sure.

But this is all short term.

I used to own the A7III (A7II before that). I switched to the R because I could see what canon was going to do a mile away (though 8k was a surprise). I had started with nikon, moved to canon, sony and back to canon. Over that long trip money was wasted. I am done with the flip flopping.
Long term canon will release smaller glass. Just look at the 35, 85, and now the leaked 70-200 f4 and the 50 f1.8. Sure the R felt big in my hand after owning the A7III. But seriously... the R and now the R5 still fit in the same bags I have. Neither fits in a jacket or pocket. So The size of the body I can excuse. I always had a small plate added to the A7III because I really don't like my pinky hanging off.

In sort. Some people do prefer sony, and that is fine for them. Pick a system and stick with it is what I say. Smaller canon lenses will come. I have no doubt sigma and Tamron will release canon RF lenses in the future, and just like we have the Milvus from zeiss for EF mount we will likely see those manual focus lenses in the future for RF as well.

If canon does pull off the crazy rumour of releasing 14 lenses next year.... they will have pretty much covered the whole range of lenses.And they won't all be huge.

I began with Nikon in 1970 and stuck with it until 1990 and I saw the Canon USM autofocus in action. I switched to Canon and have stuck with it ever since.  It has not been inexpensive but I have 15 L lenses that work with multiple bodies that I acquire over 40 years with Canon.  Some are upgrade versions of the original and many the are original versions  Over the years I spent far more money on glass than camera bodies.   More than 2X and I have bought in last few years the R5 and 5DIV they were my most expensive bodies.   I have only bought a few RF lenses but some they were as much as the the R and R5 bodies I to go with them.   Money is in the glass and much of the enabling capablities is established by the greatness of the glass.   Canon has always had great glass during my ownership period.   Their glass also has the best colors IMO.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
Andy David New Member • Posts: 18
consolidating vs comprising

I think you gave some good examples of duplicating and compromising.  Why get the Sony if you need the grip?  Without it it, its a compromise.  And if you get the A7R4 then you need a camera with higher frame rates and another for video.  Then you are duplicating lenses.  You'll find yourself with several 24-xx lenses, one for each body.  And when you bring the wrong body you compromise.  Or worse you have that giant bag full of cameras even though you can only use one at a time.

The R5 isn't the smallest camera, but I've got a new smartphone that fits in my pocket that I carry always.  I want a camera like the R5 that isn't a compromise and that does everything I was and does it very well.

With other cameras I feel you'll be tempted to get extra bodies when they come out.  In a year or two you might want to try 8K video.  Or when someone else makes a 40MP camera that shoots 20 FPS you'll be tempted to get one.  Or when others improve their stabilization, it too will be tempting.

I like the idea of being mostly future proof.  Needing only one camera and owning only a few necessary lenses.

RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,202
Re: consolidating vs comprising

Andy David wrote:

I think you gave some good examples of duplicating and compromising. Why get the Sony if you need the grip? Without it it, its a compromise. And if you get the A7R4 then you need a camera with higher frame rates and another for video. Then you are duplicating lenses. You'll find yourself with several 24-xx lenses, one for each body. And when you bring the wrong body you compromise. Or worse you have that giant bag full of cameras even though you can only use one at a time.

The R5 isn't the smallest camera, but I've got a new smartphone that fits in my pocket that I carry always. I want a camera like the R5 that isn't a compromise and that does everything I was and does it very well.

With other cameras I feel you'll be tempted to get extra bodies when they come out. In a year or two you might want to try 8K video. Or when someone else makes a 40MP camera that shoots 20 FPS you'll be tempted to get one. Or when others improve their stabilization, it too will be tempting.

I like the idea of being mostly future proof. Needing only one camera and owning only a few necessary lenses.

A few lenses may be the roughest part with R5.  It does so many things and fits in so many uses.  That is why I bought the 5DIV  and now the R5.  Veratility and taste of the future.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
lawny13 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,029
Re: consolidating vs comprising

Andy David wrote:

I think you gave some good examples of duplicating and compromising. Why get the Sony if you need the grip? Without it it, its a compromise. And if you get the A7R4 then you need a camera with higher frame rates and another for video. Then you are duplicating lenses. You'll find yourself with several 24-xx lenses, one for each body. And when you bring the wrong body you compromise. Or worse you have that giant bag full of cameras even though you can only use one at a time.

The R5 isn't the smallest camera, but I've got a new smartphone that fits in my pocket that I carry always. I want a camera like the R5 that isn't a compromise and that does everything I was and does it very well.

With other cameras I feel you'll be tempted to get extra bodies when they come out. In a year or two you might want to try 8K video. Or when someone else makes a 40MP camera that shoots 20 FPS you'll be tempted to get one. Or when others improve their stabilization, it too will be tempting.

I like the idea of being mostly future proof. Needing only one camera and owning only a few necessary lenses.

I fully agree with you on this.

Though for some I kinda understand why they don't see it like that yet. And I get their point.
The R5 is a great camera, just like you outlined. However, canon still doesn't have a full list of options for lenses for the system, buying new or even used EF glass is something that many won't want to do, and the biggest thing is that canon isn't transparent with respects to their future lens line up.
Though I am one to go oohhh and ahhhh at the f1.2 and f2 primes and zooms, I am also someone who actually prefer good but smallish lenses. I am willing to pay 600-1000 dollars/euros for the likes of a ZA 55 f1.8 or a Z 50 f1.8 over just another nifty fifty. Same goes for a lot of lens choices. Non WR and noisy budget lenses aren't exactly my thing. It is the one thing I liked when I was on sony. though I admit I only owned 1 sony lens. Those zeiss and ZA lenses were NICE!!

That said I am fine with canon releasing budget lenses. Like the 35, isn't my kinda FL but I see its value/use, so I am willing to pay what they ask for it. But as I implied above I would want a more quality 50. So if canon does a nifty fifty then I will be hoping they do a f1.4 50 and am willing to pay for it.

Of course if I take a step back, there are only a hand full of FLs this would fit really. Basically 35, 50, 85, and perhaps a 135. For the rest we have L level options for glass in the f2, f2.8 and f4 fixed apertures which are priced just like they were on EF mount (except the f2s).

Anyway... if canon does release 14 lenses next year the "lack" of lenses would be an issue of the past. And I would expect sigma and tamron to enter sometime as well. I do wish/hope for zeiss to give us some loxia like lenses for RF.

KatManDEW Senior Member • Posts: 2,197
Re: Sony to Canon?

Jeff108 wrote:

Ya I just sold my A7Riv

my first Canon since the film days. I love the R5

pros for Canon: the ergonomics and menus are so much better, it’s quite amazing. I also think the Canon eye AF is better than the Sony

The Sony has better dynamic range and IQ and the camera also allows for much better customization than the Canon

Also I’ve had no buffering issue with the Canon and it’s constantly an issue with the Sony
i also find that the Canon white balance is quite quirky. I shoot raw so it doesn’t matter but It’s a hassle. I’ve owned Nikon, Olympus, Sony and Canon and the Canon white balance is by far the worst

I did read that others have found that issue as well

as far as lens go, I love the RF lenses. I have the 50 1.2 and 24-70. Sony has no answer to the 50 1.2 and the Sony 24-70 GM is inferior

Ive had the Sony A7Rii, A7Riii and A7Riv and they aren’t tough cameras . I shoot primarily portrait and don’t beat up my cameras, but the weather seal stinks and all 3 started having issues after a year

the R5 is new but it just seems so much better built

I haven't actually looked at any dynamic range test results, but I thought the Canon R5 was supposedly finally up to par with Sony?
I just got my R5 two days ago. I'm very impressed with it so far, but I've noticed some white balance issues.

 KatManDEW's gear list:KatManDEW's gear list
Canon EOS 300D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS R +21 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: consolidating vs comprising

Andy David wrote:

I want a camera like the R5 that isn't a compromise and that does everything I was and does it very well.

.........

I like the idea of being mostly future proof. Needing only one camera and owning only a few necessary lenses.

I've been buying this camera every 3-4 years for the last 25 years. I know that someone will always do something that will draw me to thinking that there is something better...
Serious GAS I don't see ending soon with the the introduction of the R5 even thought its a great camera today.

Thanks Andy.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: consolidating vs comprising

RDM5546 wrote:

A few lenses may be the roughest part with R5. It does so many things and fits in so many uses. That is why I bought the 5DIV and now the R5. Versatility and taste of the future.

I hope you are right. That is why I bought my 5DIV.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: consolidating vs comprising

Well for Sigma creating RF mount lenses from L mount versions should be straight forward since the flange's are both 20mm. The L-mount is actually only 51.6 mm vs the 54mm for the RF but I don't believe that is an issue at all (of course I maybe wrong).

I am not worried about the number of lenses. I worry about the two ends of the spectrum Canon is targeting. A great and expensive 50mm f/1.2L  and a 50mm f/1.8 STM I guess  is the latest example and I am sure the same now for the 85mm and will be for 35mm when the L version comes out. I like some others prefer quality and smooth focus and fast, silent, motors but the optics don't all have to be f/1.2 to be useful and easy to carry.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
2ndLook New Member • Posts: 21
Re: Sony to Canon?

I thought I’d share my experience with the R5. I’m coming from a Sony A7R3 which I have been using for about 3 years. Prior to that, I had a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and was with Canon since the early 2000s.

Before I get comments that it is not fair to compare the R5 to the older A7R3 - this is meant to be an honest post of my personal experience with switching back to the Canon system, why I switched back, and the reasons why I moved to Sony after so many years with Canon. As such, I’ve focused on writing about the areas that matter to me as a photographer.

Enjoyment
I’ve had the R5 for about a month now and it’s been a joy to use. Compared to the A7R3, the biggest change I can say is that it feels exciting to take pictures again and not just because it’s a new camera. It’s hard to describe, but it’s the same feeling I had with the 5D Mark series that was always missing from the A7R3, and is probably due to an accumulation of all of the points that I’m about to cover. If I had to sum it up, I would say that the R5 feels like using a creative photography tool whereas the A7R3 feels like using a high tech point and shoot compact.

In use
With the R5, the body/form factor, buttons and menus feels so much more refined, logical and just intuitive to use. Perhaps its because I’ve used Canon for a longer period of my photographic life than Sony, so it’s more hard-wired to my muscle memory, or perhaps it’s because it’s simply a more evolved and battle tested system. I’ve read enough user opinions and reviews to suggest that the latter is more likely.

Whilst the R5 grip does fit like a glove I do miss the smaller size and retro inspired design of the A7R3. For some reason, I could always be more inconspicuous with an A7R3 especially with the 50mm f1.4 PlanarT* (up there with the EF50mm f1.2L as my fav prime lens). People always seemed less bothered about me pulling out an A7R3 from my bag than my 5D Mark IV.

I do miss that the R5 is not as extensively customisable as the A7R3 although Canon has such a great system that arguably it doesn’t need to be as customisable. I also love that Sony’s rear control wheel also works as a directional pad to allow extra functional buttons - the less I have to go into menus the better! I hope Canon adds this at some point!

Speed and responsiveness
Another area that I’ve missed, and a key reason for moving back to Canon, is the overall responsiveness and speed of the R5. Whilst the A7R3 is quick on paper and has a burst rate of 10fps, strangely it just felt more laggy compared to the 5D Mark IV - the write speed and buffer is slow and most importantly, the one shot focus (yes I still use this a lot) is prone to hunting especially in low light and always defocuses before focusing. I believe this is because the Sony system stops down to focus, although I’m sure someone will put me straight on it! I do think the A7R3 is almost a perfect landscape camera, but for low light or street photography, there were frustrations.

With the A7R3 I also missed being able to turn on the power switch and immediately being able to take a shot. Whilst the R5 isn’t as instantaneous as the 5D Mark IV in this regard, its not that far off. With the A7R3, I always had to slow down my shooting to allow the camera to catch up or to ‘think’ - the main culprit was the memory card write times which effectively locked up the camera (I used the super fast SDXC II 300mb cards).

Image Quality
Prior to buying the camera, I would say the biggest area of insecurity with the R5 was image quality. I have always loved that the Canon images had a certain character to them (yes I shoot RAW); images were more contrasty with a tonal range that seemed to look filmic, particularly in regards to skin tones but the high banding when lifting shadows was an annoyance. The Sony on the other hand, is almost technically perfect to the point of being too clinical. The images are flatter which makes the files more pliable especially under low or bad lighting (I rarely shoot with a flash) and I’ve been spoilt by the exposure latitude available. Overall the Sony files allowed me that neutral starting point to get the look I wanted. Once you get used to this level of quality, it’s hard to go back :). Yes the Sony RAW files do look more yellow/green (in both Lightroom and Capture One) vs the more magenta colour of the Canon but it’s such an easy fix nowadays that I don’t find it a big issue. However I would also like to add that I always missed that ‘something’ that I always got from a Canon image.

Having used the R5 for a few weeks, I can say that it strikes a great balance of having that Canon look but with more resolution.

I’ve carried out loads of comparisons of the R5 + RF 50mm f1.2L vs the A7R3 + FE 50mm f1.4 Planar T* Carl Zeiss(call it too much time on my hands during the pandemic!). The R5 has improved drastically in terms of dynamic range vs my old Mark IV and noise is also excellent despite the bump in resolution. However the A7R3 still has slightly less noise in the shadows at high ISO and when shadows are lifted (maybe 1/2 a stop better). Dynamic range is a tough one, they both seem to be pulling back the same detail except in the blacks which are a little more crushed in the R5 files. The A7R3 also retains slightly better colour fidelity when exposure is being pushed - the R5 just shows a little more colour smearing when files are pushed hard, probably due to some noise reduction within the RAW files?  All in all, the margins are so small as to no longer make a difference in real world use, unless of course you like pixel peeping!

It’s been hard to switch to the R5 knowing that the A7R3 is the platinum standard in image quality, but in the end I’ve weighed up the pros and cons and decided that as an overall package, the non-image benefits more than outweigh the negligible difference in sensor quality.

Autofocus
The R5 is excellent at focusing - at least on par with the A7R3. Both cameras seem to nail focus on the eye with the same success rate, however the R5 allows you to intuitively select which eye to focus on - this was always a frustrating limitation of the A7R3 (although you can use certain workaround techniques). The R5 does stick to the eye better e.g. when the subject turns away, and also picks up the eye from a further distance. Both cameras have issues with focusing on the eye in backlit situations and when the subject is extremely close up, but in these instances I just switch to single shot (using my customised shortcuts). I’ve only briefly tested animal eye AF but I need to use it more before I can form a fair opinion on it.

It’s worth noting that the A7R4 has improved upon the AF on the A7R3 so the performance between the A7R series and the R5 is probably awash now.

Wrap up
Incidentally I had been waiting intently for the A7R4 because I had zero faith that the successor to the Canon ROS R would be anything but an exercise in poor incremental design - typical of Canon in the last few years. To my surprise it was the A7R4 that was disappointing, a huge bump in resolution but at the expense of noise and zero gain in speed and buffer. Yes there are some small improvement in autofocus (selectable eye focus) but not enough to warrant an upgrade. The R5 on the other hand, hit that right sweet spot for me (on paper) in terms of resolution, noise and dynamic range so I immediately put my order in. Having used them both side by side for the least few weeks I am now getting ready to sell off my entire Sony system and glass. The biggest negative of this is that I will no longer be using the FE 50mm f1.4 Planar T* which is such an amazing sharp lens with great AI, cheapies and just looks and feels the part.

Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: Sony to Canon?

Pretty extensive review so first, Thank you.

Shot Canon for many years and was always happy with it but until very recently the 5D Mark IV was my last purchase. I don't really count the EOS R I bought and got a bargain basement deal on. With the same sensor as the 5D IV I gave it a try.

Back in 2014 started shooting A7Rs along side my Canon for the resolution, image quality improvements and compatibility to Canon lenses like my T-SE's that didn't support AF. As the Sony's improved up to the A7R III I transitioned over. I really like the capabilities of mirrorless. Also as the Sony glass improved I spent more money on those and as I could get a 70-200mm f2/.8 GM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM and the 200-600mm I also bought into an A9 and sold my 1Dx.

So until the R5 I pretty much consider myself a Sony shooter now but still a major camera nerd that likes to look and try other brands. After all if I didn't I might still be a Pentax shooter that never went to Canon. The same could be said for mirrorless without trying first Fuji and then Sony.

So here's a question. I have always made sure to have two compatible cameras, that shared a mount,  that for weddings (not full time work) or travel I could take both. On Sony, with the A7 RIII and now A7R IV or depending on the even, A9 & A7R III, I have that.

If I switch to an R5 (have one on order but won't come for a while since I waited till mid October to order) what do people suggest? While an R6 may make sense I am not as sure about its lower resolution or even the EOS R. Image quality for the R is fine but too slow to use at events (just my humble opinion) and I have tried it, Ok for a family holiday party but not were quick response is needed like a wedding.

Also have to say, changing topics slightly, that the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZA is a great lens. I love mine. I used to own the older EF 50mm f/1.2L and prefer the Zeiss to that. I know the new RF 50mm f/1.2L is very good but its even bigger and heavier. The two combos differ by a little over 0.55 lbs. Not a lot but ... also admit I love 50mm maybe because I shot only that for 10 years at one stretch where that was all I could afford.

Anyway, all and all both systems have a lot to offer and not matter what you choose you can never blame the bodies or the lenses for not getting  great shot. Since you can't do that any more who do you blame? The boogie man or take a look in the mirror?

Take care all. This is an interesting discussion.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
lawny13 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,029
Re: Sony to Canon?

Steve W wrote:

Pretty extensive review so first, Thank you.

Shot Canon for many years and was always happy with it but until very recently the 5D Mark IV was my last purchase. I don't really count the EOS R I bought and got a bargain basement deal on. With the same sensor as the 5D IV I gave it a try.

Back in 2014 started shooting A7Rs along side my Canon for the resolution, image quality improvements and compatibility to Canon lenses like my T-SE's that didn't support AF. As the Sony's improved up to the A7R III I transitioned over. I really like the capabilities of mirrorless. Also as the Sony glass improved I spent more money on those and as I could get a 70-200mm f2/.8 GM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM and the 200-600mm I also bought into an A9 and sold my 1Dx.

So until the R5 I pretty much consider myself a Sony shooter now but still a major camera nerd that likes to look and try other brands. After all if I didn't I might still be a Pentax shooter that never went to Canon. The same could be said for mirrorless without trying first Fuji and then Sony.

So here's a question. I have always made sure to have two compatible cameras, that shared a mount, that for weddings (not full time work) or travel I could take both. On Sony, with the A7 RIII and now A7R IV or depending on the even, A9 & A7R III, I have that.

If you think you are ok with A9 + A7RIV, then I don't see why you can't basically compare that to having an R5 and R6. In fact just based on the money, the latter combo is actually cheaper than the sony if you had to buy them new today. In fact I would say to just get two R5s and you still end up in the same price point about as the A9/A7RIV, and you won't have to pick and choose speed or resolution.

If I switch to an R5 (have one on order but won't come for a while since I waited till mid October to order) what do people suggest? While an R6 may make sense I am not as sure about its lower resolution or even the EOS R. Image quality for the R is fine but too slow to use at events (just my humble opinion) and I have tried it, Ok for a family holiday party but not were quick response is needed like a wedding.

Also have to say, changing topics slightly, that the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZA is a great lens. I love mine. I used to own the older EF 50mm f/1.2L and prefer the Zeiss to that. I know the new RF 50mm f/1.2L is very good but its even bigger and heavier. The two combos differ by a little over 0.55 lbs. Not a lot but ... also admit I love 50mm maybe because I shot only that for 10 years at one stretch where that was all I could afford.

I agree with you on this point. I really like 50 myself and am willing to pay 1k for a good one. I was a little sad to see what might be another nifty fifty for RF. However if it is sharp and has good contrast wide open I would overlook the fact that it is likely not WR.
In other words, if it optically performs well, why not get it? f1.4 vs f1.8 isn't that big of a deal.

Anyway, all and all both systems have a lot to offer and not matter what you choose you can never blame the bodies or the lenses for not getting great shot. Since you can't do that any more who do you blame? The boogie man or take a look in the mirror?

Take care all. This is an interesting discussion.

Last but not least. I prefer canon. I shot the A7II from a year after it came out, and then the A7III for 3 years before switching back to canon. To me I enjoy shooting canon bodies, while I really only saw my sonys as tools. Its subjective. But besides this... from what you listed as the lenses you have, and the bodies you have, why not just wait?

One you get the R5, shoot it a while, but just stick to your sonys. Wait and see what shakes out from canon. Like that 70-200, or the 100-500 IMHO looks great for travel. And that 50 stm, though no RF 50 f1.2, looks to be quite small. Point is that the rumor has it that canon will release 14 new lenses next year, with a micro and a two tilt shifts among them. Surely you can wait till then to determine if you want to actually switch back. Personally having 2 sonys and 2 canons seems like a waste of money especially if you are going to be doubling up on FLs

RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,202
Re: Sony to Canon?

2ndLook wrote:

I thought I’d share my experience with the R5. I’m coming from a Sony A7R3 which I have been using for about 3 years. Prior to that, I had a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and was with Canon since the early 2000s.

Before I get comments that it is not fair to compare the R5 to the older A7R3 - this is meant to be an honest post of my personal experience with switching back to the Canon system, why I switched back, and the reasons why I moved to Sony after so many years with Canon. As such, I’ve focused on writing about the areas that matter to me as a photographer.

Enjoyment
I’ve had the R5 for about a month now and it’s been a joy to use. Compared to the A7R3, the biggest change I can say is that it feels exciting to take pictures again and not just because it’s a new camera. It’s hard to describe, but it’s the same feeling I had with the 5D Mark series that was always missing from the A7R3, and is probably due to an accumulation of all of the points that I’m about to cover. If I had to sum it up, I would say that the R5 feels like using a creative photography tool whereas the A7R3 feels like using a high tech point and shoot compact.

In use
With the R5, the body/form factor, buttons and menus feels so much more refined, logical and just intuitive to use. Perhaps its because I’ve used Canon for a longer period of my photographic life than Sony, so it’s more hard-wired to my muscle memory, or perhaps it’s because it’s simply a more evolved and battle tested system. I’ve read enough user opinions and reviews to suggest that the latter is more likely.

Whilst the R5 grip does fit like a glove I do miss the smaller size and retro inspired design of the A7R3. For some reason, I could always be more inconspicuous with an A7R3 especially with the 50mm f1.4 PlanarT* (up there with the EF50mm f1.2L as my fav prime lens). People always seemed less bothered about me pulling out an A7R3 from my bag than my 5D Mark IV.

I do miss that the R5 is not as extensively customisable as the A7R3 although Canon has such a great system that arguably it doesn’t need to be as customisable. I also love that Sony’s rear control wheel also works as a directional pad to allow extra functional buttons - the less I have to go into menus the better! I hope Canon adds this at some point!

Speed and responsiveness
Another area that I’ve missed, and a key reason for moving back to Canon, is the overall responsiveness and speed of the R5. Whilst the A7R3 is quick on paper and has a burst rate of 10fps, strangely it just felt more laggy compared to the 5D Mark IV - the write speed and buffer is slow and most importantly, the one shot focus (yes I still use this a lot) is prone to hunting especially in low light and always defocuses before focusing. I believe this is because the Sony system stops down to focus, although I’m sure someone will put me straight on it! I do think the A7R3 is almost a perfect landscape camera, but for low light or street photography, there were frustrations.

With the A7R3 I also missed being able to turn on the power switch and immediately being able to take a shot. Whilst the R5 isn’t as instantaneous as the 5D Mark IV in this regard, its not that far off. With the A7R3, I always had to slow down my shooting to allow the camera to catch up or to ‘think’ - the main culprit was the memory card write times which effectively locked up the camera (I used the super fast SDXC II 300mb cards).

Image Quality
Prior to buying the camera, I would say the biggest area of insecurity with the R5 was image quality. I have always loved that the Canon images had a certain character to them (yes I shoot RAW); images were more contrasty with a tonal range that seemed to look filmic, particularly in regards to skin tones but the high banding when lifting shadows was an annoyance. The Sony on the other hand, is almost technically perfect to the point of being too clinical. The images are flatter which makes the files more pliable especially under low or bad lighting (I rarely shoot with a flash) and I’ve been spoilt by the exposure latitude available. Overall the Sony files allowed me that neutral starting point to get the look I wanted. Once you get used to this level of quality, it’s hard to go back :). Yes the Sony RAW files do look more yellow/green (in both Lightroom and Capture One) vs the more magenta colour of the Canon but it’s such an easy fix nowadays that I don’t find it a big issue. However I would also like to add that I always missed that ‘something’ that I always got from a Canon image.

Having used the R5 for a few weeks, I can say that it strikes a great balance of having that Canon look but with more resolution.

I’ve carried out loads of comparisons of the R5 + RF 50mm f1.2L vs the A7R3 + FE 50mm f1.4 Planar T* Carl Zeiss(call it too much time on my hands during the pandemic!). The R5 has improved drastically in terms of dynamic range vs my old Mark IV and noise is also excellent despite the bump in resolution. However the A7R3 still has slightly less noise in the shadows at high ISO and when shadows are lifted (maybe 1/2 a stop better). Dynamic range is a tough one, they both seem to be pulling back the same detail except in the blacks which are a little more crushed in the R5 files. The A7R3 also retains slightly better colour fidelity when exposure is being pushed - the R5 just shows a little more colour smearing when files are pushed hard, probably due to some noise reduction within the RAW files? All in all, the margins are so small as to no longer make a difference in real world use, unless of course you like pixel peeping!

It’s been hard to switch to the R5 knowing that the A7R3 is the platinum standard in image quality, but in the end I’ve weighed up the pros and cons and decided that as an overall package, the non-image benefits more than outweigh the negligible difference in sensor quality.

Autofocus
The R5 is excellent at focusing - at least on par with the A7R3. Both cameras seem to nail focus on the eye with the same success rate, however the R5 allows you to intuitively select which eye to focus on - this was always a frustrating limitation of the A7R3 (although you can use certain workaround techniques). The R5 does stick to the eye better e.g. when the subject turns away, and also picks up the eye from a further distance. Both cameras have issues with focusing on the eye in backlit situations and when the subject is extremely close up, but in these instances I just switch to single shot (using my customised shortcuts). I’ve only briefly tested animal eye AF but I need to use it more before I can form a fair opinion on it.

It’s worth noting that the A7R4 has improved upon the AF on the A7R3 so the performance between the A7R series and the R5 is probably awash now.

Wrap up
Incidentally I had been waiting intently for the A7R4 because I had zero faith that the successor to the Canon ROS R would be anything but an exercise in poor incremental design - typical of Canon in the last few years. To my surprise it was the A7R4 that was disappointing, a huge bump in resolution but at the expense of noise and zero gain in speed and buffer. Yes there are some small improvement in autofocus (selectable eye focus) but not enough to warrant an upgrade. The R5 on the other hand, hit that right sweet spot for me (on paper) in terms of resolution, noise and dynamic range so I immediately put my order in. Having used them both side by side for the least few weeks I am now getting ready to sell off my entire Sony system and glass. The biggest negative of this is that I will no longer be using the FE 50mm f1.4 Planar T* which is such an amazing sharp lens with great AI, cheapies and just looks and feels the part.

I was looking at the Sony cameras until the R5.   The A9 look ideal but changing would be expensive if I had to switch lenses.   I do several kinds of photography related to my work as engineer and then I have a family with four children to shoot too.     However I learned adapting of EF mount is less than ideal and I have more than 20 great expensive EF lenses.   So I would need at a couple of new expensive lenses at least.   In addition the A9 was not conformatable and the menus were like a foreign language for most the items.    I wanted a high fps and the electronic shutter of the A9 has the least lag because of the ultra fast sensor readout.   My fastest Canon camera is the 7D mkII ATSC with 10fps using the preferred lenses and a mechanical shutter with not LED light issues.  The A9 is slower in mechanical but it is full frame and it is much faster than the 7D Mk II by using the electronic shutter.    The learned about the hassles of the A9 slow buffer draining and sensitivity to LED lights and worried.   Nothing felt right and I worried with the feel of the camera in my hand and the slow buffers it would not be the joy of the 7D or 5D Mk IV I had as alternatives.    The new R5 has even better buffers and like all recent models it feels great in my hands accustomed to the "Canon feel and familiar menus" with 12 fps trouble free mechanical shutters in bad lighting.  The indications were clear that R5 was what I was looking for.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,266
Re: Sony to Canon?

lawny13 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Pretty extensive review so first, Thank you.

Shot Canon for many years and was always happy with it but until very recently the 5D Mark IV was my last purchase. I don't really count the EOS R I bought and got a bargain basement deal on. With the same sensor as the 5D IV I gave it a try.

Back in 2014 started shooting A7Rs along side my Canon for the resolution, image quality improvements and compatibility to Canon lenses like my T-SE's that didn't support AF. As the Sony's improved up to the A7R III I transitioned over. I really like the capabilities of mirrorless. Also as the Sony glass improved I spent more money on those and as I could get a 70-200mm f2/.8 GM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM and the 200-600mm I also bought into an A9 and sold my 1Dx.

So until the R5 I pretty much consider myself a Sony shooter now but still a major camera nerd that likes to look and try other brands. After all if I didn't I might still be a Pentax shooter that never went to Canon. The same could be said for mirrorless without trying first Fuji and then Sony.

So here's a question. I have always made sure to have two compatible cameras, that shared a mount, that for weddings (not full time work) or travel I could take both. On Sony, with the A7 RIII and now A7R IV or depending on the even, A9 & A7R III, I have that.

If you think you are ok with A9 + A7RIV, then I don't see why you can't basically compare that to having an R5 and R6. In fact just based on the money, the latter combo is actually cheaper than the sony if you had to buy them new today. In fact I would say to just get two R5s and you still end up in the same price point about as the A9/A7RIV, and you won't have to pick and choose speed or resolution.

If I switch to an R5 (have one on order but won't come for a while since I waited till mid October to order) what do people suggest? While an R6 may make sense I am not as sure about its lower resolution or even the EOS R. Image quality for the R is fine but too slow to use at events (just my humble opinion) and I have tried it, Ok for a family holiday party but not were quick response is needed like a wedding.

Also have to say, changing topics slightly, that the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZA is a great lens. I love mine. I used to own the older EF 50mm f/1.2L and prefer the Zeiss to that. I know the new RF 50mm f/1.2L is very good but its even bigger and heavier. The two combos differ by a little over 0.55 lbs. Not a lot but ... also admit I love 50mm maybe because I shot only that for 10 years at one stretch where that was all I could afford.

I agree with you on this point. I really like 50 myself and am willing to pay 1k for a good one. I was a little sad to see what might be another nifty fifty for RF. However if it is sharp and has good contrast wide open I would overlook the fact that it is likely not WR.
In other words, if it optically performs well, why not get it? f1.4 vs f1.8 isn't that big of a deal.

Anyway, all and all both systems have a lot to offer and not matter what you choose you can never blame the bodies or the lenses for not getting great shot. Since you can't do that any more who do you blame? The boogie man or take a look in the mirror?

Take care all. This is an interesting discussion.

Last but not least. I prefer canon. I shot the A7II from a year after it came out, and then the A7III for 3 years before switching back to canon. To me I enjoy shooting canon bodies, while I really only saw my sonys as tools. Its subjective. But besides this... from what you listed as the lenses you have, and the bodies you have, why not just wait?

One you get the R5, shoot it a while, but just stick to your sonys. Wait and see what shakes out from canon. Like that 70-200, or the 100-500 IMHO looks great for travel. And that 50 stm, though no RF 50 f1.2, looks to be quite small. Point is that the rumor has it that canon will release 14 new lenses next year, with a micro and a two tilt shifts among them. Surely you can wait till then to determine if you want to actually switch back. Personally having 2 sonys and 2 canons seems like a waste of money especially if you are going to be doubling up on FLs

Agree owning both systems is a foolish approach so hopefully I won't go down that path.
I will have to get the R5 in my hands to see if I still prefer Canon. I think I will but you really don't know until you can compare them.

I had an A7R and A7RII and not until I got the A7RIII, and A9 and now the A7RIV did the Sony's really come into their own with the new batteries and other features and even better AF.

Agree an R5 and R6 or even two R5 are not more than an A7R iV and A9 when I bought them but when I sell those they really won't pay for the Canon replacements. Luckily last week I sold 4 of my Zeiss Batis lenses and have a few other FE mount lenses I can sell even if I didn't switch systems. Bought those when there were no GM lenses but now I've really replaced them and decided I could let them go. I did like their light weight for some cases but can't have it all.

In the short term I can use the EOS R as a backup since people only want to pay EOS RP prices for it even with only < 1000 images. Also have some overlapping focal length I can live without or switch over to Canon if I decide to go back in a big way.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +35 more
baggy1 Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: Sony to Canon?

2ndLook wrote:

Image Quality
Prior to buying the camera, I would say the biggest area of insecurity with the R5 was image quality. I have always loved that the Canon images had a certain character to them (yes I shoot RAW); images were more contrasty with a tonal range that seemed to look filmic, particularly in regards to skin tones but the high banding when lifting shadows was an annoyance. The Sony on the other hand, is almost technically perfect to the point of being too clinical. The images are flatter which makes the files more pliable especially under low or bad lighting (I rarely shoot with a flash) and I’ve been spoilt by the exposure latitude available. Overall the Sony files allowed me that neutral starting point to get the look I wanted. Once you get used to this level of quality, it’s hard to go back :). Yes the Sony RAW files do look more yellow/green (in both Lightroom and Capture One) vs the more magenta colour of the Canon but it’s such an easy fix nowadays that I don’t find it a big issue. However I would also like to add that I always missed that ‘something’ that I always got from a Canon image.

Having used the R5 for a few weeks, I can say that it strikes a great balance of having that Canon look but with more resolution.

I'm glad I read this because as a Sony user I was going through some of my old 5D MarkIV pics this week, and was surprised at how smooth and 'filmic' the files looked in comparison. I thought it was my eyes. Also with Faithful and Standard in Lightroom it offers 2 distinct looks that are appealing (shooting raw but on default settings) especially for wedding work. They seem to be "good to go".

I was disappointed at how little the shadows and highlights could be moved though and the buffer was terrible, so I sold it. My Sony A7III is a camera with terrific technology for the money but unenjoyable fiddly to use with a horrible grip and feel.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads